LIFE Project Number

LIFE12/NAT/SE/001139

FINAL Report

Covering the project activities from 01/07/13 to 31/12/2018

Reporting Date

16/05/2019

LifeELMIAS

Project Data

Project location Visby

Project start date: 01/07/2013

Project end date: 31/12/2018

Total Project duration

(in months) 66 months

Total budget € 4 251 755

Total eligible budget € 4 251 755

EU contribution: € 2 125 877

(%) of total costs 50

(%) of eligible costs 50

Beneficiary Data

Name Beneficiary Skogsstyrelsen/Swedish Forest Agency

Contact person Mrs Karin Wågström

Postal address Box 1417,621 25 VISBY

Visit address Visborgsallén 4

Telephone +46 (0) 498 25 85 23

Fax: -

E-mail Karin.Wagstrom@skogsstyrelsen.se

Project Website http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/Projektwebbar/Life-

ELMIAS1/

2

1. List of contents

1. List of contents ............................................................................................................... 2

2. Executive Summary (maximum 5 pages) .................................................................... 5

3. Introduction (1 page) .................................................................................................... 8

4. Administrative part (maximum 3 pages) .................................................................... 9 4.1 Description of the management system ............................................................................... 9

5. Technical part (maximum 50 pages) ......................................................................... 13 5.1. Actions .............................................................................................................................. 13

5.1.1 Action A1. Production of restoration plans .................................................................. 13

5.1.2 Action A2. Production of draft revised management plans to combat the impact of

DED and ADB ............................................................................................................. 14

5.1.3 Action A3. Survey of the distribution of Ulmus ssp. within and outside of Natura 2000

areas on Gotland ........................................................................................................... 17 5.1.4 Action A4. Survey of the behaviour of Scolytus multistriatus on Gotland .................. 18

5.1.5 Action A5. Identification of dieback-resistant F. excelsior genotypes to create a

database of at least 100 presumably dieback-resistant F. excelsior genotypes ............ 19 5.1.6 Action A6. Identify the DED disease agent through sampling DED elms, trapping S.

multistriatus, pure culture of DED pathogen, determining the species or sub-species

and genotyping the DED-pathogen .............................................................................. 21

5.1.7 Action C1. Conservation of Natura 2000 sites habitats including measures to restore

structural diversity ........................................................................................................ 22

5.1.8 Action C2. Annual detection of newly DED infected trees, breeding trees and

deadwood within and outside Natura 2000 sites on Gotland ....................................... 24

5.1.9 Action C3. Fell and destroy newly DED infected trees, breeding trees and deadwood

within and outside Natura 2000 sites on Gotland ........................................................ 27 5.1.10 Action C4. Killing infected roots by chemical control of stumps and root suckers of

Ulmus ssp. .................................................................................................................... 30

5.1.11 Action C5. Tests with wood decomposing fungi for biological treatment of risk-zone

tree stumps .................................................................................................................... 32 5.1.12 Action C6. Tests with vaccination against DED in two selected areas ........................ 33 5.1.13 C7 Controlling risks for renewed invasion of DED ..................................................... 34 5.1.14 Action C8. Establishment of 100 ex situ genotypes/seed bank of dieback-resistant F.

excelsior in order to replant disease-damaged Natura 2000 sites ................................ 36 5.1.15 Action D1. Monitoring the impact of project actions on biodiversity values in Natura

2000 sites ...................................................................................................................... 38 5.1.16 Action D2. Monitoring the impact of project actions on the spread of DED .............. 40 5.1.17 Action D4. Assessment of the project impact on ecosystem functions ....................... 45 5.1.18 Action F1. Project management and monitoring of project progress by SFA ............. 46 5.1.19 Action F2. Project coordination by CAB ..................................................................... 49

5.1.20 Action F3. Project coordination by MG ....................................................................... 49 5.1.21 Action F4. Project coordination by SLU ...................................................................... 49 5.1.22 Action F5. Project coordination by SEPA ................................................................... 49 5.1.23 Action F6. Audit ........................................................................................................... 50 5.1.24 Action F7. Reducing the carbon foot-print .................................................................. 51 5.1.25 Action F8. After LIFE Conservation Plan ................................................................... 52

3

5.1.26 Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 55

5.1.27 Dissemination: overview per activity ........................................................................... 56 5.2 Evaluation of Project Implemention ............................................................................ 73

5.3 Analysis of long-term benefits ..................................................................................... 83

4

List of keywords and abbreviations used in this report:

SFA = Swedish Forest Agency, coordinating beneficiary

MG = Region of Gotland/Municipality of Gotland

SLU = Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

SEPA = Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

SPES = Swedish Public Employment Service

CAB = County Administrative Board of Gotland

GAG = Gotland Action Group against invasive alien species

DED = Dutch Elm Disease

ADB = Ash Dieback

FSF = Federation of Swedish Farmers

GIS = Geographic Information System

GMC = Gotland Meadow Committee

IAS = Invasive Alien Species

IncRep = Inception Report, reporting date 31/03/2014

MidRep = Midterm Report

ProgRep1 = Progress Report 1, reporting date 17/05/2017

ProgRep2 = Progress Report 2, reporting date 19/04/2018

RDP = Rural Development Programme

SLHC = Swedish Local History Committee on Gotland

5

2. Executive Summary (maximum 5 pages)

The LifeELMIAS project objectives were to:

1) Eradicate the invasive alien species (IAS) of Dutch Elm Disease (DED) from Gotland;

2) Ensure favourable conservation status and sustainability of the wooded Annex 1 habitats

affected by DED and ADB by implementing complementary management actions to make the

habitats more robust trees for the future.;

3) Prepare a contingency plan for if DED eradication fails in the short term. This will provide an

insurance policy for the Natura 2000 sites.

4) Implement an information programme to increase the knowledge and understanding of the

problems related to Invasive Alien Species and the impact on biodiversity.

Key deliverables and outputs:

1) The eradication or control of DED

2) The distribution of elm mapped, all trees identified as infected with DED felled and destroyed.

3) The ecology of Scolytus multistriatus on Gotland better understood and the DNA provenance

of the DED pathogen established.

4) A control programme for the import of time established

5) A database and site seed bank with at least 100 apparently disease resistant ash genotypes

established

6) 25 restoration plans produced and 30 ha of Annex I habitat restored, 200 trees veteranized,

400 trees pollarded, 700 trees cleared around and 500 trees protected from grazing animals,

800 trees vaccinated and evaluated.

7) 25 baseline survey descriptions for the Natura 200 sites produced. Monitoring of mortality

rates of veteran trees and their replacements as well as the health of the trees subject to the

treatments. Monitoring of lichens, Ficedula albicollis and bats at the beginning and the end of

the project.

8) Evaluation of the socioeconomic impact of the project as well as the assessment of the project

impact on ecosystem functions.

9) 20 notice boards put up, website produced, at least 6 press releases, a leaflet and a layman’s

report produced. 500 people taken part in visitor events and training sessions. A workshop

with at least 100 delegates and a final conference with at least one hundred delegates.

LifeELMIAS is now finished. The project has been successful in identifying and eradicating

infected and risk trees, keeping DED under control, we have developed and improved methods for

how to combat DED and have built capacity and knowledge within the work team. The project has

also been effective in reaching out with communication to the general public and stakeholders.

Three scenarios were proposed in the application: 1) DED eradicated within the timescale of the

project; 2) DED cannot be eradicated from Gotland 3) DED is not eradicated by the end of the

project, but the disease has been controlled. It is clear from the reviews and monitoring that Life

ELMIAS has achieved scenario 3. In other words, DED is under control, but not eradicated. The

project has significantly slowed the progress of the disease and thus has helped conserve the

nature conservation values depending on elms.

LifeELMIAS has generated new knowledge that will help improve the efficiency of combatting

DED and minimizing damage caused by DED and ADB on the conservation values. Using current

scientific research, we now have an understanding of the rate of loss of trees if no eradication

programme is implemented (see ProgRep2). We also can conclude that with a continuous control

programme against the DED a sustainable scenario is possible (see After Life plan Annex F8) in

the sense that the rate of loss of trees means there is likely enough time to replace them with trees

with potential for large dimensions. The establishment of the seed bank with resistant ash trees

6

(action C8) could also be a useful restoration measures in the long run. LifeELMIAS, via SLU has

contact with a Spanish Life-project working with resistant elm (Ulmus minor) clones, Ulmus

minor and U. laevis (LIFE13 BIO/ES/000556) which is another, complementary option where the

future of elm could be secured.

The final conference took place in Visby between 30th and 31st August 2018 and brought together

the nature conservation and the scientific worlds, with representatives from more than 15

countries. The latest knowledge and lessons learned about DED and ADB were presented. The

conference was a cooperation between LifeELMIAS and International Union of Forest Research

Organizations, (IUFRO). This co-arrangement with IUFRO meant that there were a large number

of conference members from the scientific community and the status of the conference was

significantly increased thanks to this joint-arrangement.

The dissemination actions (action E9 and E10, but also C7) have been more successful than

predicted in reaching out to people, and there is now a much greater general knowledge about

DED and ADB. This will be a help in decreasing DED infections, but also reduce the risk of

introducing the DED again.

In general, the project objectives and work plan have been followed and the project was completed

on time i.e. 31st December 2018. There were minor changes made to the work plan, which

enhanced the ability of the project to reach the project objectives. A lot of work over the last 3

years have been devoted to After Life, for more information see under action F8 and Annex F8.

A formal budget amendment (see Annex F1d) was submitted in 2018 and approved, which

involved moving budget between budget posts, in order to ensure the available resources could be

used in the most effective way. The following actions had changes to their budgets; A6, C1, C2,

C3, C5, C8, D2, E12 and F1.

Problems encountered.

There was a problem regarding the contracts of the temporary employed field workers, which has

been reported earlier and in the Budget amendment. This had no impact on the project outcomes.

The major challenge for LifeELMIAS has been to secure the resources to combat DED after the

end of the LifeELMIAS project. There is a lot of scepticism into the cost-benefit of controlling

DED. For example, SEPA contracted an external report to review LifeELMIAS (see Annex F8c

Progrep2) as they wanted an independent opinion on the effect of LifeELMIAS. The report

concluded that without LifeELMIAS the scenario on Gotland would probably, have been similar

to the situation on Öland. On Öland no efforts have been taken to combat DED and consequently

about 90 % of the Elms are gone.

It became clear that actions C2, C3 and C4 needed to be prolonged to avoid any gap in the control

programme, and these were financed by a budget transfer within the project. The budgets and

costs of these actions were challenging to predict both before and during the project, given that it

is hard to know how many trees will be impacted by DED and the costs of contractors can vary a

great deal.

An Inception report (31/03/2014), one Midterm report (12/11/2015) and two Progress reports,

ProgRep1 (17/05/17), ProgRep2 (19/4/2018) have been delivered during the course of the project.

The questions and answers from the EU-commission from the various reports and visits have been

compiled into a single annex included in this report, which includes answers to the last set of

questions (see Annex F1c).

The project management organization can be seen in fig. 1 and there have been no changes to this

compared to earlier reports. The project managers and the financial manager met regularly via

remote tools such as Skype. In total 29 project management meetings (see Annex F1.c) have been

7

held. In addition, the SFA representative of the steering committee was continuously informed

about the current situation.

The members of the steering committee have had 5 meetings in total over the course of the project

(Annex F1.c). The reference group, GAG have had 6 meetings including one in the field (Annex

E5).

Since 2015, the Project Management has been in contact with SEPA and many other organisations

regarding how to secure After Life (see action F8).

Financials

The budget has been underspent by less than 4%. All the project’s expenses are found in

Statement of Expenditure and in chapter six.

The project has reported 96% of the personnel costs compared with the budget. This is despite

there being some variation in the hourly rates for some members of staff, which highlights the

difficulty in estimating rates when the person to be engaged in the work may not be known at

the point of application.

The costs for external services have been exceeded, 106%, because of the issue related to the

union dispute. A number of unforeseen events have had an impact on the project budget, but

the most major one involved a dispute with the union regarding the status of temporary

workers which affected the 2% rule contribution.

With regard to travel costs, 79% has been used by the project. No travel budget was included

for networking visits in the application.

The majority of the equipment planned for in the application was purchased during the project,

64% of estimated budget.

Consumables were 78% of estimated budget. As the contract with the entrepreneur

included cost for consumables these were less than originally planned.

Other costs were 137% of estimated budget because of compensation to landowners which was

difficult to estimate.

The project partners had various different digital mechanisms for recording their time sheets

and paying invoices, but all of these complied with the EU reporting systems. All partners are

public bodies and as such were obliged to follow the rules for public procurement.

A budget amendment was sent into the EU regarding a series of actions to allow the project to

make use of budget that was still available. Resources were moved from actions with

remaining surplus to increase external assistance in action C1, C2, C3, C4, C8 and F1 and to

increase personnel costs in actions A6, C5, D2 and E12. The amendment would enable a

continued control programme in 2018. The approval of the amendment change came very late

and made it difficult to estimate the spending of resources.

In general more has been delivered for the budget agreed than was stated in the application and

additional work has been carried out with funds outside of Life such as the control programme

of DED in 2017.

8

3. Introduction (1 page)

Background

The island of Gotland, with the limestone bedrock, the isolation from the mainland, and the specific

weather conditions have given many of the Habitat Directive Annex 1 habitats found here, unique

qualities in a European context. Gotland contains at least one third of the pollards in the whole of

Sweden and the biodiversity in the wooded landscape is to a large extent tied to the veteran trees;

insects and fungi on dead wood and in cavities in the trees, lichens and mosses on the bark,

mycorrhiza fungi together with tree roots, herbivore insects on the leaves, birds and bats in hollows in

the trees.

Problem

The biodiversity associated with broadleaved woodlands, wooded pastures and wooded meadows has

long been under serious threat from the intensification of agriculture, abandonment of grazing or

conversion to conifer plantations. In the last few years however, the threats from DED in combination

with ADB which cannot currently be eradicated pose an even more serious threat.

Overall and specific objectives

The project intends for DED to be eradicated from Gotland by the end of the project and thus ensure

favourable conservation status and sustainability of the wooded Annex 1 habitats affected by DED and

ADB, in total 6774 ha spread all over Gotland, located in 25 Natura 2000 sites. A contingency plan

should also be prepared for if DED eradication fails in the short term. Implement an information

programme to increase the knowledge and understanding of the problems related to IAS and the

impact on biodiversity.

Habitats and species targeted

The target is the annex 1 habitats 6530*, 9020*, 9070 and to a lesser extent 9080, 6210, 6280, 9180

and 8210 wherever they occur on Gotland. Also to target the improvement of the conservation status

of the following species: birds; Ficedula albicollis (Annex I), Columba oenas (Annex IIb), bats;

Barbastella barbastellus (Annex II), the following Annex IV species, Pipistrellus nathusii, Myotis

mystacinus, Myotis nattereri, Eptesicus nilssoni, Myotis daubentonii, Myotis brandtii, Nyctalus

noctula, Vespertilio murines and Plecotus auritus. Additionally a number of invertebrates, lichens,

mosses and fungi (on the Swedish Red Data Book;

http://www.artdatabanken.se/naturvaard/roedlistning/) will be directly favoured by the project actions

as they are specifically associated with elm and ash.

Main conservation issues being targeted (including threats)

The conservation actions are fencing, clearing, pollarding, veteranisation, planting, detection

combined with destroying of infected trees, killing infected roots, controlling risks for renewed

invasion of DED, establishment of ADB resistant ashes, testing and evaluating vaccination and

biological treatment of infected stumps.

Socio-economic context

The project has had a positive impact on the local population and economy including the development

of skills for employed persons as well as for landowners and conservationists, e.g. additional

employees, additional work for entrepreneurs, additional efforts from local people who feel motivated

to help fight DED.

Expected longer term results

There are three possible outcomes of the project, as listed in the application: 1. The project eradicates

Dutch elm disease from Gotland, 2. The project proves that DED cannot be eradicated from Gotland,

3. The project is partly successful, i.e. DED is not eradicated by the end of the project, but the disease

has been controlled and can continue to be so with more time and a reasonable amount of money. All

three outcomes will need continuation of actions at different levels which have to be managed with

9

voluntary work, grants from internal (national money) and external funds (RDP). Scenario 3 is the

outcome established. The project will ensure greater sustainability of 6774 ha of Annex I habitats

targeted, bat species, Ficedula albicollis and specific lichens.

4. Administrative part (maximum 3 pages)

4.1 Description of the management system

The organisation of the project management is described in fig. 1. The project managers

and the financial managers met regularly via online meeting systems (see annex F1.c) and

reported to the SFA representative of the steering committee.

The members of the steering committee met five times. Some were information meetings and

any problems where their input was required was discussed. The reference group, GAG, (see

annex E5) met six times over the course of the project, sometimes in the field and sometimes

with specific speakers. SLU participated on at least one occasion. The meetings were arranged

by MG and at the meetings SFA as well as CAB were represented (see annex E5). Two

organized partner meetings took place (see annex F1.c). In addition, a number of informal

meetings between SFA and CAB, SLU and SEPA have been held, in connection to GAG-

meetings, monitor meetings and as and when required in relation to for example actions C1

and D1 and D3. The meetings were held as Skype-meetings, field meetings and other physical

meetings.

Figure 1. Organogramme of LifeELMIAS. The project owner is SFA. The project management

team is divided between two project managers (one operational and one administrative), one

financial manager and one information officer. A steering committee is represented by heads from

partner organisations. GAG has functioned as an informal reference group. The partners are

represented in project meetings by the project coordinators (contact persons).

The Gantt chart (fig. 2) gives an overview of activities and in which phase they were initiated

and completed.

10

− Description of changes due to amendments to the Grant Agreement.

The project was completed on time and there was no need for any extensions to the project.

The overall objectives were achieved and there was no change to the content of the technical

activities. The amendment was thus required primarily due to an increase in the external

assistance cost category which exceeded 10% and the €30,000 threshold according to annex

F1d.

−

− Partnership agreements

− Agreements were signed and submitted to the Commission in the IncRep.

− Beneficiary MG, signed on the 14th of March 2014 and an updated version was

submitted with the MidTerm report 19th November 2015 (due to pages missing in the

IncRep Annex).

− Beneficiary SLU, signed on the 11th of March 2014

− Beneficiary SEPA signed on the 20th of March 2014

− Beneficiary CAB signed on the 12th of March 2014

11

Gantt Chart Life 12 NAT/SE/001139

3T 4t 1T 2T 3T 4T 1T 2T 3T 4T 1T 2T 3T 4T 1T 2T 3T 4T 1T 2T 3T 4T 1TIncrep M idtrep Progrep Progrep Finalrep

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

PR

A C

DeliverablesActual

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Additonal/

PlannedM ilestones

2018

E.10

E.11

E.12

F.1

2019

E.9

E.4

E.5

E.6

E.7

F.4

F.5

F.6

F.7

F.8

E.1

E.2

E.3

F.2

F.3

E.8

C.7

C.8

D.1

D.2

D.3

D.4

C.4

C.5

C.6

A.6

C.1

C.2

C.3

A.1

A.2

A.3

Proposed

A.4

A.5

Figure 2. Gantt chart showing time table of the project activities from start, 1st of July 2013 until end, 31st of December 2018.

12

4.2 Evaluation of the management system

− The project management process

− The management process has worked quite well via telephone, skype and physical

meetings. Notes have been taken for each meeting. It worked well having two people

sharing the project management.

− Problems encountered

None encountered in relation to project management.

− The partnerships and their added value

− The partnership has worked very well. There has been a good atmosphere, and

everyone has had respect for the partners differing competences. Everybody has been

doing there best in completing the actions as well as sending in economic reports.

There have been no significant deviations from the arrangements contained in the

partnership agreements in the project.

− Communication with the Commission and Monitoring team.

− There have been six monitor visits (4th Dec 2013, 13-14th Oct 2014, 6-7th Oct 2015, 11-

12th Oct 2016, 2-3rd Oct 2017 and 3-4th Oct 2018). On the visit on the 2-3rd October

2017, the monitor was accompanied by a technical and financial officer from the

Commission (Elisabetta Scialanca and Tommy Sejersen). The communication has

worked well with the Commission and has been helpful in the progress of the project.

13

5. Technical part (maximum 50 pages)

5.1. Actions

5.1.1 Action A1. Production of restoration plans

The action is fulfilled and was completed on time and was reported in the Midterm report (deliverables

and milestones). This action involved visiting all N2000 sites to carry out field work to produce

restoration plans identifying the concrete conservation actions to be implemented in C1. This was

combined with Action D1. The management measures proposed were agreed with colleagues from

CAB and SFA. Where relevant information was sent out to landowners and other key stakeholders.

Link to all the plans

https://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/globalassets/projektwebbplatser/life-

elmias/rapporter/restaureringsplaner-for-natura-2000-omraden.pdf

This action was underspent and the remaining resources were transferred, mostly personnel costs, to

action D1.

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/12/2014

Deliverable 31/12/2014 25 restoration plans

Milestone 31/12/2014 Restoration plan complete

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

The fact that this action could be combined with D1 meant that cost savings and travelling costs could

be reduced. The direct contact with landowners was also a positive part of this action.

14

5.1.2 Action A2. Production of draft revised management plans to combat the

impact of DED and ADB

The project had a target of revising 25 conservation plans and 14 (16 in the original application, see

modification below) management plans to combat the impact of DED and ADB. Hässleänget and

Gildarshagen were included in the Natura 2000 site Bästeträsk in 2015, which means there are

however only 23 Natura 2000 sites left.

All of the Natura 2000 conservation plans except Bästeträsk (including Hässlegänget and

Gildershagen) were finalised and approved by the end of the project 2018-12-31. See annex A2.

The Natura 2000 site Bästeräsk is now a much larger Natura 2000-area, approved by the Commission

on 12th of December 2017, where the Swedish State has started a process to create a National Park. As

reported in ProgrRep 2, a preliminary study started in 2016 and the process continued in 2018 and will

continue after the end of the project in 2019. This meant that the conservation plan could not be

finalised by the end of 2018 because it was to be included in the plan for the possible formation of the

National Park. The plan for a National Park in this area (Bästeträsk, Hässelgänget and Gildershagen)

was not known when LifeELMIAS started, and the process around this had not begun at that time. In a

letter from the Commission 18th September 2018, the Commission accepted that a conservation plan

for Hässleänget, Gildarshagen and Bästeträsk could not be approved before project ends because of the

ongoing process for the National park.

A lack of an updated conservation plan does not prevent actions for maintaining and restoring a

favorable conservation status for habitats and species in a Natura 2000 site.

All of the management plans were finally approved before the project ended 2018-12-31, see

annex A2. The drafts were complete as per the action timetable. There were 16 areas in need

of having a modified management plan to be able to fight DED and ADB. Two of these areas

are located within other nature reserves and are therefore included in the management plans

for those, which led to a total of 14 management plans that needed to be updated rather than

16. The area Hässleänget is included in the nature reserve Bästeträsk and the area

Blautmyrskogen is included in the nature reserve Hall-Hangvar.

The Natura 2000 area of Fide prästänge was included in the new nature reserve Fide lövskog

that was created on 2014-11-21. The management plan for Fide lövskog already included the

possibility for actions to be taken to deal with invasive species, like DED and ADB. This

meant that CAB assessed that no new management plan was needed to be able to fight these

diseases in the future. The remaining 13 management plans were approved on the 17th

September 2018 and became valid 12th October 2018.

A milestone (deadline 01/02/2014) was reported in the IncRep.

All 22 approved conservation plans, and updated management plans are available here:

http://skyddadnatur.naturvardsverket.se/

The announcement of the approved Natura 2000 conservation plans in Gotland media is

linked below. They were approved 2018-12-20. Four of the approved conservation plans are

Balutmyskogen SE0340108, Hall-Hangvar SE0340090, Hejnum Kallgate SE0340147 and

Stora Karlsö SE0340023. https://www.lansstyrelsen.se/gotland/om-lansstyrelsen-

gotland/nyheter-och-press/nyheter---gotland/2018-12-20-nya-bevarandeplaner.html

15

Table 1. Overview of 25 Natura 2000 sites and 14 nature reserves in LifeELMIAS. The table shows that all management plans are updated, and all conservation plans (except Bästeträsk, including former sites Hässleänget and Gildarshagen) are approved by 2018-12-31. nr Natura 2000 sites³

Approved Natura 2000 conservation plans until progress report 2, 2018-02-28

Natura 2000 conservation plans approved since progress report 2, at date 2018-12-31

Nature Reserves ⁴

updated Manage-ment plans in nature reserves⁵

Notes

1 Allekvia löväng -SE0340059 x x x

2 Alvena lindaräng- SE0340060

x x x

3 Anga prästänge-SE0340128 x

4 Blautmyrskogen- SE0340108

- approved 2018-12-20

x (x)6 6Blautmyrskogen is included in nature reserve Hall-Hangvar

5 Brunnsrar- SE0340150 x

6 Bästeträsk-SE03401201

will not be approved because of the ongoing process for a national park

x x7 ¹Natura 2000 site Bästeträsk include former natura 2000 sites Hässleänget and Gildarshagen

7 Dagghagen-SE0340140 x x x

8 Fide prästänge- SE0340129 x x x

9 Gildarshagen-SE03401451 will not be approved because of the ongoing process for a national park

x x

10 Hall-Hangvar-SE0340090 - approved 2018-12-20

x x6

11 Hejnum högård-SE0340130 x

12 Hejnum kallgate-SE0340147 - approved 2018-12-20

13 Hässleänget-SE03401321

will not be approved because of the ongoing process for a national park

x (x)7 7Hässleänget is

included in nature reserve Bästeträsk

14 Hörsne prästäng-SE0340058 x x x

15 Klosteränget-SE0340172 x x x

16 Käldänget-SE0340027 x x x

17 Liste-Hammars-SE0340156 x

16

18 Myrungs-SE0340180 x

19 Mästerbyänget-SE0340134 x

20 Oggesänget-SE0340183 x

21 Pankar-SE0340135 x x x

22 Salmbärshagen-SE0340136 x x x

23 Stora Karlsö-SE0340023 - approved 2018-12-20

x x

24 Östergarns prästänge-SE0340138

x

25 Östergarnsberget-SE0340115

x x x

sum 25³ 18 4 14 14

³ There are only 23 Natura 2000 sites, since Hässleänget and Gildarshagen were included in the Natura 2000 site Bästeträsk in 2015. They are still in this list however, to make it comparable to the application. There were 22 conservation plans completed. ⁴ 14 nature reserves in 16 Natura 2000 sites. ⁵ Most of the plans were approved on the 18-09-17, except Fide Prästänge, which was approved on 2014-11-21.

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/03/2015

Deliverable N/A

Milestone 01/02/2014 Draft of one plan ready

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

Changes regarding boundaries of existing Natura 2000 sites which occurred once the project was

underway combined with the issue in relation to the development of a new National Park made both

reporting and implementing the plans more challenging for a few sites. This did not however impact

on the implementation of management actions in the Life ELMIAS project and the amount of work

that was achieved. There are always challenges like this when a project is ongoing for several years.

17

5.1.3 Action A3. Survey of the distribution of Ulmus ssp. within and outside of Natura 2000

areas on Gotland

The survey of distribution of elm, financed by the project was carried out by SFA during the growing

seasons of 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, and this action was completed in December 2016 as per the

timetable. The data has been digitised as layers on GIS maps. In IncRep an example of the inventory

from 2013 was reported as a deliverable which was the “map with distribution of elm on Gotland”

30/12/2016. This action was coordinated with action C2 to save resources and there were some

resources left which were transferred to action C3.

It is considered that the majority of the locations with elm have been found on Gotland, however if the

control of DED is to continue (see After Life) it may be important to continue with this work, in

particular in relation to C2.

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/12/2016

Deliverable 30/12/2016 Map with distribution of elm on Gotland

Milestone N/A

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

Establishing both the location and distribution of elm as well as elm trees affected by DED is very

time consuming, but also crucial for the success of the eradication programme. It would be much more

efficient and effective if it were possible to identify elm and DED trees with a remote sensing

technique. This has been discussed at various meetings and is presented in more detail in the After

Life plan (see Annex F8).

18

5.1.4 Action A4. Survey of the behaviour of Scolytus multistriatus on Gotland

This action was completed in 2016. Traps to catch Scolytus multistriatus were put out and emptied

over four growing seasons by SFA in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. The results from these years were

reported in the Progress Report 1 (deliverable), see also Annex A4 in the ProgRep2. The traps were set

out in June and left until August in order to accurately identify the flight periods of the elm bark beetle

(Scolytus multistriatus), 10 pheromone traps were placed at Horgrän and 10 at Vallstena. The traps at

each site were placed in 2 km-long transects extending from elm rich areas to elm poor areas, also over

different landscapes including open areas, conifer forest, woodland edge. The distance between

individual traps was ca. 200 m. During the weeks 24-35, traps were checked and emptied once a week.

The results from 2013, 2014 and 2015 have been reported in IncRep and MidRep and are summarised

below.

To save resources, action A4 was implemented in coordination with A6 (SLU) and partially with D2

(SLU).

Table 2 – number of individuals of Scolytus multistriatus caught over the project period

v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v30 v31 v32 v33 v34 v35 Total

2013 2 0 9 0 17 4 0 6 0 1 0 0 39

2014 10 0 1 0 21 2 19 4 6 0 0 1 64

2015 4 0 0 7 7 1 9 5 4 15 3 0 55

2016 6 1 4 0 12 2 8 0 4 1 3 0 41

TOTALS 22 1 14 7 57 9 36 15 14 17 6 1 199

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/12/2016

Deliverable 30/12/2016 Report on the behaviour of Scolytus multistriatus on

Gotland

Milestone N/A

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

It worked well to combine this work with the other actions involving studying Scolytus multistriatus.

In particular because this meant that we were able to continue trapping the beetle over the course of

the project, which ensured useful monitoring data. This action has also allowed us to develop our

understanding of the ecology of the beetle and its peak flying periods. We were also able to identify

the natural variation, which is important to take account of, because the work was done over several

years.

19

5.1.5 Action A5. Identification of dieback-resistant F. excelsior genotypes to create a database

of at least 100 presumably dieback-resistant F. excelsior genotypes

This action involved searching for dieback-resistant ash trees and was carried out during July-October

2013 and was implemented in coordination with action A1 as well as landowners. Particular attention

was given to the healthy-looking trees (no dieback symptoms) situated close to the trees with severe

dieback symptom, or trees that had already died. Following evaluation, 135 healthy-looking ash trees

were selected and mapped in different parts of Gotland.

The action was finalized in December 2016 in terms of selection of resistant ash trees, but to be able to

produce a scientific manuscript (action E12), the monitoring and molecular work continued in 2017

with resources from other actions (see answers to questions in the letter from the Commission in Dec

2017 in Annex F1.f). The location of the trees was recorded and presented in the Midterm report, as a

list and map (agreed deliverables).

The monitoring of the health status of F. excelsior in 2016 & 2017 i.e. 3 or 4 years after the trees were

mapped, showed that 134 (99.3%) trees were healthy-looking (0-10% crown damage) and a single

(0.7%) tree had 10-20% crown damage. The presence of dead tops, wilting foliage or cankers was not

observed on any of the mapped trees. The results demonstrated that search, assessment and mapping

of healthy-looking F. excelsior takes a lot of time and effort but is an appropriate approach for the

selection of ash dieback-tolerant individuals of local origin. This is supported by the monitoring data

as after several years since mapped F. excelsior trees showed lack of disease development. The latter

suggests that such trees that show persistent and durable tolerance to ash dieback can be suitable

material for further propagation and breeding for disease resistance.

The molecular data showed mixed results. Although the majority of the mapped F. excelsior showed

the presence of target complementary single nucleotide polymorphism (cSNP) for disease tolerance, in

15.0% of trees investigated it was missing. Control trees with severe ash dieback symptoms included

genotypes with and without target cSNP for disease tolerance (37.5% and 62.5%, respectively),

thereby showing a conflict between phenotype and genotype data. The latter suggests that the genetic

marker currently available possesses limited capacity to discriminate reliably among tolerant and

susceptible individuals of F. excelsior. This demonstrates that selection of disease-tolerant trees should

be based on the phenotype data until more reliable genetic markers become available.

A scientific manuscript (E12) is prepared and is on the website here.

The ash database and plantation will be managed by SLU after the end of the project.

20

Figure 3. Map of Gotland showing principal localities of selected dieback-resistant ash (Fraxinus

excelsior) genotypes. In total 135 F. excelsior genotypes were selected.

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/12/2016

Deliverable 15/12/2016 List and maps

Milestone 30/09/2016 50 resistant F. excelsior identified

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

Mapping of ash trees, monitoring their health-status, sampling of materials for molecular work and

molecular genotyping went well and generated important results. The generated database with ash

dieback-tolerant individuals on Gotland can now be used in breeding programs as well as for

education and field demonstrations. During the Life Elmias conference (E11), the selected trees were

used for demonstrations and discussions on ash future in the field. A challenge when financing may

not always be forthcoming is the maintenance, monitoring and management of the tissue and seed

materials, however it will be the responsibility of SLU (see After-Life plan Annex F8).

21

5.1.6 Action A6. Identify the DED disease agent through sampling DED elms, trapping S.

multistriatus, pure culture of DED pathogen, determining the species or sub-species and

genotyping the DED-pathogen

This action is complete; all material has been collected and the DNA analyses are complete. SLU

completed the field work according to the milestone deadline and reported in the IncRep. The

sampling from 2016 resulted in the isolation of a further 26 DED-pathogen pure cultures, which have

been used to study the development and population dynamics of DED pathogens in Gotland. The

results showed the presence of two distinct species Ophiostoma ulmi and O. novo-ulmi in

Gotland (see also action D2).

Two-hundred-thirty-two isolates of Ophiostoma ulmi and Ophiostoma novo-ulmi originating primarily

from the island of Gotland and from mainland Sweden, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine and Russia were

compared using genealogical concordance of six genetic markers. Results showed that for each

Ophiostoma species the lowest genetic distance was among isolates from Gotland. The latter

demonstrated that introduction of Ophiostoma species to the island of Gotland occurred on a very few

occasions and that it came from mainland Sweden.

An unforeseen visit to Latvia and Russia involved the collection of relevant fungal materials in

the Baltic Sea area in order to establish the origin of Dutch elm disease pathogens in Gotland.

During the visits, a number of cultures of Dutch elm disease pathogens were collected and

included in genetic analyses. Without inclusion of fungal cultures from other neighbouring areas

such comparisons would be incomplete. Thus, these collections of fungi significantly contributed

to the aims and objectives of the Life project, thereby enhancing overall knowledge on the origin

of pathogenic Ophiostoma fungi in Gotland. Financial consequences were minimal as were used

to cover travelling expenses only (see also Annex F1c).

One scientific article has been published (Scolytus multistriatus associated with Dutch elm disease on

the island of Gotland: phenology and communities of vectored fungi,

www.skogsstyrelsen.se/lifeelmias). Another manuscript has been completed (Genetic population

structure for the DED pathogen on the island of Gotland), see also action E12.

A short summary of this action;

a) In 2016, 26 diseased elm trees were sampled in different parts of Gotland

b) In 2016, 41 elm bark beetles were trapped

c) In 2016, 26 pure cultures of the DED pathogen were isolated

There was a mistake in the original application; in the description and in the milestone of the action.

However in the budget, the plan for the field work was correct and thus this action continued until

March 2016. To save resources, this action was coordinated partly with A4 and D2. There was an

increase in personnel costs (see budget amendment annex F1d).

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/03/2016

Deliverable N/A

Milestone 31/3/2016 Field work completed

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

The fact that there were two publications produced from this work was very positive and not just

manuscripts, which raised awareness of the project within the scientific community. Collection of

infected elm wood, fungal culturing and DNA work went well, and generated a large amount of fungal

cultures and DNA data. Isolated fungal cultures were deposited in the culture collection of the Dept.

Forest Mycology and Plant Pathology, SLU, and can be used for future work. Molecular work on this

22

large quantity of fungal material was challenging as we tested several different methods of molecular

fingerprinting in order to study genetic population structure.

5.1.7 Action C1. Conservation of Natura 2000 sites habitats including measures to restore

structural diversity

The conservation activities according to the restoration plans in action A1 have been accomplished in

thirteen Natura 2000 sites; Käldänge, Brunnsrar, Fide prästänge, Klosteränge, Pankar, Myrungs,

Alvena lindaräng, Dagghagen, Allekvia löväng, Hejnum högård, Hörsne prästäng, Salmbärshagen,

Hässleänget and according to the application. A milestone and a deliverable have been reported in

MidRep. CAB has been responsible for the planning and organization of the activities. All activities

described in the application have been implemented. CAB executed some of the activities because

CAB obtained extra external resources. Therefore, SFA did not have to undertake some of the sub

actions under C1 and could therefore use the resources for the unexpected large costs in C3. This was

reported in ProgRep1.

Table 3 is a summary of the conservation activities which have been carried out in all thirteen Natura

2000 sites during the project, sorted by each activity and Natura 2000 site. This action was finalised

and all work completed in December 2017, which was reported in ProgRep 2. Detailed information

regarding the activities that have been carried i.e. what, where, when and how much is the report in

Annex C1.

There were some changes made to this action as a consequence of the restoration plans, which were

presented in the Midterm report and involved clearing around 200 trees instead of planting 2500

seedlings. There were already plenty of seedlings, so the best option here was to fence these in and

protect them from predation rather than planting new seedlings. The money that was meant thus for

planting (18 days) was thus used for clearing around trees (approved in the letter from Commission 21

Dec 2015, table detailing changes Annex 6.2.c1a in MidTerm). There was also a budget amendment

for this action with an increase in the external assistance costs, transferred from personnel costs and

this was approved.

Action start date 01/04/2014

Action end date 31/12/2017

Deliverable 01/02/2015 Summary of conservation actions after two seasons

Milestone 30/11/2014 Conservation actions completed in one Natura 2000 area

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

Veteranisation was in many respects carried out on trees that were too small, but this was at least

partly due to the trees that were available. With regard to the fencing in of young seedlings, this was

variable in terms of success, not least because it is difficult to evaluate over such a short period of time

during the course of the project. In addition, some of the seedlings did not survive due to natural

causes, thus there were sometimes too few seedlings in the enclosures. On the other hand, the

expectation is that more will also come up in the future due to protection from grazing. See also D1. It

is often difficult to predict exactly what restoration work is required in advance of actually doing the

restoration plans. There is therefore a need for some flexibility in the implementation and budget. The

objectives however remained the same.

23

Table 3. Planned and implemented activities in Natura 2000 sites, connected to LifeELMIAS

Fencing young trees

Clearing around

replacement trees

Restoration of annex 1 habitat

Pollarding Veteranising

trees

Activities according to plan:

500 plants 700 trees 30 ha 400 trees 200 trees

Activities carried out by end of project

565 plants 700 trees 30,4 ha 400 trees 200 trees

Natura 2000 sites

Remaining actions

2018-12-31

Activities carried out

Notes number of

Fenced plants

number of trees been

cleared around

number of hectares restored

number of pollard trees

number of veteranized

trees

Käldänget 0 60 3

Brunsrar 0

Lobaria amplissima transplanted onto 5 living ashes

Fide prästänge 0 105

Klosteränget 0 15 4 75

Mästerbyänget 0

Pankar 0 80 80

Oggesänget 0

Myrungs 0 15

Anga prästänge 0

Östergarns prästänge 0

Östergarnsberget 0

Stora Karlsö 0

Alvena lindaräng 0 500 5 400

Dagghagen 0 80 60 7,4

Allekvia löväng 0 60 80 3

Hejnum högård 0 60

Hörsne prästäng 0 60

Salmbärshagen 0 60 25 7 30

Gildarshagen 0

Liste 0

Hässleänget 0 20 1 part of N2000 Bästeträsk

Bästeträsk 0

Blautmyrskogen 0 part of N2000 Hall-Hangvar

Hall-Hangvar 0

Hejnum kallgate 0

Summary 565 700 30,4 400 200

24

5.1.8 Action C2. Annual detection of newly DED infected trees, breeding trees and deadwood

within and outside Natura 2000 sites on Gotland

Action C2, as financed in Life ELMIAS, was completed in December 2018 (excluding 2017 when the

work was financed outside of LIFE). The aim of this action was to locate all newly DED infected

trees. The intense period of the DED survey started at the beginning of July each year and the

inventory lasted at least 8 weeks. The survey continued at a less intense level during the autumn until

the leaves have turned yellow. Risk trees were also surveyed, and these are elms growing close to

infected trees and which will probably be infected by DED within short time through root contact.

Dead trees are included in the category DED trees.

Between 2013-2016; four seasons, a total of around 13 630 trees infected by DED trees plus 3 764 risk

trees were registered (milestone, first season inventory of diseased trees finished, reported in IncRep;

deliverable, summary of identification of diseased trees 2013, reported in IncRep). The table also

presents the numbers of DED and risk trees in 2017 (outside of the project) and 2018 (financed by the

project). In total throughout the project (including 2017 and 2018), 18885 trees were infected by DED.

Excluding 2017 the total number was 15912. The approximate number of thin stems² smaller than 10

cm are included in table 4. These small trees are time consuming to clear but none the less important

to remove as they can be a source of the disease to be transmitted via the beetle (see Prog Rep 1). The

data was registered with the help of GIS-tools at SFA.

Table 4. Summary from DED inventory, six seasons, 2013-2018. The DED inventory 1 July- 31 December 2017 was financed outside LifeELMIAS by SEPA and SFA.

Summary of results of DED inventory, carried out between 2013-2016, four seasons, according to the application

Inventory period

DED infected

trees Risk

trees¹

Summary DED and risk trees

Approximately number of Thin stems

< 10 cm

Total surveyed trees

Summary of properties where DED was found each year

reporting

1 July 2013–31 December 2013 3 385 1 046 4 431 700

5 131 403

Milestone Deliverable IncRep

1 July 2014–31 December 2014 3 206 404 3 610 6 700 10 310

371 MidtRep

1 July 2015–31 December 2015 3 991 1 378 5 369 10 500 15 869

442 MidtRep

1 July 2016–31 December 2016 3 048 936 3 984 6 400 10 384

350 ProgRep 1

Summary 2013-2014-2015-2016 13 630 3 764 17 394 24 300 41 694

Results of inventory measured outside LifeELMIAS project, financed by SEPA and SFA

1 July 2017-31 December 2017² 2 973 1 780 4 753 5709 10 462 288 ProgRep 2

Summary of results of DED inventory, carried out since progress report 2 Results of DED inventory financed inside LifeELMIAS, due to the fact that the Commission approved the Formal Request for budget

Amendment in December 2018

1 July 2018-31 December 2018³ 2 282 940 3 222 3 085 6 307 280 Final Rep

Summary 2013-2014-2015-2016-2018⁴ 15 912 4 704 20 616 30 009 48 001

Summary 2013–2014-2015-2016-2017-2018⁵ 18 885 6 484 25 369 33 094 58 463

¹ Risk trees = contagion through the roots

² Inventory measured outside LifeELMIAS, financed by SEPA and SFA ³ Recorded as a part of the LifeELMIAS, because the Commission approved the Formal Request for budget Amendment in December 2018 ⁴ summary inventory, as a part of LifeELMIAS ⁵ Summary inventory, all years, (year 2017 financed by SFA and SEPA and the years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018 financed as a part of LifeELMIAS

25

The landowners on whose land infected trees were found, were informed about the findings as soon as

possible after the inventory, before the destruction of trees began. They have received maps with

locations of infected trees or a postcard informing them.

A deliverable with maps, lists, tables and pictures for the four seasons, 2013-2016, was reported in

annex C2 in progress report 2. This annex has been updated to include 2017 and 2018 attached to this

report (annex C2). LifeELMIAS project management has raised the issue with experts from SFA, if it

is possible to identify the presence of DED-trees and Ulmus ssp via remote sensing. An application

has been sent in by SLU in January 2019 regarding the development of this kind of technology to a

Swedish fund.

The outcome of this action has highlighted that DED probably cannot be eradicated, but that

the project has been partly successful in that DED appears to be under control. The number of

trees infected is declining each year (figure 4) and there is also a declining trend in the area

over which the sick trees are found and numbers of properties with infected trees (figure 5).

Figure 4. The number of DED trees found over the the project period 2013-2018. Year 2017

was not financed by LifeELMIAS. Figure from report D4/annex D4, Vikki Bengtsson.

Modifications: Resources left from completed actions were used to continue C2 until end of 2018 in

cost categories external and personnel. A Formal Request for budget Amendment was sent in during

May 2018 and was approved. Binoculars were also purchased to speed up the surveying and ensure

that trees could be looked at from a distance (agreed in letter 21st Dec 2015).

The project management has devoted a lot of effort to securing the future detection and destruction of

annual DED infected trees (C2 and C3), see F8. The work in 2017 was financed outside the project

budget, by SEPA and SFA.

26

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/12/2018

Deliverable 01/03/2014 Summary of identification of diseased trees after first

season

Deliverable 30/04/2018 Maps with list and tables

Milestone 01/11/2013 First season inventory of diseases trees finished

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

The biggest challenge was to find all trees that are affected by DED, due to the fact that this has been

reliant on human survey. Over time, experience has increased which has made the work easier. It

would however be more reliable if the survey could be done using remote sensing techniques, which

would provide more certainty that all sick trees are identified. These techniques were not available at

the start of the project but are currently being investigated. We used an app (ArcCollector) to make

data collection easier and this improved efficiency and helped reduced costs.

Figure 5. Development of found DED-trees on different properties

during the project period 2013-2018. Year 2017 was not financed by

LifeELMIAS.

27

5.1.9 Action C3. Fell and destroy newly DED infected trees, breeding trees and deadwood

within and outside Natura 2000 sites on Gotland

Activities in Action C3 during the project period was, as written in the application, planned to

be performed and financed over four seasons. The number of trees which were felled,

destroyed and chipped is reported in table 5 below. More details about these activities were

reported in previous reports and as deliverables in MidRep, ProgRep1 and Prog Rep 2 and

their respective annexes for action C3.

As reported in progress rep 2, the destruction work continued, financed outside the project by

SFA and SEPA for a fifth season and started in September 2017 to avoid any gaps in the

control programme. All the work with felling, transporting to roadside and chipping was

finished by June 2018. The destruction work has been performed by the same procured

entrepreneurs as in the previous years. A summary of all felled trees and generated volume of

chips during period 2017-2018 is presented below in table 5.

In progress report no 2, SFA informed about the plans to continue the destruction work in

action C3 (and also in C2, C3 and C4) also in season six, which due to a budget amendment

ensured that this work could be financed by funds remaining within the total Life ELMIAS

project budget. This work began in august 2018 and continued until the project ended in

December 2018. By the 31th December 2018, when LifeELMIAS finished, roughly about 50

% of 2 282 afflicted elm trees > 10cm Ø and 50% of the 3 085 thin stems <10cm Ø, found in

the summer 2018 inventory, had been cut down and transported to roadside. The chipping

work had also begun by this time. This budget amendment ensured that there was no gap in

the control programme for DED (Annex F1d).

After the LifeELMIAS project ended on 31/12/18, the remaining trees identified from the

DED inventory in the summer of 2018 will be felled, destroyed and chipped, by no later than

June 2019. The measures will be financed by SFA. The estimated number of trees which are

still left to be felled, destroyed and chipped, is 1141 DED trees, 470 risk trees and 1542 thin

stems. These trees are estimated to produce about 1977 m³s chips.

In the After Life plan (annex F8) the plans and issues in relation to how to combat DED in the

longer term after the end of the project is described.

All work in action C3 between August 2018 and until 31 December 2018 has been recorded

as a part of the LifeELMIAS project, because the Commission approved the Formal Request

for budget Amendment (see Annex F1d).

Summary of annual felling 2013, 2014 and 2015 was reported as deliverables in MidRep and

ProgRep1. The summary of the annual felling in 2016 was reported in ProgRep2.

28

Table 5. Summary of felled trees and generated volume (m³s) of chips for all seasons: period of actions Felled DED

trees Felled risk trees

Totally felled DED and risk trees

Estimated number of cleared thin stems

1<10 cm

m³s chips

km2 with DED (new information since ProgRep 2)

Reporting

2013-2014 3385 1046 4431 700 4850 1914 midterm rep Deliverable- Summary of annual felling 2013(-2014)

2014-2015 3206 404 3610 6700 5387 2112 midterm rep Deliverable- Summary of annual felling 2014 (-2015)

2015-2016 3991 1378 5369 10500 5578 2060 progress rep 1. Deliverable - Summary of annual 2015-2016 felling

2016-2017 3048 936 3984 6400 4890 2038 progress rep 2. Deliverable - Summary of annual 2016-2017 felling

Summary 2013-2014-2015-2016 13 630 3 764 17 394 24 300

20 705

-

Actions carried out since progress report 2: Actions financed outside LifeELMIAS project budget, financed by SEPA and SFA

2017-2018 2973 1780 4753 5709 3680 1806

Action recorded as a part of the LifeELMIAS project budget due to the fact that the Commission approved the Formal Request for budget Amendment in December 2018.

Summary of felled trees and generated volume (m³s) of chips during period 01/08/2018–31/12/18. The trees which were taken down amounts to approx. 50% of the trees identified during the DED inventory, 1 july-30th September 2018.

01/08/2018–31/12/18

1141 470 1611 1543 1977 1621 Final report, annex C3

Summary actions financed inside LifeELMIAS, 2013-2014-2015-2016-2018

Summary 2013-2014-2015-2016-2018

14 771 4234 18 555 25 843 23 743 N/A

Summary actions financed inside and outside LifeELMIAS, 2013-2014-2015-2016-2017-2018

Summary 2013-2014-2015-2016-2017-2018

17 744 6014 23 308 31 552 27 423 N/A

After Life actions, financed outside project by SFA, since LifeELMIAS was finished.

Left to do after LifeELMIAS is finished; trees which will be felled and destroyed between 2019-01-01 until 2019-06-30. This is about 50% of all trees found during summer inventory 2018.

summary 2019 1141 470 1611 1542 1977 N/A

29

Over the course of the project we have felled over 40000 elm trees in total of all sizes, which

equates to over 6900 trees per year. In the application we estimated that we would fell 6000

trees per year.

Modifications: The cost for this action was higher than planned according to the application.

The problems with high costs were reported in IncRep and have been dealt with and reported

in MidRep.

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/12/2018

Deliverable 31/05/2014 summary of annual (2013) felling

Deliverable 31/05/2015 summary of annual (2014) felling

Deliverable 31/05/2016 summary of annual (2015) felling

Deliverable 30/06/2017 summary of annual (2016) felling

Milestone 30/09/2013 Powered equipment for felling purchased

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

This action and C2 cost much more than anticipated but was also a foundation stone for the

success of the project. The project should have applied for funds in the original application to

continue with both C2 and C3, after 2016, given that the DED was not eradicated by 2016. In

addition, the project was advised to extend the final date in the revision phase, but without a

budget to cover the additional season of control. However due to underspend elsewhere in the

budget, it was possible to continue with this important element of the project.

A major issue for this action related to the employment status of those involved in the

destruction work, which meant that the short-term staff had to be made redundant. This in turn

resulted in higher external assistance costs. In the end the result for the project was better, but

it was a challenge for the project to sort out. Full details of this issue were reported in the

ProgRepI.

The number of trees destroyed declined over the project, the area over which DED trees were

found also declined and the number of properties. Even if DED was not eradicated, these

results indicate that the disease has been controlled. More information in annex D4 and F8.

See also figures 4 and 5 above.

The use of the ArcGIS collector app (see C2 and annex C3) made the work in C3 more

efficient as the trees were recorded digitally and this information could be shared with all

involved in the different steps in the process from surveying, to felling, to extraction.

30

5.1.10 Action C4. Killing infected roots by chemical control of stumps and root suckers of

Ulmus ssp.

The aim of this action was to treat virtually all stumps of infected trees with Ecoplugs to

minimize the further spread of DED (figure 6 below). Exceptions were made when

landowners have KRAV (organic) production http://www.krav.se/english or if for other

reasons they did not want us to use Ecoplugs on stumps.

This action was carried out simultaneously and in collaboration with Action C3 throughout

the project period. The plugging in the whole project period, six seasons, was carried out by

SFA and the procured entrepreneur that also carried out C3.

Action C4 was planned to go on in four seasons, as written in the application, between 2013

and 2017. As reported in progress report 2, the work with killing infected roots by Eco plugs,

continued outside the project for a fifth season, starting in September 2017 and finished in

June 2018. The work during this period was funded outside the project budget, by SEPA and

SFA, as mentioned in the progress report 2.

At the end of august 2018 SFA submitted a Formal Request for budget Amendment (annex

F1d) to the European Commission, where SFA asked to prolong activities in Action C4 with

one more field season within the project time, until 31/12/18, as there was a surplus in C2, C3

and C4. In December 2018, SFA received feedback from the European Commission that the

Formal Request for budget Amendment had been approved. Action C4 has therefore been

implemented within the LifeELMIAS project during the period 01/08/-31/12/18, in

connection with action C3. The activities during that period, was reported with a separate

project code, 231903, while we did not know if the Formal Request for budget Amendment

should be approved.

About 1260 stumps were not plugged with Eco plugs, regarding the measures financed within

LifeELMIAS in five seasons (table 6), because of reasons described above. During all six

seasons (one season financed outside LifeELMIAS, 398 Eco plugs) 1658 stumps were not

plugged. Stumps which could not be plugged, have been treated in other ways. This included

removal of the bark, using fire/gas and grazing by animals in the area. Estates with non-

plugged stumps and methods instead of using Ecoplug, is described in Annex C4.

The results of the activities, number of plugged stumps, number of Eco plugs etc, during all

six seasons is presented in table 6 and in annex C4.

The estimate of the number of stumps in the application was about 2000 stumps per year,

whereas it ended up being just over 4000 per year, however the budget was adequate, in fact

there was budget left. This was reported as a modification in midterm report. A total of 160

000 plugs have been bought (40 000 were estimated in the application, but this was a wrong

calculation) and used during six seasons in the period 2013-08-27--2018-12-31. From

September 2017- 31 December 2018, about 23 000 plugs were used (table 6). In average

about 6,6 plugs/stump have been used during project period.

Milestone for plugging first season was reported in MidtRep. A deliverable with a report in

combination with action C3 and C5 has been produced and annexed in the final report (Annex

C4.a_Deliveble C3-C4-C5).

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/12/2018

31

Deliverable 31/12/2018 Report in combination with C3, C4 and C5

Milestone 15/05/2014 Plugging first season completed

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

There were some difficulties related to this action, in relation to when landowners were not keen to use

ecoplugs or were organic farms. This resulted in extra work both in terms of planning, cost and

communications with the landowners. The ecoplugs worked very well in terms of the fact that trees

treated with ecoplugs did not produce shoots or suckers.

¹ not plugged because of KRAV, don’t want to, or organic farming.

² in average about 6.6 plugs/stump during six seasons.

³ Summary actions financed inside LifeELMIAS project budget

⁴ Summary actions during six seasons, financed inside and outside LifeELMIAS budget.

Table 6. An overview of number of felled DED-trees, plugged stumps and number consumed Eco plugs during the project period, 2013-2018.

Number of felled DED trees

10 cm

Number of felled threes

≤10 cm

Number of stumps

10 cm which not have been plugged¹

Number of plugged stumps

>10 cm (with DED)

Number of plugged stumps

≤ 10 cm

Total number of plugged stumps

Number of plugs²

reporting

2013–2014 3385 700 233 3152 250 3402 31 500 MidtRep

2014–2015 3206 6700 255 2951 1750 4701 28 500 MidtRep

2015–2016 3991 10 500 186 3805 2600 6405 41 000 ProgRep1

2016- 2017 3048 6400 404 2644 1900 4544 36 000 ProgRep2

sum 13 630 24 300 1078 12 552 6500 19 052 137 000

Actions carried out since progress report 2: Action financed outside project budget

2017-2018 2973 5709 398 2575 1370 3945 15 300 FinalRep

Action recorded as a part of the LifeELMIAS project budget due to the fact that the Commission approved the Formal Request for budget Amendment in December 2018.

Summary of number of felled DED-trees, plugged stumps and number consumed Ecoplug during period 01/08/2018–31/12/18. The trees which was plugged was about 50% of the trees as should be plugged, related to the DED-trees which will be felled, between September 2018 until June 2019.

01/08/2018–31/12/18

1141 1543 182 959 190 1149 7700 FinalRep

Summary actions financed inside LifeELMIAS, 2013-2014-2015-2016-2018

Summary 2013-2014-2015-2016-

2018³

14 771 25 843 1260 13 511 6690 20 201 144 700

Summary actions financed inside and outside LifeELMIAS, 2013-2014-2015-2016-2017-2018

Summary 2013–2014-2015-2016-2017-2018⁴

17 744 31 552 1658 16 086 8060 24 146 160 000

After Life actions, financed outside project by SFA, since LifeELMIAS was finished.

Left to do after LifeELMIAS is finished; trees which will be felled and destroyed and stumps which will be plugged between 2019-01-01 until 2019-06-30. This is about 50% of all trees/stumps found during summer inventory 2018.

1141 1543 182 959 190 1149 7700

32

5.1.11 Action C5. Tests with wood decomposing fungi for biological treatment of risk-zone tree

stumps

This action was completed in the autumn of 2017. The treated and control stumps were assessed for

sprouting indicating if the stump was alive or dead. The results from each year were as follows:

-mortality of stumps was 5.2% in 2014, 23.5% in 2015, and 13.3% in 2016. The results showed that

the method had limited or no effect on the mortality of the elm stumps and thus appeared to be

unsuitable for controlling the spread of DED via root contact and basal shoots. In 2017, sites with

treated and control stumps were re-visited and evaluated. Results showed that no major changes had

occurred, thereby confirming previous observations that treatments had little or no effect on the

control of stump sprouting. More detailed results of the work are available in the published article

“The effect of biological stump treatment as an alternative to chemical treatment to reduce the re-

sprouting of felled Ulmus spp. infected by DED. Published in Baltic Forestry” and the link is here.

Figure 6. Pictures show inoculation procedure and were taken few minutes after the application of the

treatment. Formulated fungal mycelia gel used for stump treatment (left); example of a stump which

was treated with a fungal mycelia of wood decay fungus (right).

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/12/2017

Deliverable N/A

Milestone 01/08/2014 Inventories of stumps started

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

It was disappointing that this method did not work as we were hoping for the development of a method

which would mean we did not have to use chemicals. It was however, very useful to have the

university as a partner, which ensured that this work was undertaken and evaluated in a proper

scientific way. In terms of the action, the preparation of fungal inoculum, treatment of stumps and

their monitoring went well and provided important practical information, resulting in a publication.

In the first year of stump treatment, stumps were distributed across a large part of Gotland, which was

impractical and time consuming to access them for the treatment and monitoring. In the following

years, stumps were selected from a smaller geographical area that contributed to efficient treatment

applications, monitoring and data collection.

.

33

5.1.12 Action C6. Tests with vaccination against DED in two selected areas

As it is uncertain whether the vaccination against DED is efficient, SFA undertook some testing to

evaluate the effect. Two sites (see annex C6) each with 100 trees were located and the trees were

marked and registered on maps with GPS points (several trees can be registered on one point).

The site in Visby, Visborg 1:9, is situated in an area where the DED infection pressure is high and

many infected elms were found. As for the other site, Vamlingbo Prästgård 1:6, the infection pressure

of DED is not regarded as high. The plans were to treat all the selected 200 trees with Dutch Trig four

times, in spring, once per year which also have also been done. The first occasion was in May 2014

(milestone, deadline 31/10/2014), second, third and fourth time on the same trees in May 2015, May

2016 and finally in May 2017. According to the application, this action should be completed in

December 2017. SFA decided to continue with C2, C3 and C4 2017-2018 and because of that we

needed to continue one more season with vaccination. That was done in May 2018. This means that

the vaccination has been carried out five times, financed with LifeELMIAS money. The results are

presented in annex C6

The vaccination has been carried out by Nordic Tree Care, which SFA signed a procurement with in

March 2014. A renewal of procurement contract was signed in March 2017.

The vaccination treatments were monitored annually in the summer of the following year (as part of

action D1). Whilst there were some trees that showed some yellowing leaves on individual branches in

some years, this was likely due to drought. No Dutch elm disease was encountered on any of the 200

vaccinated trees on the two properties after four years of vaccinations. Dutch elm disease was found in

proximity to the property in Visby during the field season 2017. The absence of Dutch elm disease in

the vaccinated elm trees could mean that the vaccinations are an efficient way to protect the trees, but

the timescale of the project is too limited to say for sure if this is an appropriate method on a larger

scale. In addition, it is very costly and is thus likely more suitable for individual special trees, rather

than on a large scale in nature reserves.

After four years no DED was found on the (200) vaccinated trees in the two sites. This could mean

that vaccination might be an effective method to protect elms from DED, but it would be desirable to

test the method for a longer period before giving any recommendations concerning vaccination.

Monitoring of vaccinated trees is performed within action D1. The deliverable outlining the

experiences from vaccinating was delivered with the ProgRep2 a month later than planned (see table).

Action start date 01/10/2013

Action end date 30/06/2018 Extended to allow an additional year

Deliverable 1/10/2017 Summary of experiences from vaccination

Milestone 31/10/2014 First vaccination completed

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

Sometimes difficult to be sure that the trees did not have DED, due to the fact that the trees sometimes

develop yellow leaves either as a consequence of the vaccination or perhaps also the weather

conditions. It is also an expensive method and needs to be repeated each year. It is probably only

appropriate for very special trees in public places. It is also difficult to know if the trees have actually

been exposed to DED and thus to be clear if the vaccination has worked. This was also only a small

scale pilot study.

34

5.1.13 C7 Controlling risks for renewed invasion of DED

The measures, as promised in the application, have been completed and this action is fulfilled.

The additional activity since Prog Rep2 (28th Feb 2018) involved producing two

advertisements/articles in 2018, which have been done and are outlined below (nr.8). A

summary of each element is described below along with the numbers reached where

appropriate. More detailed information is available in Annex C7.

1. Produced a leaflet, “Ta inte med lövved till Gotland (Don´t bring wood to Gotland,

deliverable, deadline 15/05/2014)”, reported in MidtRep. SFA estimated that at least 2200

brochures would be distributed. By 31st December 2018, SFA had distributed more than 3360

leaflets, at least 1160 more than promised.

2. Undertaken controls of elm wood at harbours (quayside). Contact was taken with the new

owner, GEAB, 5th mars 2014 and in 13th October 2016. They told SFA that they do not´

import wood anymore but only bark, because they need bark to mix with the chips in the

boiler. Therefore, no further control of wood import in harbors on Gotland has been

necessary. No other company on Gotland is dealing with or importing wood from other

countries.

3. Approached at least five companies in forest industry sector and in the construction sector

that risk bringing wood to Gotland. There are no companies, who are importing wood to

Gotland (see point 2). Instead 70 companies in forest sector/forest industry have been

contacted and have been offered information/training on how to prevent the spread of elm

disease. Seven companies were interested and have taken part in the education program.

4. Thirteen companies in the tourism industry have been contacted by SFA. They have

received the brochure “Ta inte med lövved till Gotland” (Don´t bring wood to Gotland) from

SFA and distributed it to visitors. Advertising in Gotland’s largest tourism newspaper

“Gotlands Guiden” for the summer edition 2015 was undertaken. The newspaper was

available to all people travelling by boat to Gotland as well as available at the airport and

tourist centers but also distributed to all people living on Gotland.

5. Two Notice Boards (Action E3) have been put up close to ferry arrival terminals on

Gotland, one in Visby and one in Slite.

6. Visited four tourist information centres (included in the thirteen tourism companies in point

4 above) and gave them copies of the leaflet “Ta inte med lövved till Gotland”. They have

also been contacted by telephone. 470 leaflets were delivered at two tourist information

centers in 2014, 2015 and 2016.

7. Two press releases (action E4) have been published which resulted in three newspaper

articles:

a) https://www.atl.nu/skog/sjuka-almar-falls-pa-gotland/

b) http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=94&artikel=5971303

35

c) https://www.helagotland.se/nyheter/avverkning-ska-bekampa-almsjukan-

10185255.aspx

8. Two advertisements or articles per year in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 and 2018 -

informing about risks with storage and transport of elm wood- have been written, see

modification in MidtRep.

Since the ProgRep2, three activities have been implemented including one advertisement, one

announcement and one article has been published:

SFA have been published one advertisement on SFA: s homepage, one announcement on

SFA: s Facebook and one article in SFA: s intranet (see more in annex C7):

a) 1.One announcement on SFA homepage 2018-05-25, call to report trees with

DED

b) 2. One announcement on SFA Facebook 2018-07-07, call to report trees with

DED, and information about DED inventory summer 2018

c) 3. One article published on SFA: s intranet, 13 September 2018

Modifications: Modifications were reported in MidRep and which involved replacing two

press releases with two published articles.

SFA will continue efforts to avoid new introductions of DED to Gotland as and when

appropriate (see Annex F8).

Action start date 01/01/2014

Action end date 31/12/2018

Deliverable 15/05/2014 Leaflet – Ta inte med lövved till Gotland

Milestone N/A

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

The level of interest from the media and professional press had been greater than expected

resulting in lots of articles and interviews over the course of the project. This has continued

after the end of the project. As far as we are aware, no new import of elm wood has occurred

over the course of the project.

36

5.1.14 Action C8. Establishment of 100 ex situ genotypes/seed bank of dieback-resistant F.

excelsior in order to replant disease-damaged Natura 2000 sites

The seedbank was established but observations from 2015 and 2016 showed that no seedlings had

germinated. It is likely that germination takes place in a stratified way and there was no way of

speeding up this process. This meant that the milestone “First seed/seedling established in the

seedbank”, 01/06/2016 was not fulfilled. An alternative approach was thus developed and

implemented in spring 2017. This involved finding up to 3 year-old self-seeded, apparently healthy,

ash seedlings on Gotland and then excavating and transporting them to the allocated planting site at

Endre Stenstugu and re-plant. At least 1032 symptom-free ash seedlings were planted out. The

planting site was the same as with the sown seeds.

In august 2017, the planted ash seedlings were evaluated for survival and disease incidence; 82.8%

were healthy-looking, 10.9% - had symptoms of disease and 6.3% - were dead. In the summer of 2017

however, many of the seeds that had been planted in 2014 also germinated! To protect the seedlings

from browsing, a fence was built around the plantation, which resulted in higher external assistance

costs than budgeted which was included in the budget amendment (Annex F1d).

The fence is placed around the ash plantation at the Hallfrede in Gotland (57°35'44.2"N

18°26'47.2"E). The total length is ca. 400 m and includes two gates; one at the front side and one at the

back side. The fence is 2 m high and specifically made to protect fenced area from smaller and larger

animals as it has narrow mesh size close to the ground and wider higher up. Poles keeping the fence

are made from iron and galvanized to protect from corrosion. The fence is reinforced at the corners

with additional poles. The fence is dug down in to the ground ca. 10 cm to prevent digging in of the

animals. No animal damage has occurred since the fence was put up around the plantation.

The vitality of the ash trees that either were planted or started to grow from the seeds were evaluated

in summer 2018 (see Fig 7 below). 2018 was a very hot, dry summer which may have increased the

mortality rates of the ash seedlings. Evaluation of the 1-2 years-old ash trees growing from the seeds

showed that there were no disease symptoms or mortality. A manuscript (E12) has been produced

from the work on this action here. This action is now complete. SLU will continue to manage and

make use of this plantation for further studies into disease tolerance/resistance.

Figure 7. Health status of Fraxinus excelsior planted at Hallfrede on Gotland.

37

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/12/2018

Deliverable N/A

Milestone 1/06/2017 First seed/seedling established in the seedbank (year later

than planned)

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

The seeds were planted in an old barley field and in the first year, there was no germination of ash,

only poppies, neither in the year after! This was a difficulty with this action, in that germination

cannot be forced or speeded up! To try and ensure that this action took place, more than 1000

seedlings were then transplanted to an area nearby and these were protected by plates which allowed

them to grow quickly. There were also difficulties with browsing from hares despite fencing, due to

the fact that there was at least one hare that was fenced into the enclosure! This provided a unique and

unexpected opportunity to compare these two different strategies for the establishment of seed banks.

It also provides a very useful resource for future ash dieback resistant or tolerant trees which may be

able to be used in the Natura 2000 sites on Gotland and elsewhere.

38

5.1.15 Action D1. Monitoring the impact of project actions on biodiversity values in Natura

2000 sites

This action has been completed and all reports are now uploaded on the website.

1. 25 baseline surveys were carried out in 2014 (and then followed up in 2018), reported in

MidtRep, annex 6.2.D1a_25 baseline surveys 2014.

2. The mortality rates of the monitored elm trees were calculated to be 1.77% per annum and the

mortality rate of the monitored ash trees was 2.717% over the course of the project from 2014

to 2018. The annual figures have been published on the project website.

https://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/lifeelmias/om-projektet/resultat-och-rapporter/ . See also annex D1c.

3. SFA carried out the annual evaluation of the health and level of disease of all vaccinated trees

in 2016 (see action C6 and Annex C6). No trees developed DED over the course of the

project, however it is also unclear whether they were infected with DED. Annual evaluation of

the health and level of disease of all vaccinated trees in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018

(why the vaccination also was done 2018 is explained in action C6). Deliverable: Summary of

experiences from vaccination 2014-2017

(reported in progress report no 2).

4. All restoration actions undertaken in action C1 have also been evaluated. The evaluation work

was coordinated with the tree recording in point 1 above. The final report on this action has

been published on the project website and full details in annex D1e. In general the restoration

work carried out in the Natura 2000 sites has had a good effect in all sites due to the fact that

many of the sites had become quite overgrown in the last hundred years. The increased shade

had previously a negative impact on the broadleaved trees and the associated species. By

opening up in these areas, and around individual old trees, undertaking veteranisation and

pollarding there has been a positive impact on the trees and the meadow flora. In total some 30

hectares have been restored and over 600 trees cleared around. We know that mortality rates

of older trees in shade is higher than those in the open and thus the work is likely to have

reduced the mortality rate by half in these sites (see Annex D1c, D1e and D4).

5. The lichen monitoring was also carried out in 2018 and a report published on the website

(annex D1d). Lichens were surveyed in selected Natura 2000‐sites within the

ELMIAS‐project. The survey focused on a selection of 22 species associated with ash and elm

and should therefore not be regarded as a complete survey. The results indicate that: a) The

average number of lichen species per tree has increased slightly (from 3.1 species per tree to

3.5); b) 14 species appear to have increased, 2 decreased and 6 remained the same; c) Of the

14 species that increased, 6 showed a comparatively large increase; d) Of those species with a

comparatively large increase, 3 are listed in the Swedish Red Data Book (Megalaria grossa

(EN), Sclerophora pallida (VU) and Alyxoria ochrocheila (NT); e) Of those 2 species that had

decreased 1 is listed in the Swedish Red Data Book (Reichlingia zwackii (CR)). The results

are seen as inconclusive with regards to the reasons to why certain species have increased or

decreased. The clearing work that was carried out as a part of the project may have had a

positive impact on some of the lichen species, such as Megalaria grossa or Sclerophora

pallida, that reportedly is favoured by more open conditions but there may be other

explanations.

6. A final survey of the number of nesting pairs of Ficedula albicollis was completed in spring

2018 and the report has been published on the website (see Annex D1b and D4) The results

from the survey of territories for the collared flycatcher in 11 Natura 2000 sites included in

ELMIAS in 2014 and compared with 2018 showed that in 2014 there were between 102 and

130 territories and in 2018 between 95 and 123. This is a relatively stable result, or highlights

a small reduction. It is however considered that the reasons for the reduction may be twofold.

The first is that there were nest boxes in the study areas, which had been set up as part of a

research project and were new in 2014. These nest boxes were in a poor condition or had been

removed in 2018, which may have impacted on the results. The second is that several

individuals may have arrived later to Gotland due to the bad weather in the spring of 2018 in

Southern Europe, resulting in several individuals being stuck for a longer period during their

39

journey north from their wintering grounds in the central parts of Africa. It is therefore

difficult to see any significant impact of the ELMIAS project on the population of collared

flycatcher, however changes are also difficult to identify over the relatively short timeframe of

the project (Annex D1b).

7. A final survey of the habitat directive bat species was completed in 2018. The results

from the survey of bats from 2014 and then again in 2018 show that there have been

few very changes in terms of numbers of species found in each sites, with the

exception of Pankar, where four additional species were found, but this is most likely

due to luck in the surveying, rather than a reflection on the project. Particularly

interesting was the record of a Myotis myotis (greater mouse-eared bat) from Käldänge

in 2018, which has only been recorded from Skåne in Sweden before. Three additional

species were recorded from Hässleänget in 2018, compared with 2014 including a

large number of records of the Pipistrellus pipstrellus, which is unusual in Sweden. This species was not recorded from the site in 2014. Overall however, the results are relatively

stable, or highlight a small improvement between 2014 and 2018 (Annex D1a). It is however

unlikely that changes in management or habitat condition will be reflected in the bat fauna

after such a short period.

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/12/2018

Deliverable N/A

Milestone 31/03/2014 Procurement of consultants initiated

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

It was sometimes difficult to find the same trees when doing the monitoring of individual trees and it

was not possible to undertake the final survey in 2018 on Stora Karlsö. Lichen surveying is always

challenging due to the fact that species can easily be missed, especially if there only occur in a very

small quantity. There was a challenge in relation to the coordination with results and review i.e. bat

survey report not ready for work to be done with D4. Same with D2. Baseline surveys had to be done

in 2014 because project did not start until July 2013 which was too late to tender and undertake the

work within the appropriate period of time. There is also always a challenge in monitoring change in

species and habitats over such a short period of time and identifying the cause and effect. Generally

however, the project has shown positive results as a consequence of the project efforts.

40

5.1.16 Action D2. Monitoring the impact of project actions on the spread of DED

This action allowed monitoring of the seasonal flying patterns and flying intensity of the Scolytus

multistriatus beetles (see figure 8 and table 7) as well as the proportion of beetles infected with DED

each year. The action provides key information on DED vectored by the beetles and potential changes

in DED abundance over the course of the project and therefore provided information on the success or

otherwise of the project measures in relation to DED eradication, see also action A6.

Figure 8. Scolytus multistriatus trapped and their seasonal flying patterns on Gotland during 2013-

2018

Table 7. Scolytus multistriatus bark beetles trapped on Gotland

v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v30 v31 v32 v33 v34 v35 Total

2013 2 0 9 0 17 4 0 6 0 1 0 0 39

2014 10 0 1 0 21 2 19 4 6 0 0 1 64

2015 4 0 0 7 7 1 9 5 4 15 3 0 55

2016 6 1 4 0 12 2 8 0 4 1 3 0 41

2017 3 7 2 5 5 12 0 0 3 0 1 0 38

2018 8 8 3 23 16 9 7 1 11 6 11 12 115

All 33 16 19 35 78 30 43 16 28 23 18 13 352

110 traps were set out in three places and SLU has been in charge of the activity but emptying the

traps has been performed in cooperation with SFA synchronized with action A4 and A6. 352 beetles

have been trapped during the course of the project, which is less than expected. The type of trap was

changed, which resulted in fewer beetles being caught, but this did not have an impact on the quality

of the results. Delta traps were used, in which beetles firmly stick to the sticky insert (see figure 9

below), which prevents physical contact between different individuals, and prevents cross-

contamination with e.g. fungal spores, allowing identification of the beetles with and without DED.

This is confirmed by the publication of results in the peer reviewed paper in the Scandinavian Journal

41

of Forest Research (see E12) Dutch elm disease on the island of Gotland: monitoring disease vector

and combat measures. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research) link. The results from this work have

been published annually on the website and has been reported in previous reports. In 2018, 115 beetles

were trapped, much higher than in previous years, but this is more likely a reflection on the unusually

hot and dry weather on Gotland, which favoured beetle activity.

Figure 9. Trap with pheromone attractant and

sticky insert on the bottom.

Figure 10. Traps placed in a gradient transects

from elm rich areas to elm poor areas.

Beetles trapped during 2015-2018 were used for DNA isolation and fungal sequencing in order to

identify the proportion of beetles vectoring DED fungi. Results showed that for entire period 45.7% of

beetles contained DED fungi. The total community consisted of 2084 taxa among which the DED

pathogen Ophiostoma novo-ulmi was most common with 32.5% of all sequences. The generated

sequence data will be further analyzed to reveal seasonal and site specific changes in fungal

communities and used for a research publication.

Figure 11 – the proportion of beetles with DED fungal spores from 2015 – 2018 at the two locations.

42

The results from this action showed that trapping needed to continue throughout the project period and

thus this action/milestone deadline was extended by a year to 30/11/2018, which was approved. The

budget for this action was amended as per the budget amendment with an increase in personnel costs

from consumables (see Annex F1d). The results from this action helped in the analysis of action D4

and also inform the monitoring work that needs to continue after the end of the project.

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/12/2018

Deliverable N/A

Milestone 30/11/2013 Traps up and first year of beetle collection complete

Milestone 30/11/2018 Final beetle collection and analyses complete within the

project (extended by one year)

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

The trapping worked well and this action could be combined with other actions (A4 and A6) which

helped save costs and time for personnel. It became also clear that the information gathered in this

action also allowed good data to be collected and of the quality that it was possible to publish in a peer

reviewed scientific publication. This in turn means that the Life ELMIAS project has positively

contributed to furthering knowledge regarding the vector and DED. A difficulty was that we had not

foreseen the benefit in continuing with this work throughout the project, however due to there being

funds available from elsewhere it was made possible. It is however too short a time to properly

evaluate the results in terms of the impact of DED control due to the impact of weather events (such as

2018 summer).

43

AAccttiioonn DD33.. AAsssseessssmmeenntt ooff tthhee ssoocciioo--eeccoonnoommiicc iimmppaacctt ooff pprroojjeecctt ooppeerraattiioonnss

The report assessing the impact of the Life ELMIAS project has been completed and was published in

May 2018 (see Annex D3). It was carried out by a contractor employed by SEPA. The report outlined

that the Life ELMIAS project up until the end of December 2017, has created more than 13 000

working days for the project partners and 1 768 paid working days for contractors. In general the

perception is that the Life ELMIAS project has had a positive impact on the economic situation for

local businesses and the biodiversity of Gotland. Many people have developed their knowledge and

skills, not just in relation to their understanding of Dutch Elm Disease and nature conservation, but

also in relation to project management, leadership skills, planning and logistics as well as in the use of

machines such as chainsaws and brushcutters. Many local people see the conservation of the elm

population on Gotland as being important for the landscape as well as biodiversity and consider it to

be important to try and save the elm trees. Some of the negative views relate to the fact that, in some

cases, healthy elms have also been removed and that the timber could have been used rather than being

chipped (Annex D3). The results from this work were presented at the Final Conference (E11), see

part of the program and page no 28 in PDF-presentation below, and in annex E11.

44

Action start date 01/07/2015

Action end date 31/12/2018

Deliverable N/A

Milestone 30/10/2015 Procurement of consultant initiated

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

It is difficult to measure the socioeconomic impact on the project qualitatively. It is possible to

measure quantitatively i.e. number of days worked, but less easy to understand the positive and

negative impacts on for example tourism. It is impossible for example to compare the impact of the

loss of elm on the landscape that would have occurred without Life ELMIAS on tourism with the

retention of elm as a consequence of the project as there are no “control areas”.

45

5.1.17 Action D4. Assessment of the project impact on ecosystem functions

This action is complete and the report was published at the end of November 2018 (Annex D4). The

work was carried out by a consultant employed by SFA. The deadline for this action had to be pushed

back, due to the fact that this report was dependent upon the publication of the results from the other

monitoring actions (D1, D2 and D3) and some of these were delayed (bat report and tree monitoring in

particular). The delay however resulted in better data for analysis as the final year of monitoring from

2018 could be included, which gave a more accurate picture of the outcomes of the Life ELMIAS

project. The report is published on the website and in Annex D4.

Some of the main results identified that the Life ELMIAS project has saved around 300 000 elm trees

and that whilst DED has not been eradicated, it is under control and with continued efforts, it is likely

to ensure that the elm population as well as the associated biodiversity can be maintained at

sustainable levels for many decades to come.

The analysis of the impact of the project on ecosystem services when only carbon storage and uptake

of air pollution are taken into account, the Life ELMIAS project has directly saved 7 102 935 Euros.

This is an economic valuation which amounts to more than double the Life ELMIAS budget.

Action start date 01/07/2015

Action end date 31/12/2018

Deliverable N/A

Milestone 28/02/2015 Procurement of consultant initiated

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

The development of our understanding of ecosystem function and ecosystem services is changing all

the time and this can make it difficult to know exactly what to measure. In addition a major difficulty

with measuring impact on ecosystem function is that the project is over too short a period.

Biodiversity takes much longer to react to changes in their environment. In addition, the lack of data

regarding the actual number of elm trees and veteran elm trees led to various assumptions having to be

made. On the positive side, doing this kind of analysis and identifying the economic value of the

control programme will be very valuable for justifying why we should continue with a control

programme.

46

5.1.18 Action F1. Project management and monitoring of project progress by SFA

The project management and monitoring by SFA has worked very well. The project managers

and project accountant met regularly via online meeting systems and notes have been taken

for many of these meetings (see annex F1.c). The outcomes of these meetings have been

reported to the SFA representative of the steering committee. This has ensured that the project

is keeping to deadlines and to keep track of the finances. It worked well having two people

sharing the project management as each brings different skills to the project. The project

accountant has provided clear instructions to the partners about reporting and given feedback

following a reporting period. The organisation of the project management is shown in figure 1

above. There have been no problems with the project management team, any problems have

been external ones (e.g. the problems with the contracts for temporary workers).

The members of the steering committee met five times in total, by Skype and one as a

physical meeting. The meetings were of an informative character to update the steering group

on the progress of the project and with any potential problems e.g. the problems with the

contracts for temporary workers) and the minutes are in annex F1.c The reference group,

GAG have had 6 meetings including one in the field (Annex E5).

The project management organization can be seen in fig. 1 and there have been no changes to

this compared to earlier reports. The project managers and the financial manager met

regularly via remote tools such as Skype. In total 29 project management meetings (see annex

F1.c) have been held. In addition, the SFA representative of the steering committee was

continuously informed about the current situation.

Partners in the project have met organized in two meetings, one as a starting meeting, but they

also met in connection to GAG-meetings, monitor meetings. In addition, a number of

informal meetings between SFA and CAB and SLU and SEPA have been held as and when

required in relation to for, example actions C1 and D1, and with SLU action relating to C8

and reporting. The meetings were held as Skype-meetings, field meetings and other physical

meetings.

All partner meetings, project managers meetings and steering group meetings with notes are

presented in table 8. Two meeting is completed after progress report 2. It is a project manager

meeting held 2018-03-24 and a steering group meeting 2018-10-26 at SEPA. All notes from

the meetings are presented in annex F1c.

Table 8. Partner meetings, project managers meetings and steering group meetings presented with notes, attached in Annex F1.c.

No Date Partner meetings Meeting form Reporting new information

since ProgRep 2

1 13-09-05 LifeELMIAS starting meeting with partners physical meeting

IncRep

2 14-12-04 physical meeting IncRep

Project managers meeting

3 14-01-23 Skype MidtRep

4 14-04-25 Skype MidtRep

5 15-01-15 Skype MidtRep

6 15-02-03 Skype MidtRep

47

7 15-04-09 Skype MidtRep

8 15-05-06 Skype MidtRep

9 15-06-16 Skype MidtRep

10 15-09-03 Skype MidtRep

11 16-01-21 Skype ProgrRep 1

12 16-02-02 Skype ProgrRep 1

13 16-04-11 Skype ProgrRep 1

14 16-07-01 Skype ProgrRep 1

15 16-06-08 Skype ProgrRep 1

16 16-08-25 Skype ProgrRep 1

17 16-08-30 Skype ProgrRep 1

18 16-09-07 Skype ProgrRep 1

19 16-09-26 Skype ProgrRep 1

20 16-09-28 Skype ProgrRep 1

21 17-05-04 Skype ProgrRep 2

22 17-05-15 Skype ProgrRep 2

23 17-06-08 Skype ProgrRep 2

24 17-06-13 Skype ProgrRep 2

25 17-06-20 Skype ProgrRep 2

26 17-09-14 Skype ProgrRep 2

27 17-10-19 Skype ProgrRep 2

28 17-12-06 Skype ProgrRep 2

29 17-12-11 Skype ProgrRep 2

30 18-01-31 Skype ProgrRep 2

31 18-03-24 Skype FinalRep new since ProgRep 2

Steering group meetings

32 15-02-02 SFA, MG, SLU, CAB Skype MidtRep

33 16-02-08 SFA, CAB, MG, SEPA, SLU Skype ProgrRep 1

34 17-01-25 SFA, CAB, MG, SLU Skype ProgrRep 1

35 18-02-16 SFA, CAB Skype ProgrRep 2

36 18-10-26 SFA, CAB, SEPA, SLU physical meeting FinalRep new since ProgRep 2

An Inception report (31/03/2014), one Midterm report (12/11/2015) and two Progress reports,

ProgRep1 (17/05/17), ProgRep2 (19/4/2018) have been delivered during the course of the

project. The questions and answers from the EU-commission from the various reports and

visits have been compiled into a single annex included in this report, which includes answers

to the last set of questions (see Annex F1c).

Since 2015, the Project Management has been in contact with SEPA and many other

organisations regarding how to secure After Life (see action F8).

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/12/2018

Deliverable 01/06/2014 Partnership agreement

Milestone 01/02/2014 Signing of partnership agreement

48

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

The partnership has worked very well. There has been a good atmosphere and everyone has

had respect for the partners differing competences. Everybody has been doing their best in

completing the actions as well as sending in economic reports. There have been no significant

deviations from the arrangements contained in the partnership agreements in the project.

There have been six monitor visits over the course of the project including one when there

were also visitors from the Commission. The communication has worked well with the

Commission and Monitoring team, although staff changes resulting in different monitors has

made the process more difficult on occasions.

A transfer from personnel costs to external assistance was approved as part of the budget

amendment (Annex F1d).

49

5.1.19 Action F2. Project coordination by CAB

CAB have taken responsibility for their actions, reported activities and economy according to

time-schedule as well as participated in meetings with the project group, partnership meetings

etc.

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/12/2018

Deliverable N/A

Milestone 31/03/2014 Signing of partnership agreement

5.1.20 Action F3. Project coordination by MG

MG have taken responsibility for their actions, reported activities and economy according to

time-schedule as well as participated in meetings with the project group, partnership meetings

etc.

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/12/2018

Deliverable N/A

Milestone 31/03/2014 Signing of partnership agreement

5.1.21 Action F4. Project coordination by SLU

SLU have taken responsibility for their actions, reported activities and economy according to

time-schedule as well as participated in meetings with the project group, partnership meetings

etc.

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/12/2018

Deliverable N/A

Milestone 31/03/2014 Signing of partnership agreement

5.1.22 Action F5. Project coordination by SEPA

SEPA had a small role in the project and have undertaken their responsibilities. They have

been kept updated and have taken part in work in relation to Action F8 – After-Life on a

regular basis (see Annex F8).

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/12/2018

Deliverable N/A

Milestone 31/03/2014 Signing of partnership agreement

50

5.1.23 Action F6. Audit

This contract for this action has been finalized and is in place until June 2019. The audit will be done

early in 2019 but is dependent upon receiving a draft of the final report. See also the financial report

and the auditors report (chapter 6 and financial annexes).

Action start date 01/07/2017

Action end date 31/03/2019

Deliverable N/A

Milestone N/A

51

5.1.24 Action F7. Reducing the carbon foot-print

The work within Life ELMIAS has followed SFAs environmental policy throughout the project. Life

ELMIAS has been well in line with this policy in terms of their efforts to reduce the carbon footprint.

This has involved reducing travelling where possible in connection with meetings using Skype or

equivalent as alternatives. As SFA already has a well-developed environmental policy it is compulsory

to use biofuels and vegetable-based oils as far as possible when undertaking practical work. Project

members involved in a significant amount of driving (more than 20 days) within the project have been

on an eco-driving course (see Midterm rep, annex 6.1.f7). In addition, eco-driving instructions have

been placed in all cars. We also reorganized the work in order to reduce the amount of driving within

the project which was assessed as a more cost efficient as well as environment friendly way of

handling the matter. Diesel powered vehicles have been used within the project of which two are

classed as environmental cars. The elm wood that has been cut was, as far as possible, transported to

the heating plant in Visby, where it was chipped and used in their boilers, which in turn was

transformed to energy for Visby’s remote heating system. At the Workshop (E10), there was a

presentation about how LifeELMIAS works with limiting the production of greenhouse gases during

the project.

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/12/2018

Deliverable 30/09/2017 List of persons completed eco driving course

Milestone 31/03/2014 Signing of partnership agreement

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

It has been more challenging to manage this issue in this project due to the fact that Gotland is an

island, which almost always means travelling when meetings are involved. However the strong focus

on local contractors and using Skype, particularly once the personal contacts have been established has

worked very well.

52

5.1.25 Action F8. After LIFE Conservation Plan

This action is now finalized, but due to the nature of this project, i.e. that if eradication did not work,

control may need to continue after the end of the project, work regarding the situation After-LIFE has

been an inherent component of the project since April 2015. Some 15 meetings and workshops have

been held with key stakeholders, researchers, government departments and financiers since that time.

A key report that was produced in 2016 was “Vägar framåt för alm och ask”, Black-Samuelsson,

Wågström & Isacsson, 2016 (The Way Forward for Elm and Ash, only in Swedish), which outlined

the issues and problems not just with ADB and DED, but also other IAS and how these should be

managed in a cross-governmental agency way. Since the end of the project, an application to Vinnova

has been sent in, an application for financial support from SEPA to write a new LIFE application and

contact has been made with a local university to gain help with mapping the elm population on

Gotland. More details of all of this work can be found in F8 annexes in the various reports.

The After Life Plan started with a Workshop 2015 05-04. After that many meetings and activities have

been held about how to continue to deal with DED on Gotland in the future. Table 2 is a summary of

the most important meetings and activities. More details about the activities in annex F8a.

Some of the ideas that have been discussed include:-

• Subsidies for landowners that destroy DED elm on their land

• More courses in the identification of DED

• Involve the general public in reporting DED e.g. an app

• Find markets for the elm material, which may then lead to contractors being able to generate

income from elm control

• Financing required at a national level

• Work more on the development of remote sensing methods of detection

• Focus on a cross-government departmental approach to dealing with and financing

management as a consequence of IAS (including DED and ADB); this work currently falls

between stools.

• Development of resistant elm species (e.g. LIFE+ ELM LIFE13BIO/ES/000556)

• Prognoses of the development of DED based on the control programme experience.

• Calculations of the impact on ecosystem services with a control programme

• Developing calculations of the costs of not controlling DED on Gotland

• The impact of loss of elm on the tourist industry on Gotland.

From the final D4 report, it is clear that a continued DED control programme is required if the

biodiversity associated with wooded meadows and wood pastures on Gotland are to be conserved. If

work stops, then the disease will increase exponentially. SFA and SEPA have continued to discuss the

management of DED on Gotland. Discussions have taken place in connection with different meetings

with managers of the respective authorities. SFA and SEPA have studied and discussed the

prerequisites for finding long-term financing. SFA is therefore examining the possibility of making a

request for funding to the government for next year's budget for the Authority. More details about the

activities are presented in table 9 below.

Table 9. Activity’s about “After Life plan” during project period, starting with 2015-05-04 until

2018-12-31 when LifeELMIAS was finished and from 2019-01-01, after the project ended, as after

life activities. More about agendas, content, memo notes mm in Annex F8a of the final report. Meeting

no

Date Activity Organizer

1 2015-05-04 Workshop Workshop, project ideas about dealing with DED on Gotland, After Life Plan LifeELMIAS

2 2015-11-12 Meeting Centrala skogsskyddskommittén (CSK)

53

3 2015-12-21 Letter Forestry Processing Association, Ola Roswall

4 2016-03-11 Letter/respond Swedish Species Information Centre, Göran Thor

5 2016-06-21 Meeting SFA together with SEPA

6 2016-06-23 Meeting SFA General manager etc.

7 2016-06-29 Meeting SFA together with the Board of Agriculture

8 2016-09-29 Meeting SFA General manager etc.

9 2016-11-23 Meeting SFA General manager and SEPA General manager

10 2017-02-02 Application SFA ask SEPA for funding to be able continue DED control measures

11 2017-02-09 e-post/Skype Contact with SFA and SLU expert about possibility to inventory DED thru Remote Sensing etc.

Activities carried out after Progress Report 1, 2017, from 28th February 2017 until 28th February 2018

12 2017-03-14 Meeting Centrala skogsskyddskommittén (CSK)

13 2017-04-20 Meeting, SKYPE Discussion meeting with the SFA general manager

14 2017-10-24 Tree course broadleaved environments on Gotland - with a focus on management issues and species

15 2017-11-14 Meeting General managers from SEPA and SFA

16 2018-01-25 Meeting interaction meeting (SANS-Meeting) General managers from SEPA and SFA

Activities carried out after Progress Report 2 2018, from 28th February 2018 until 31th December 2018

2018-10-15 Letter CAB- Is there a future for nature and cultural values linked to the Elms on Gotland?

2018-10-26 Meeting/workshop SEPA invited SFA, CAB, SLU, Swedish Species Information Centre, to a workshop on control measures against DED by LifeELMIAS – a discussion about continued state funding?

2018-10-31 Letter Swedish Species Information Centre- financing of continued control of DED on Gotland

2018-12-04 position statement SFA: s view on continued combating of DED on Gotland

2018-12-23 Answer to letter Answer to CAB: s letter from 2018-10-31

Activities carried out since LifeELMIAS was finished 31th December 2018, from 1th January 2019

2019-01-08 Application SLU-Application to Vinnova: Competence Centre for Forest Health. Project 2. Sustainable management of Gotland wooded meadows under the threat from Dutch Elm Disease and Ash Dieback

2019-02-08 Application Contribution for making an application for national funding to develop a new LIFE application for Gotland

2019-03-14 Decision of refusal to application

Decision of refusal for financing the development of a new LIFE application for Gotland

March 2019 Discussion regarding development of testing of remote sensing techniques

March 2019 Discussions with Gotland University about population study of elm on Gotland with students

Action start date 01/10/2015

Action end date 31/12/2018

Deliverable 31/12/2018 After-Life Conservation plan (deadline extended)

Milestone N/A

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

It is proving challenging to find funding to continue with the DED control programme. It is costly and

it has been proven that it is unlikely that DED will be eradicated, rather it is continued control that is

54

required to buy time for alternative solutions for the biodiversity and landscape of Gotland i.e. to find

resistant elm trees and ash trees or vaccines or disease inhibitors. It is a question of the cost versus the

benefit.

55

5.2 Dissemination actions

5.1.26 Objectives

The Life ELMIAS project had a main objective which was to implement an information

programme to increase the knowledge and understanding of the problems related to Invasive

Alien Species and the impact on biodiversity. This work involved several different approaches

to reach the various target groups. The dissemination work included in Life ELMIAS was, in

general much more successful than anticipated. The level of interest in the project and the

work to control DED was high. For example, the website resulted in more than double the

number of page visits than expected and was a very useful resource for both the deliverables

from the project but also more general information on DED and ADB primarily for a

professional audience, but also interested members of the general public.

For the general public, 21 notice boards were put up in key locations including urban areas

where there were plenty of visitors. In addition to reach the general public, professional and

specialist audiences 85 articles have been published as a consequence of the press releases.

These have ranged from local newspapers to specialist publications. The Layman’s report has

been produced in a digital interactive format, which we hope will appeal to a wider audience

than a printed publication and this also allows greater ease of sharing the document.

The Elm Protector Awards were very well received and was a relatively cheap way to

generate goodwill and positive publicity for the project. A wide range of events were

organized, again for a range of audience ranging from local history societies to international

researchers to the general public. In total 29 events took place with 765 delegates, 50% more

than anticipated.

The training courses were a vital part of the project, both to share knowledge and to build

capacity and these reached 200 delegates, 100% more than anticipated. The workshop at the

start of the project had more than 100 delegates, mostly from Sweden and included a wide

range of stakeholders including landowners, administrators, fieldworkers and also members of

the public. In contrast the final conference attracted a huge number of international delegates

from 15 different countries and provided an excellent opportunity to share knowledge

between site management and research in Natura 2000 sites. The project work also resulted in

four articles published in peer reviewed scientific publications and an additional two

manuscripts which will be published after the end of the project giving the results from the

Life project a wide international reach. The feedback from the socioeconomic study revealed

that many people felt that they had gained greater knowledge and understanding as a

consequence of the Life ELMIAS project.

56

5.1.27 Dissemination: overview per activity

5.1.27.1 Action E1. Project website

SFA set up a project website (see IncRep), https://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/lifeelmias/ which

has been up and running since the autumn 2013. The LifeELMIAS website is connected to

SFA's regular homepage, which is an advantage for cost reasons but also because SFA's web

specialists help maintain the information. Measurement of number of page views on

LifeELMIAS homepage have been done in 10 occasions during the project, beginning in

October 2013 and lastly in November 2018. On average, there are about 590 page views per

month.

Table 10. Report from SFA’s web administrator about

number of pageviews. Measurements have been taken on 10 occasions during the project

Year Month Pageviews

2013 October 1110

2015 December 252

2017 October 865

2018 February 664

2018 March 684

2018 April 660

2018 June 561

2018 July 574

2018 October 395

2018 November 220

Page views is not the same as number of people on these occasions, but this is a fairer picture

of the visitor frequency (annex E1). Several people also from the mainland of Sweden, have

expressed their positive response about the information of DED and ADB available on the

website. We are frequently contacted by readers of the website by e-mail or by phone. People

who want to obtain information about DED, sometimes contact employees of SFA and we

usually refer them to the LifeELMIAS website were more information and brochures can be

found.

The website will be available on the internet, connected to SFA:s homepage, for at least two

years after the end of the LifeELMIAS project.

A web platform was not set up, instead the resources were used for promotion materials such

as rollups, vests with logos etc and this was approved in 2013.

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/12/2018

Deliverable N/A

Milestone 27/12/2013 Project website up and running

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

The website is a very useful place to collect information about the project but also more

widely regaring DED and Ash Dieback. It is also very helpful to have a place where all the

reports can be held and made available for downloading.

57

5.1.27.2 Action E2. Layman´s report

SFA began work on the Layman´s report in October 2018. A new approach was adopted for the

format for the Life ELMIAS Layman’s report. The digital product called Story Maps from Esri was

used, which is an interactive mapping system and allows the use of maps, films, text and photos to be

combined into a “story”. This is a more modern approach, easier to spread and more environmentally

friendly. This means that printed copies will not be available, but the report will be available in

English and Swedish. This different approach was presented at the Monitor visit in October 2018. The

link to the layman’s report is here hhttttpp::////bbiitt..llyy//22PPGG8899ssRR ((EEnngglliisshh vveerrssiioonn)) hhttttppss::////aarrccgg..iiss//11LLrrKKHHii ((SSwweeddiisshh vveerrssiioonn))

Figure 12 – The front page of the Life ELMIAS layman’s report as a “Story map”

Action start date 01/10/2017

Action end date 31/12/2018

Deliverable 31/12/2018 Layman’s report (Deadline extended)

Milestone 31/12/2018 Draft of Layman’s report (deadline extended)

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

Layman’s reports are very useful for spreading the results of the project to a wider audience.

It is however, often difficult to spread these, particularly as they are often produced towards

the end of the project. This approach makes it very easy to spread and avoids lots of printed

material being produced. It also provides the opportunity to combing different media such as

films and photos.

.

58

5.1.27.3 Action E3. Notice boards

This action was completed in December 2014, by SFA. 21 notice boards have been put up in strategic

locations and the deliverable completed (see IncRep, annex 6.3. E3). The condition of the notice

boards are checked regularly as part of ongoing maintenance and at least annually. The last time they

were checked was in December 2018. All were in good condition apart from two; nr 8, Othem Slite

4:8 and nr 15, Sproge Bosarve Lövskog, where the notice boards were gone. They have both been

replaced. See also Annex E3 for more detail. The boards will continue to be checked annually for at

least another two years by SFA as a part of the After Life plan (see Annex F8).

Action start date 01/10/2013

Action end date 31/12/2014

Deliverable N/A

Milestone 31/05/2014 Putting up of first notice board

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

It was relatively straight forward to find suitable locations to put the notice boards, but harder to find

locations where there were lots of people. In the urban areas of Visby, Hemse and Slite, on land

owned by the District Council, planning permission was required for the signs, which meant that the

last signs could not be set up before December 2014.

59

Figure 13 – the notice boards that have been erected as a part of the Life ELMIAS project.

60

5.1.27.4 Action E4. Media work

Media work in LifeELMIAS has been very successful during the whole project. At least 85

articles have been published in different papers and other media, for example websites and

television. One live broadcast on National Swedish Television was sent during the largest

event on Gotland every year, Almedalsveckan (reported in MidtRep, annex E8b), when all the

political parties meet. Most of the interest has been in the control measures of DED; what

measures have been taken; how is the control programme working; what options are there for

elm to be saved on Gotland?

Six press releases have been published in papers and on CAB´s website. The first press

release was issued on 2013-07-04 when the LifeELMIAS was approved by the EU-

commission to mark the start of the project. That press release resulted in at least 35 articles in

different papers. The second press release was published on 2014-05-06, to highlight the

workshop which was arranged at 7-8th of May 2014. The third press release was sent out

2014-09-22, in connection with when the control measures against DED started in 2014. The

fourth press release was published to inform about the result of DED inventory in 2014. The

fifth press release was sent out in connection with the publication of the new Swedish Red

list, 2015-05-11, when elm and ash were classified as threatened. The sixth press release was

published by CAB to inform about a letter to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

which highlighted the need for long-term funding of the DED control programme on Gotland.

Instead of press releases in relation to the tourist season, SFA published an advert explaining

the DED inventory and control programme, the activities planned for tourist season and when

DED inventory was planned to start, about activities in Almedalsweek in the beginning of

July 2016, and why you should not bring wood to Gotland (See annex C7).

The final conference in August 2018, was publicised on Twitter and websites.

https://twitter.com/search?q=lifeELMIAS&src=typd

After ProgRep2, between 28th February 2018 and 31th of December 2018, three articles have

been published in different papers and one press release has been published on CAB’s

website. All media activities from the beginning of the project, 2013-07-01 until 2018-12-31

are reported in Annex E4.

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/12/2018

Deliverable N/A

Milestone 31/08/2013 First press release

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

It is usually always difficult to get the media to publish what the project would like or even to predict

when they will take an interest and also that the media include references to the EU and Life +.

However, overall the media coverage has been positive for the project and raising the profile of

biodiversity on Gotland and more widely. The media work continues even after the project, due to the

uncertain future of the control programme.

61

5.1.27.5 Action E5. Gotland Action Group against invasive alien species

This action is complete and all objectives and milestones have been achieved. Gotland Action

Group, GAG, has until 31th December 2018 undertaken the following actions:

1) Contributed to the selection of 126 recipients (24 rewards 2018) for the Private Elm

Protector Certificate and Reward between 2014 – 2018, one selection every year for five

years. The goal was to distribute about 25 lithographs/year equivalent to at least 125 paintings

during the project period. See more information in point 1, annex E5 and annex E7.

2) Given a presentation at the workshop (E10), more information in annex E5, point 2.

3) GAG attended the LifeELMIAS conference (action E11) and gave a presentation on the

field excursion on 31st August at Allekvie Meadow, see annex E5, point 3.

4) GAG has been a co-organiser of 29 Visitor days with 765 participants. In ProgrRep 2 there

were only 759 participants reported, which was wrong. It was only reported 15 participants at

visitors’ day nr 28 held at Rotary club, but according to the organizer, there were 21

participants. 6 participants have therefore been added to visitors’ day nr 28 at Rotary club. See

more information in table 11 below and annex E5, point 4 and in annex E8. In the application

it was anticipated that there would be 32 events with 500 people (See action E8), however an

additional 265 people were reached which is more than the target, even if there were fewer

events.

Table 11. List of completed information days - Visitors day until the project end, 31 December 2018.

no year date Visitors day together with GAG: number of

participants reported

1 2013 09-nov Gotland Meadow committé 45 MidtRep

2 2014 27-jan Local History Society of Gotland 28 IncRep

MidtRep

3 30-jan Local History Society of Gotland 30 IncRep

MidtRep

4 04-feb Local History Society of Gotland 22 IncRep

MidtRep

5 04-mar Lövsta agricultural school 15 MidtRep

6 15-jun Gotland Meadow committé 49 MidtRep

7 06-sep Gotlands Skördefestival 70 MidtRep

8 09-okt Lokal Heritage Foundation 10 MidtRep

9 10-okt Lokal Heritage Foundation 6 MidtRep

10 27-okt Lövsta agricultural school 6 MidtRep

11 08-nov Gotland Meadow committé 52 MidtRep

12 2015 26-mar Forest owners Gotland 7 MidtRep

13 21-apr Upplands Botanical Assosiation 12 MidtRep

14 30-apr Roma school/Mangsarve Meadow 37 MidtRep

15 05-sep Gotlands Skördefestival 36 MidtRep

16 01-okt SFA-IT department 28 ProgrRep 1

17 07-nov Gotland Meadow committé 53 ProgrRep 1

18 2016 16-feb SFA staff, district Stockholm-Gotland 19

ProgrRep 1

19 28-apr Lokal Heritage Foundation 3 ProgrRep 1

20 24-maj staff from CAB 6 ProgrRep 1

62

21 18-jun Gotland Meadow committé 15 ProgrRep 1

22 03-jul Almedalsveckan 115 ProgrRep 1

23 21-aug Dendrology Society 25 ProgrRep 1

24 31-aug SFA, Forest Department 21 ProgrRep 1

25 10-sep Nordic Forest 11 ProgrRep 1

26 12-okt Forest owners Gotland 4 ProgrRep 1

27 2017 5-jun Lokrume Hembygdsförening 9 ProgrRep 2

28 22-sept Visby Rotaryförening updated 21 ProgrRep 2

29 2018 28-febr meeting with landowners 10 ProgrRep 2

summary 765

5) RG had the responsibility for organising six meetings where GAG has acted as an informal

reference group. (see Figure 1. Organigramme of LifeELMIAS and annex E7). The goal for

this action was to organize one meeting per year, which means six meeting in total. In 2015

and 2017 no meetings were organized but instead there were two meetings each year 2016

and 2018. The meeting in 2017 should have been in December 2017, but we decided we

wanted a field day for that meeting and thus we postponed the date until June 2018. These

have been reported in ProgrRep 1 and ProgrRep 2. More information in annex E5, point 5.

At the reference group meetings, GAG's members were involved in discussions and providing

their views at the meetings and ensuring that they were satisfied with the work done

throughout the project. Two meetings have been organized since progress report 2, in 2018.

One of the meetings was a field excursion, visiting a project site, Allekvie Meadow. More

information in annex E5, point 5.

Table 12. Reference groups meetings. Six meetings between 2013 and 2018.

No Meeting date Notes Reporting

1 28th November 2013 IncRep

2 13th November 2014 MidtRep

3 20th January 2016 guest lecturer, Göran Thor ProgrRep 1

4 14th December 2016 guest lecturer, Sanna Black Samuelsson ProgrRep 1

5 1th June 2018 field excursion FinalRep

6 9th October 2018 FinalRep

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/12/2018

Deliverable N/A

Milestone 01/12/2013 First meeting

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

More people were interested in attending the visitor days than expected and it worked well having

GAG as a local reference group for the project. The timing of the meetings needed to be adapted to

match important moments in the project and sometimes it was better to postpone a meeting i.e. if it

was to be a field meeting than to stick to the plan of having one per year. The Elm Protector Awards

were very well received.

63

5.1.27.6 Action E6. Networking with other projects

The project management has participated in six Swedish Life+ network meetings throughout the

project, see (Annex E6). The project management team has also taken part in a number of Life

platform meetings which were in in Östersund September 2013, in Rowaniemi June 2014, in Aalborg

September 2015, in Örebro April 2017 and in Punkaharju in Finland in June 2018. A part of the

project management also participated in the Kick off meeting, organized by the Commission, with

other new Life+ Projects, in Copenhagen 22 October 2013 (see Annex E6).

LifeElMIAS has been presented at the following events:

1. Den sista almstriden [The last elm battle], Miljötrender #Invasiva arter, 10-17p., August 2014, SLU,

Uppsala.

2. COST FA1103 Action “Endophytes” Workshop (keynote presentation), November 2014 Izmir,

Turkey.

3. European Congress of Arboriculture (keynote presentation), May 2014, Turin, Italy

4. Nordic View of Sustainable Rural Development, the 25th NJF Congress, 16-18 June 2015, Riga,

Latvia

5. UArctic Congress, 12-16 September 2016, St. Petersburg, Russia

6. HealGenCar Workshop: Fighting ash dieback with new and old tools. 23‐25 August 2017,

Skovskolen, Denmark

7. International Union of Forest Research Organizations, IUFRO conference, 18-22 September,

Friburg Germany

8. Life project platform meeting on Invasive Alien Species, 29-30 November 2017, Milan, Italy

SLU has regularly contact with Life13BIO/ES/000556. Rimwys Vasaitis working at SLU,

participated IUFRO-conference in Freiburg and presented LifeELMIAS work.

LifeELMIAS considering study visits to two projects (mentioned in the Commission letter of

21 December 2015). It was not possible to visit these projects during autumn 2018, but

instead the Life ELMIAS project managers along with representatives from the partners SLU

and CAB visited another appropriate Life project in Spain, LIFE+ELM, LIFE13

BIO/ES/000556, “Elms alive” in Madrid on 26 th and 27th November (program and pictures in

annex E6). This project was very appropriate and interesting because they are working on

developing resistant elms of the species found on Gotland. Representatives from this Life

project also took part in the Final conference (E11).

It was originally planned that a representative from a Greek project working with climate

issues would present at the Workshop (E10) from the Life project CLIMLOCAL2020 Life+,

but this event ended up being a Swedish event in Swedish.

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/12/2018 Extended

Deliverable N/A

Milestone N/A

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

The CLIMOLOCAL 2020 (LIFE07 ENV/GR/000282) project never answered the requests

sent by mail. It is probably easier to get in contact with projects still running. There was no

budget allocated for networking, which was a mistake. It was useful to make contact

particularly with the Life project in Spain working with developing Resistant elms. In general

the contact with other Life projects and the platform meetings proved to be very useful for

exchanging ideas and experience.

64

5.1.27.7 Action E7. Introducing the Private Elm Protector Certificate

and Award

A painting was produced with the purpose of giving encouragement and a reward to people

who have made special efforts in the project. An artist was procured who produced a

lithography with elm and one of the project's focus species, the collared flycatcher, Ficedula

albicollis, which is also Gotland's landscape bird and was monitored in action D1. The goal

for this action was to distribute about 25 lithographs/year aiming for at least 125 paintings

during the project period. The Private Elm Protector Certificate and Awards have been given

to 126 people over the project period; 2014-2018. The numbers of people who received the

painting/ lithograph is presented in table 13 below. The receivers of the Private Elm Protector

Certificate and Award have been invited to “Ängsdagen” (the Meadow Day), arranged by

Gotland Meadow Committee in two occasions, 2014 and 2015. The receivers have also been

invited to SFA´s office to receive the reward. Some of the receivers have been awarded at

their homes or at other meetings, the last ones were presented at the LifeELMIAS conference

at 30th August. Lists of all of those presented with the award, invitations, name lists and some

pictures are presented in Annex E7. Since the progress report 2, 26 additional people were

selected to receive the special lithography for LifeELMIAS in 2018, the last year.

Table 13: Number of paintings/litographs which have been

selected during five years in LifeELMIAS.

year Number of people which have

received a painting/lithography

Reported

2014 26 MidtRep

2015 25 ProgrRep 1

2016 26 ProgrRep 1

2017 25 PrgrRep 2

2018 24 FinalRep

Summary 126

Posts on SFA/LifeELMIAS homepage and LIFE Twitter and Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/LIFE.programme/photos/a.310100714394.146123.302437314394/

10153717814464395/?type=3&theater

https://twitter.com/LIFE_Programme/status/664032315266453504

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/12/2018

Deliverable N/A

Milestone 06/06/2016 Winners first year appointed

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

These awards were very well received and was a relatively cheap way to generate goodwill and

positive publicity for the people involved in the project and the project itself.

65

5.1.27.8 Action E8. Visitor days in cooperation with associations and

non-profit making organizations

By the end of the project SFA, jointly with GAG, have carried out 29 Visitors days with 765 persons

taking part. In ProgrRep 2 there were only 759 participants reported, which was wrong. This was due

to the fact that there were in fact 21 participants at the Rotary club according to the organizer (nr 28 in

table 14) and not 15 as reported before. 6 participants have therefore been added to visitors’ day nr 28

at Rotary club. Agendas and name lists along with more information are presented in annex E8. The

participants have been informed about the diseases (DED and ADB) and measures to counteract them.

Participants have been active and asked a lot of questions.

The objective in LifeELMIAS was to reach out to 500 people in 32 Visitors days by the end

of the project (31 December 2018). The objective has been reached by about 153% by 29

Visitors days with 765 participants. More visitor days may be organized after the project and

these will be managed by SFA (see Annex F8).

Table 14. List of completed information days - Visitors day until the project end, 31 December 2018.

no year date Visitors day together with GAG: number of

participants reported

1 2013 09-nov Gotland Meadow committé 45 MidtRep

2 2014 27-jan Local History Society of Gotland 28 IncRep

MidtRep

3 30-jan Local History Society of Gotland 30 IncRep

MidtRep

4 04-feb Local History Society of Gotland 22 IncRep

MidtRep

5 04-mar Lövsta agricultural school 15 MidtRep

6 15-jun Gotland Meadow committé 49 MidtRep

7 06-sep Gotlands Skördefestival 70 MidtRep

8 09-okt Lokal Heritage Foundation 10 MidtRep

9 10-okt Lokal Heritage Foundation 6 MidtRep

10 27-okt Lövsta agricultural school 6 MidtRep

11 08-nov Gotland Meadow committé 52 MidtRep

12 2015 26-mar Forest owners Gotland 7 MidtRep

13 21-apr Upplands Botanical Assosiation 12 MidtRep

14 30-apr Roma school/Mangsarve Meadow 37 MidtRep

15 05-sep Gotlands Skördefestival 36 MidtRep

16 01-okt SFA-IT department 28 ProgrRep 1

17 07-nov Gotland Meadow committé 53 ProgrRep 1

18 2016 16-feb SFA staff, district Stockholm-Gotland 19

ProgrRep 1

19 28-apr Lokal Heritage Foundation 3 ProgrRep 1

20 24-maj staff from CAB 6 ProgrRep 1

21 18-jun Gotland Meadow committé 15 ProgrRep 1

22 03-jul Almedalsveckan 115 ProgrRep 1

23 21-aug Dendrology Society 25 ProgrRep 1

66

24 31-aug SFA, Forest Department 21 ProgrRep 1

25 10-sep Nordic Forest 11 ProgrRep 1

26 12-okt Forest owners Gotland 4 ProgrRep 1

27 2017 5-jun Lokrume Hembygdsförening 9 ProgrRep 2

28 22-sept Visby Rotaryförening 21 ProgrRep 2

29 2018 28-febr meeting with landowners 10 ProgrRep 2

summary 765

Presentations and information materials at following links:

hhttttppss::////wwwwww..sskkooggssssttyyrreellsseenn..ssee//gglloobbaallaasssseettss//pprroojjeekkttwweebbbbppllaattsseerr//lliiffee--eellmmiiaass//pprreesseennttaattiioonneerr//pprroojjeekktteett--

lliiffeeeellmmiiaass..ppddff

hhttttppss::////wwwwww..sskkooggssssttyyrreellsseenn..ssee//gglloobbaallaasssseettss//pprroojjeekkttwweebbbbppllaattsseerr//lliiffee--eellmmiiaass//pprreesseennttaattiioonneerr//uuttbbiillddnniinngg--

aallmm--oocchh--aallmmssjjuukkaa..ppddff

hhttttppss::////wwwwww..sskkooggssssttyyrreellsseenn..ssee//gglloobbaallaasssseettss//pprroojjeekkttwweebbbbppllaattsseerr//lliiffee--

eellmmiiaass//iinnffoorrmmaattiioonnssmmaatteerriiaall//aallmmssjjuukkaa--ppaa--ggoottllaanndd..ppddff

hhttttppss::////wwwwww..sskkooggssssttyyrreellsseenn..ssee//gglloobbaallaasssseettss//pprroojjeekkttwweebbbbppllaattsseerr//lliiffee--eellmmiiaass//iinnffoorrmmaattiioonnssmmaatteerriiaall//ddoonntt--

bbrriinngg--wwoooodd------hhiinnddrraa--sspprriiddnniinnggeenn--aavv--aallmmssjjuukkaa..ppddff

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/12/2018

Deliverable N/A

Milestone 01/12/2013 First visitor’s day completed

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

More people attended the visitor days than expected. The feedback from the delegates was always

good with lots of questions and interest.

67

5.1.27.9 Action E9. Training sessions for entrepreneurs and landowners

in the eradication of DED

This action is completed and SFAs have educated 244 people in 25 training sessions. This is more

double the number anticipated in the project application (In progress report 2, it was reported that SFA

have educated 200 persons in 23 training sessions until 28th of February 2018, but it wasn’t the right

numbers). Agendas and name lists are presented in Annex E9. The PowerPoint presentation

“Utbildning alm och almsjuka” has been used in the training:

hhttttppss::////wwwwww..sskkooggssssttyyrreellsseenn..ssee//gglloobbaallaasssseettss//pprroojjeekkttwweebbbbppllaattsseerr//lliiffee--eellmmiiaass//pprreesseennttaattiioonneerr//uuttbbiillddnniinngg--

aallmm--oocchh--aallmmssjjuukkaa..ppddff

TTaabbllee 1155.. 2255 ccoommpplleetteedd eedduuccaattiioonnaall aaccttiivviittiieess wwiitthhiinn tthhee pprroojjeecctt.. SSFFAA''ss ttrraaiinneerrss aarree iinncclluuddeedd iinn tthhee

nnuummbbeerr ooff ppaarrttiicciippaannttss

yyeeaarr yyeeaarr--mmoonntthh--ddaattee ccoommppaannii--ppaarrttiicciippaannttss nnuummbbeerr ooff ppaarrttiicciippaannttss

iinnkkll SSFFAA::ss eedduuccaatteerrss rreeppoorrtteedd

22001144 22001144--0011--2222 RReeggiioonn GGoottllaanndd 88 IInnccRReepp//mmiiddttRReepp

22001144--0011--2299 NNyybbeerrggss eennttrreepprreennaadd 99 IInnccRReepp//mmiiddttRReepp

22001144--0022--0055 NNyybbeerrggss eennttrreepprreennaadd 88 IInnccRReepp//mmiiddttRReepp

22001144--0022--0055 SSkkoogg oocchh mmiilljjöö,, GGSSMM 99 IInnccRReepp//mmiiddttRReepp

22001144--0022--1111 LLaannttmmäätteerriieett 77 IInnccRReepp//mmiiddttRReepp

22001144--0022--1199 LLaannttmmäätteerriieett mm ffll 77 IInnccRReepp//mmiiddttRReepp

22001144--0022--2266 SSkkooggssssäällllsskkaappeett 77 IInnccRReepp//mmiiddttRReepp

22001144--0033--1144 GGuutteerrööjjaarrnnaa 44 MMiiddttRReepp

22001144--0033--0055 LLRRFF--MMeellllaannsskkoogg 1177 MMiiddttRReepp

22001144--0033--2200 LLRRFF--KKäälllluunnggee--VVaallllsstteennaa 1199 MMiiddttRReepp

22001144--0033--2266 LLRRFF GGeerruumm mmffll 1122 MMiiddttRReepp

22001144--0044--0011 LLRRFF--BBrroo 1166 MMiiddttRReepp

22001144--0044--1155 RReeggiioonn GGoottllaanndd 1144 MMiiddttRReepp

22001144--0077--1155 RReeggiioonn GGoottllaanndd 55 MMiiddttRReepp

22001144--0077--1155 RReeggiioonn GGoottllaanndd 99 MMiiddttRReepp

22001144--0088--2200 SSvveennsskkaa kkyyrrkkaann 66 MMiiddttRReepp

22001144--0088--2211 SSvveennsskkaa kkyyrrkkaann 1155 MMiiddttRReepp

22001155 22001155--0022--0033 EElltteell NNeettwwoorrkkss 77 MMiiddttRReepp

22001155--0022--1122 MMoottoorrssååggsskkuurrss 77 MMiiddttRReepp

22001155--0033--0033 MMoottoorrssååggsskkuurrss 88 MMiiddttRReepp

22001155--0033--1166 MMoottoorrssååggsskkuurrss 1100 MMiiddttRReepp

22001155--0033--2244 NNyybbeerrggss--TTrraaffiikkvveerrkkeett 1133 MMiiddttRReepp

22001155--0044--2233 SSkkooggssfföörreettaagg--ttrrääddvvåårrdd¹¹ 99 FFiinnaallRReepp

22001166 22001166--0044--2255 MMoottoorrssååggsskkuurrss 33 PPrrooggRReepp 11

22001188 22001188--0011--1122 PPEEAABB,, TTrraaffiikkvveerrkkeett,, LLiillllffoollee 1155 FFiinnaallRReepp

SSuummmmaarryy 224444

¹2015-04-23, Skogsföretag/trädvård, should have been reported in Midterm report, but was forgotten then.

68

According to the application the plan for this action was to make a three-part education program for

100 people. To be more cost efficient and more energy efficient (e.g less car journeys) we instead

included all three parts of the education programme in one session. By doing so we also reached out to

more people.

Action start date 01/10/2013

Action end date 31/12/2018

Deliverable N/A

Milestone 30/11/2013 First training session completed

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

It exceeded our expectations with regard to numbers of people that took part in the training almost 2.5

times what we anticipated in the application. It was also much more effective to run these three

different sessions as a single event in terms of the carbon footprint and reaching out to more people. In

addition when asking contractors to spend time on training, this is something to take into

consideration; i.e. it is a large cost to take time out of fee-paying work to go on training courses,

therefore it is better to run a single day rather than several sessions over several days. This activity was

key to building capacity amongst local contractors.

69

5.1.27.10 Action E10. Workshop - Wooded Natura 2000 sites and

Invasive Alien Fungi Species (pathogens)

This action has been completed at a lower cost than anticipated. As the target group of the workshop

was primarily Swedish stakeholders it was decided to have this workshop in Swedish (see IncRep).

SFA sent out 200 invitations and the result was 110 participants (see annex 6.3.E10a and b in Midterm

Rep). The workshop was organised by SFA. CAB, SLU and RG and the proceedings from the

workshop are available on the webpage (deliverable, deadline 30/12/2014,

http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/Projektwebbar/Life-ELMIAS1/Nyhetsarkiv/workshop/workshop-

presentationer/). The climate change theme was also addressed at the workshop in a presentation. This

point was also included in the evaluation forms.

Efforts to invite and engage international participants was instead directed to the international

conference (E11). It was clear from the evaluation forms that the workshop was much appreciated by

the participants, because the information was given at a practical level. The participants were

landowners, administrators, fieldworkers and also members of the public, that had seen the advert

about the workshop in the local newspaper.

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/12/2014

Deliverable 31/12/2014 Workshop proceedings – Wooded Natura 2000 sites and

Invasive Alien Fungi (pathogens)

Milestone 30/09/2014 Workshop – Wooded Natura 2000 sites and Invasive Alien

Fungi (pathogens)

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

It is always a challenge having conferences in English, whilst at the same time trying to reach

practitioners. Many Swedish people have a very good level of English, but it is different when dealing

with technical and professional language. This conference was likely much more successful at

reaching out to local stakeholders because it was in Swedish rather than English.

70

5.1.27.11 Action E11. Conference: Experiences of Saving Wooded N2000

on Gotland from Invasive Fungi Species (pathogens)

SLU was the sole organizer of the final conference on Gotland and in Visby, on 30th and 31st August

2018. The cooperation with the International Union of Forest Research Organizations, (IUFRO)

provided no financial and/or organizational support for the conference and only the part on Gotland

which focused on Life ELMIAS were included in the budget for the event. On 26th -29th August a part

of the IUFRO conference was arranged in Uppsala, but this was not directly connected with

LifeELMIAS. See link https://www.slu.se/iufro-rots2018 and aaggeennddaa

hhttttppss::////wwwwww..sslluu..ssee//eenn//ddeeppaarrttmmeennttss//ffoorreesstt--mmyyccoollooggyy--ppllaannttppaatthhoollooggyy//iiuuffrroo--rroottss22001188//pprrooggrraamm//

By this co-organization with IUFRO however, the conference was announced through IUFRO´s

network and by doing so attracted more researchers working with tree diseases from more countries.

79 people attended the conference. The conference took place at Wisby Strand's conference hall with

about 20 lecturers and presentations and as a field excursion to three different Life ELMIAS Natura

2000 sites. 13 posters were also presented at the conference. A conference dinner was held at Wisby

Strand's conference hall in the evening 30th August.

LifeELMIAS was responsible for six presentations at the conference and the field excursion to three

Life ELMIAS sites:

• Presentation 32; Scolytus multistriatus on Gotland Island: phenology and infectiousness with

Dutch Elm Disease

• Presentation 33; Veteranisation – using tools instead of time.

• Presentation 42; LIFE+ ELMIAS project on managing wooded meadows of Gotland under the

threat of Dutch Elm Disease and Ash Dieback including presentation of action D3- the

assessment of socioeconomic impact of project operations

• Presentation 43; Fighting Dutch Elm Disease on the Gotland Island. What have we leant and

what can we expect for the future?

• Presentation 52; Testing ash for resistance to dieback: an amateurish approach

• Discussion 53; What is the future for elms in Europe and on Gotland? This provided an

excellent opportunity to combine research ideas with the practical issues faced by site

managers of Natura 2000 sites in the face of IAS on trees.

Approximately 20 stakeholder representatives took part in the final conference and some of the

international presentations (e.g. 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 45, 46, 50, 51) shared related

experiences from a “stakeholder perspective”.

The full program/agenda for the conference and field excursions with map, abstracts for presentations

(proceedings) and posters, namelist (79 participants from more than 15 countries), LifeELMIAS PPT-

presentations, summary from the panel discussion, link to website with information about the

conference and pictures can be found collated in annex E11.

The original plan was to arrange the conference in the autumn of 2017, but there was already a large

similar international conference planned for that time. We thus decided to postpone the Life ELMIAS

conference and have it in cooperation with IUFOR, which gave opportunity for good cooperation with

researchers and a greater international reach. The postponement was approved, point 10 in the letter

from the European Commission on 02/12/17 (Annex F1). This also resulted in a delay in the

milestone, which was moved to August 2018 instead of September 2017.

Action start date 01/07/2016

Action end date 31/12/2018

Deliverable 30/09/2018 Proceedings from conference (Deadline extended)

Milestone 30/09/2017 Conference invitations sent out

71

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

It was a challenge to find a date that did not clash with other significant or similar events. In addition

the opportunity was taken to run the Life ELMIAS conference in direct connection with the IUFRO

conference to ensure greater impact in terms of international delegates (especially considering the first

workshop was in Swedish and focused on more local participants. This event really provided the

opportunity for sharing experiences between researchers and site managers of Natura 2000 sites and

the challenges faced by both. The final discussion really helped with the discussions in relation to the

After Life (Annex F8) e.g. the elm breeding programme etc.

72

5.1.27.12 Action E12. Scientific publication of experiences

Six manuscripts have been produced of which five were planned. Four of the manuscripts have already

been published in scientific journals:

i. Scolytus multistriatus associated with Dutch Elm Disease on the island of Gotland; phenology

and communities of vectored fungi. Published in 2016, Mycological Progress. (A6)link

ii. Molecular relationship among isolates of Ophiostoms ulmi and Ophiostoma novo-ulmi in the

Baltic Sea area with a special reference to the island of Gotland. Manuscript finalized 2018.

(A6) link

iii. Tests with wood-decay fungi to control sprouting from cut stumps infected by DED.

Published in Baltic Forestry, 2017 (C5).link

iv. Fraxinus excelsior tolerant to ash dieback on the island of Gotland determined using

phenotypic and genotypic traits. Manuscript finished in 2018. (A5/C8) link

v. DED on the island of Gotland: monitoring disease vector and combat measures. Published in

Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 2015 (D2) link

vi. Natura 2000 habitats dominated by ash and elm, invaded by alien invasive fungi on the

Gotland island of Sweden: an overview. Baltic Forestry, 2017. (D2). link

Acknowledgements have been made to LIFE+ Nature ELMIAS project (LIFE12 NAT/SE/00139) in

all articles. Additional personnel resources were transferred to this action as a part of the formal

budget amendment (F1d).

Action start date 01/07/2013

Action end date 31/12/2018

Deliverable 30/06/2018 Five manuscripts

Milestone N/A

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

More manuscripts were published than expected and this also meant that the results were spread

internationally and raised the quality of the results achieved.

73

5.2 Evaluation of Project Implemention

− Methodology applied: discuss the success and failures of the methodology applied, results of

actions conducted and the cost-efficiency of actions

Methodology applied:

To reach the objectives specified in the application, the main methods involved focusing on

trying to eradicate DED and implement restoration work in order to protect the wooded

Annex 1 habitats in question, the following methodology was applied:

• To detect, transport and destroy trees infected by DED and monitor the trees and the

beetles.

• To restore the wooded Annex 1 habitats and improving their ability to resist the effects of

DED and ADB by regeneration, clearing, pollarding and veteranisation of replacement

trees.

• To develop and establish a contingency plan, how to deal with DED and its effects in the

long term (After Life plan, see action F8).

• To disseminate information, knowledge about DED, ADB and applicable measures how to

prevent DED and how to minimize the negative effects of the diseases.

The method involving the identification, removal and destruction of DED infected trees has

not yet eradicated DED on Gotland. There is however a downward trend in both the numbers

of trees infected and the numbers of properties i.e. a proxy for the area over which DED is

spread. This would suggest that the method has been effective in controlling DED and buying

time for the biodiversity associated with elm. The method has saved in the region of 300 000

elm trees during the course of the project. Monitoring of the tree mortality at a site level gave

less reliable data with regards to elm mortality as more trees would be required and more

time. However, the mortality rates calculated from the felling work likely give a clearer

reflection on the loss rates and can be compared with no control programme (0.5% compared

with 9% with no control programme).

The method to identify the DED trees has developed over the course of the project and more

recently an app was used to collect data in the field. This made the process much more

efficient as the same data could be shared digitally with the contractors undertaking the felling

and removal. This approach as well as being more time efficient also ensured better recording

of when the work was done. Remote sensing methods and the use of drones has been

investigated and discussed, but not fully developed. This is an area however that SFA will

follow up on after the end of the project to make the detection of DED trees more efficient.

There have been some improvements in the methodology in action C3 when it comes to

making use of the infected wood. Instead of transporting the infected wood to Visby where it

was chipped at the thermal power station, the infected wood has been chipped on site. By

doing this, the risk of spreading the disease is reduced as the infected wood. This

improvement also resulted in less driving and was more cost efficient.

The study of the beetle flying periods, helped to focus the survey efforts more effectively

through the course of the project. The indications from the monitoring on the beetles are

variable and more data is required to understand the relationship between the beetle and the

quantity of spores they are carrying and the amount of DED infected trees (see also D4 and

F8). We do however have a better understanding of the ecology of the elm bark beetle and the

fungi. We now know that the beetle flies mostly in July and that the form of the DED fungus

74

is the more aggressive genotype. We also know however, that the fungus probably arrived on

Gotland, likely only on a single occasion and it originates from the mainland.

The difficulty with monitoring of species such as the collared flycatcher (Ficedula albicollis),

bats (including Barbastelle barbasellus) lichens are that changes in their habitat take time to

show in their populations. The problem with the collard flycatcher survey work was that a

nest box research project likely influenced the results from 2014. These nestboxes were no

longer useable in 2018 and the decline of territories, whilst remaining relatively stable over

the course of the project, there was a slight reduction, but this is most likely due to factors

other than Life ELMIAS. The lichen surveys worked well, but more time is needed to see

genuine changes and some of the changes seen may be due to the surveyor missing species

when they only occur in very small quantities. A similar pattern is true for the bats, with a

tendency to an increase in the number of species at each site. New The methods, using the

auto-boxes was very useful and meant that lots of species were picked up that had not been

recorded from various sites before, such as the

record of a Myotis myotis (greater mouse-eared bat) from Käldänge in 2018, which has only

been recorded from Skåne in Sweden before and two new sites were found for the barbastelle

bat, which is very encouraging. It is clear however, that the timescales for seeing changes are

too short when monitoring species.

Developing a seedbank with resistant/tolerant ash trees, firstly involved collecting seed from

apparently symptom free trees spread over Gotland. The problem was that the seeds took

several years to germinate! Small seedlings were then selected from field locations around

Gotland that also looked symptom-free and they were transplanted. The seedlings then needed

to be fenced to protect them from for example hares. Even after the fence was put up,

browsing continued because a hare had been fenced in!! Once that was taken out, the

seedlings grew well and the seeds germinated. Although this action cost more than expected,

the result is better than expected with around 70% of the trees still being free of symptoms.

This will, in the future, have the potential to be an incredible valuable resource for the

replacement of ash in Natura 2000 sites.

In the application the plans for training sessions (E9) involved a three part education program

for about 100 people. To be more cost effective, more energy efficient (e.g. fewer car

journeys) and reach more people, we instead developed one training course with all three

parts combined. This resulted in more people being reached for lower cost; more than double

the number of people were trained. The investment in training local contractors is that they

now have the competence even after the end of the project.

The After-Life plan has been a key component of the project from 2015. This was an

important aspect of the approach in Life ELMIAS; to start discussing the future funding of the

control programme should the Life project not manage to eradicate DED in the project period,

which it has not done. This approach involved using evidence and sharing experiences,

organising meetings and workshops with key stakeholders, in particular those with funding.

Using the I-tree-eco system has allowed the project to identify the benefits of the control

programme in financial terms, in the numbers of trees saved and in terms of ecosystem

services such as carbon storage and uptake of air pollution.

75

Comparison of the results achieved against the objectives:

Table 16 - An overview of the actions, results achieved compared with what was planned and a summary evaluation

Task/Action Foreseen in the revised proposal

Achieved Evaluation

A1 25 restoration plans 25 plans produced on time

Objectives met. These plans will also be available for future work if necessary. The cost came in under budget and remaining funds were used in D1. This action was combined with D1, which was a good use of resources

A2 23 updated draft conservation plans and 14 updated draft management plans

All produced within the deadline. The 14 management plans were also legally approved

Objectives met. There was a minor modification due to the fact that some N2000 sites were combined (see report). The results were better than expected due to the fact that the management plans were also legally approved within the timescale of the project. A key challenge related to changes of boundaries and the potential development of a National Park

A3 Digitized map of elm distribution on Gotland

This was completed on time and within budget

It would have been more efficient if it were possible to identify elm using remote sensing techniques, however these were not available when the project started and are only now developing. The work was coordinated with C2 which saved on resources and travelling costs.

A4 Flight period, behaviour and population size of Scolytus multistriatus will be established

This was completed on time and within budget

This was really useful in improving the understanding of the peak flight times of the beetle on Gotland. It was combined with A6 and D2 to save on resources.

A5 Database of at least 100 apparently ash dieback resistant geontypes

134 apparently ash dieback resistant genotypes have been recorded in a database and monitored and one that is not.

Mapping of ash trees, monitoring their health-status, sampling of materials for molecular work and molecular genotyping went well and generated important results. The generated database with ash dieback-tolerant individuals on Gotland can now be used in breeding programs as well as for education and field demonstrations. The future of the trees and the database needs to be maintained by SLU.

A6 Details of the genetic diversity of DED on Gotland

Achieved and identified that the diversity was low indicating few infections and that DED came from

This work raised the profile of the issue on Gotland and in the wider scienfitic community. It also supported the view that few infection incidents had occurred. Two manuscripts were produced of which one was published.

76

mainland Sweden

C1 500 trees fenced around, 700 trees cleared around, 30 ha Annex I habitat restored, 400 trees pollarded, 200 trees veteranised.

All work was carried out and within the timetable with the modifications as agreed following the midterm report

Generally speaking the work was successful. The time period of the project is too short in some instances to be able to fully evaluate the success i.e. for regeneration and tree establishment. Some of the restoration work is also difficult ot predict in advance, hence the need for some minor modifications.

C2 Annual inventory across Gotland to identify DED infected trees, breeding trees and dead wood within and outside of N2000 sites on Gotland

The action was achieved and continued longer than planned until 2018

This work was vital to identify DED infected trees and was one of the most time consuming actions in the project. An app was developed in the latter part of the project which made data collection easier. The methods were developed to be as effective as possible, however remote sensing techniques would be a way to additionally make the detection of DED trees more effective. The work in 2017 was financed by SFA to ensure there was no gap in the control programme. The 2018 inventory was financed by LIFE and involved a budget amendment which was approved. The numbers of trees with DED show a declining trend along with the number of properties with DED infected trees.

C3 Felling and destroying 6000 elm trees per year (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018 within Life ELMIAS)

6900 elm trees were felled and destroyed each year. 2017 financed outside of Life.

The lack of budget for 2017 proved to be a problem, but this was solved and financed by SFA. The budget amendment allowed for continued destruction work in 2018 ensuring there is no gap thusfar in the control programme. The numbers of trees felled with DED declined over the course of the project. Overall this achieved its objective in that DED is under control, but not eradicated. There is also a downward trend and the mortality rate is very low ca 0,5%.

C4 2000 stumps treated with ecoplugs per year using 40000 ecoplugs

Just over 4000 stumps per year were treated using around 150000 plugs, within budget

There were some difficulties related to this action, in relation to when landowners were not keen to use ecoplugs or were organic farms. This resulted in extra work both in terms of planning, cost and communications with the landowners. The ecoplugs however, worked very well in terms of the fact that trees treated with ecoplugs did not produce shoots or suckers.

77

More were required than estimated, but this still was within budget (with the amendment).

C5 Testing of a new biological control method suitable for N2000 sites and a manuscript produced.

Method tested and does not work. Manuscript produced and published

It was disappointing that the method did not work as the project was hoping for a method without the use of chemicals. It did however results in a published article in a scientific journal.

C6 200 trees vaccinated against DED

Achieved and the trees have not developed DED

None of the 200 trees have developed DED, however it is difficult to assess if this is due to the vaccination or if the trees have not actually been exposed to DED. It is expensive and needs to be repeated each year and is thus likely only really useful for very special individual trees, rather than larger populations.

C7 Leaflet produced and distributed to 2200 visitors, controls quayside, contact with companies importing elm wood, press releases, contact with tourist board and advertisements

More leaflets were distributed than expected and more articles were published than expected

This worked well and no new imports of DED to Gotland have occurred as far as we can see over the course of the project.

C8 Ex situ seedbank of dieback resistant ash trees comprising at least 100 genotypes or at least 1000 trees established

This was achieved although it took longer than planned

The seeds took several years to germinate. Apparently health ash seedlings were, as an alternative, transplanted into a field, which then had to be protected by a fence. However both the seeds and the seedlings are now growing well and this is a fantastic resource for future use. This could potentially provide ash dieback resistant or tolerant trees for planting out in the Natura 2000 sites on Gotland and elsewhere.

D1 25 baseline surveys, annual mortality rates of ash and elm, evaluation of vaccinated trees, lichen, bat and collard flycatcher surveys 2014 and 2018, monitoring of the restoration work

All of the monitoring was achieved.

There were challenges in relation to seeing change, in particular with lichens, bats and birds over such a short period of time, but there appeared to be a positive trend for the bats and lichens. The mortality rates are very useful in understanding the impact on the Natura 2000 sites. The restoration work has generally been successful and has had the results expected.

78

D2 Proportion of S. multistriatus with DED fungus, 100 traps managed and emptied throughout the flight period, one manuscript, 20000 beetles collected

110 traps set up and 352 beetles trapped of which over 40% carried DED fungus spores. A manuscript has been completed

This worked very well as a method and gave very useful results although the project period is a little too short to be able to draw any major conclusions, due to for example the impact of the hot, dry summer in 2018, which favoured the beetle.

D3 Numbers of paid working days and voluntary days and the number of new jobs created as a consequence of the project

13000 working days for the project partners and 1768 working days for contractors.

The project has had a positive impact on the socioeconomic status on Gotland. Many local businesses have benefited from the investment locally. In addition many companies have increased their capacity and knowledge. The impact on the general public is also positive with many seeing the benefits of saving elm on Gotland. It is however difficult to measure the socioeconomic impact on the project qualitatively. It is possible to measure quantitatively i.e. number of days worked, but less easy to understand the positive and negative impacts on for example tourism. It is impossible for example to compare the impact of the loss of elm on the landscape that would have occurred without Life ELMIAS on tourism with the retention of elm as a consequence of the project as there are no “control areas”.

D4 Evaluation of the project on the control of DED and the impact of the project efforts on ecosystem function.

Achieved later than anticipated due to coordination with other results of monitoring (D1, D2)

The evaluation proposed that DED is under control with a downward trend, but not eradicated. The impact on ecosystem services is such that the Life ELMIAS project has saved a total of 7 102 935 Euro during the project period (2013‐2018) if only the increase in uptake of air pollution and carbon storage is taken into consideration. The annual cost of the DED control programme is estimated to be 500 000 Euro, which means that the cost‐benefit of the control programme is more than double.

E1 Website produced and 250 page visits per month

590 page visits per month

The website has been a useful place to collect information about the project but also more widely regarding DED and Ash Dieback. It is also very helpful to have a place where all the reports can be held and made available for downloading.

E2 500 copies downloaded and 300 printed copies

Only a digital version produced in English and Swedish.

This is a modern way of sharing information in this digital age. It saves paper and printing and is easy to spread as well as being interactive for the user.

79

E3 20 notice boards put up

21 boards put up BehThis worked well having notice boards in strategic places, but the issue of planning permission for those urban areas where more people would be likely to see the information was a challenge.

E4 6 press releases produced

6 press releases produced

85 articles have been published as a consequence of the press releases and the project reaching a wide ranging audience from the general publis to specialists and professionals.

E5 125 nominees for Elm Protector Award, presentations at E10 and E11, 6 meetings and 500 visitors attending 32 events

126 recieved the Elm Protector Award, GAG presented at both events, 6 meetings helt and 765 visitors attended 29 events (265 more than anticipated.

More people attended the visitor days than expected. The feedback from GAG as a local reference group was very helpful for the project. The Elm Protector Awards were very well recieved.

E6 Contact with other LIFE projects in and outside of Sweden

Contact with 6 Life projects was achieved

It was useful to make contact particularly with the Life project in Spain working with developing Resistant elms. In general the contact with other Life projects and the platform meetings proved to be very useful for exchanging ideas and experience.

E7 125 awards give out 126 awards were given out

These awards were very well received and was a relatively cheap way to generate goodwill and positive publicity for the people involved in the project and the project itself.

E8 500 people reached with 32 events

765 people attended 29 events

More people attended the visitor days than expected. The feedback from the delegates was always good with lots of questions and interest.

E9 100 delegates on training courses

244 delegates on 25 courses

More people reached than expected. This has built capacity in the local professionals. It was also more efficient to run one course rather than three separate courses.

E10 200 invitations, 100 participants from at least 5 countries

110 participants mostly from Sweden

It was clear from the evaluation forms that the workshop was much appreciated by the participants, because the information was given at a practical level. The participants were landowners, administrators, fieldworkers and also members of the public. It is always a challenge having conferences in English, whilst at the same time trying to reach practitioners. Many Swedish people have a very good level of English, but it is different when dealing with technical and professional language. This conference was likely much more successful at reaching out to local stakeholders

80

because it was in Swedish rather than English. The international audience was the focus for E11.

E11 200 invitations, 100 participants from at least 5 countries

79 participants from more than 15 countries

It was a challenge to find a date that did not clash with other significant or similar events. In addition the opportunity was taken to run the Life ELMIAS conference in direct connection with the IUFRO conference to ensure greater impact in terms of international delegates (especially considering the first workshop was in Swedish and focused on more local participants. This event really provided the opportunity for sharing experiences between researchers and site managers of Natura 2000 sites and the challenges faced by both. The final discussion really helped with the discussions in relation to the After Life (Annex F8)

E12 5 manuscripts produced

6 manuscripts produced of which four have been published in scientific journals already

It was excellent to have SLU as a partner that also was so successful in pulling together results which gave them greater credibility and ensured they were widely spread.

F1 Project implemented on time and within budget

Achieved Some of the budget was transferred between budget posts. The project management structure and team worked well.

F2 Actions implemented on time and within budget

Achieved

F3 Actions implemented on time and within budget

Achieved

F4 Actions implemented on time and within budget

Achieved

F5 Actions implemented on time and within budget

Achieved

F6 Fully audited accounts In progress

81

F7 Biofuels wherever possible, vegetable oils for tools wherever possible, eco driving courses

Achieved It is challenging keeping the carbon footprint low when a project is on an island. Virtually all travel involves long ferry journeys or flying. Using Skype however this was kept to a minimum.

F8 After-life conservation plan produced

After-life plan produced

This was a huge challenge for this project and work began on this action as far back as 2015. There is a lot of scepticism regarding controlling DED. The project has proven that it is possible to control DED on an island and is now a question of cost versus benefit.

Project results which are visible and those which will take longer to show themselves:

There are many of the project results which became visible immediately such as the

restoration plans which were implemented and resulted in 565 seedlings being protected by

fencing, 30.4 ha of Annex I habitat being restored, 400 trees being pollarded and another 200

veteranised. However the impact of these activities on the biodiversity will take longer to

show itself.

A directly visible result was the elm trees that have been felled and destroyed. Equally

another directly visible result is the fact that DED has not devastated the landscape in the way

it has for example on Gotland. It is harder however to compare the impact on biodiversity or

make direct connections between the numbers of trees saved and how many are required in

the future?

The socioeconomic impact of the project has been directly visible in terms of numbers of

working days and the capacity building that has taken place. What is less easy to see is what

difference has occurred in terms of peoples’ behaviour in relation to their understanding of

DED and the impact on biodiversity. Equally it is hard to quantify the positive impact the

project has had on for example tourism, but the very nature that it has saved so many elm

trees and has ensured the survival of the essence of the Gotland landscape; wooded meadows

with pollards.

Our understanding of the flight periods of the bark beetle was a directly visible result,

however the understanding of the impact of weather and other factors in the population size

and the proportion of DED fungal spores would take longer and more time to investigate.

The ash nursery is a directly visible result and it is clear to see that 70% of these trees are still

free of ADB symptoms. Work to identify the genetic markers associated with tolerant or

resistant trees will take more research and more time.

It will take longer to show visible results of how the restoration actions have affected the

target species like the Barbastelle barbasellus, Ficedula albicollis and the surveyed lichens.

However, the monitoring will continue as a part of the obligatory monitoring programme in

the protected sites and hopefully the positive trends will continue, assuming that the control

programme continues to be financed.

The impact of the research work carried out by SLU is really only partly visible now, but this

is likely and hopefully to lead to more visible results in the future such as resistant ash trees.

82

Project amendment:

The only major amendment involved a budget amendment and this was hugely significant for

the biodiversity associated with Elm on Gotland because it ensured that there was no gap in

the DED control programme, which would have been a disaster. It also helped secure

additional funding from SFA both in 2017 and in 2019 to finalise the destruction work

following the end of the project. It also ensured that the project could make use of the funds

available for very prioritised efforts. Other amendments to the project were considered minor,

but involved extensions to the deadline for the control programme, which was significant for

the outcome of the project.

Indicate effectiveness of the dissemination and comment on any major drawbacks

The actions and activities linked to dissemination have been very effective in the sense of

reaching out to the general public, professionals and specialists. Double the number of people

were training and 265 more people attended visitor events. In general the level of knowledge

regarding DED both on Gotland and on the mainland is much higher as a consequence of the

project’s efforts. The six press releases generated much greater interest than expected; more

than 80 publications or news items, including one on national Swedish TV. It is also evident

that the general public visits the webpage as project staff has been contacted as a consequence

of the webpage. There have of course been some negative issues as well due to the fact that

there are sceptics that do not necessarily believe that the control progamme is worth the

money. This is an area that has been important to try and measure and quantify in terms of

cost versus benefit. Four of the six manuscripts that were written have already been published

in peer reviewed journals and this is a very positive outcome of the project. It is often very

time consuming to go from manuscript to publication.

83

5.3 Analysis of long-term benefits

a. Direct / quantitative environmental benefits:

LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity: e.g. conservation benefits for Natura 2000 (SCI/SPA) and

species/habitat type targeted. Highlight briefly issues that may have important policy implications on

Natura 2000 also in relation to other EC policies if relevant (e.g. new management techniques and

procedures, pump priming agri-environment, links with the water framework directive, etc). Please

also address incentive/pump priming effects (both in financial and policy terms)

LifeELMIAS by saving elm and ash as tree species and their ecosystems, generates resilience to

climate change, contributes to conservation and enhancement of the natural environment and

significantly contributes to the objectives of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy. LifeELMIAS hits

several Targets in EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy: Target 1. Halt the deterioration in the status of

species and habitats. Target 2. Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services. Target 3. Increase

the contribution of forestry to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity. Target 5. Combat invasive

alien species. Target 6. Help avert global biodiversity loss. Therefore, the project sets a strategic long-

term basis for the conservation of the tree species, their habitats and associated biodiversity.

565 seedlings in Natura 2000 sites were protected by fencing and 700 trees were cleared around. 30.4

ha of Natura 2000 Annex I habitat were restored, and 400 trees were pollarded and another 200

veteranized. 200 elm trees were vaccinated, and none have yet developed DED. The ash seedbank has

been successful in that both the seeds have germinated and almost 70% of the seedlings show no signs

of ADB. These are direct, quantitative environmental benefits.

Life ELMIAS identified three scenarios: 1) do nothing scenario; 2) limited control of DED and 3)

eradication of DED. It is scenario two that has been achieved. There are however, clear indications

that the disease is under control, with a downward trend in the total number of diseased trees, the

number of diseased trees per location and the area where DED has been found. This in combination

with a low mortality rate (under 1.77% per annum and more likely closer to 0.50%) means that the

control programme, if it continues, is likely to ensure that the elm population, as well as the associated

biodiversity, can be maintained at sustainable levels for many decades to come, if the control

programme can continue. Almost 60000 elms (of all sizes) were felled and destroyed as a part of the

Life ELMIAS project. However, the project has saved in the region of between 290 000 and 348 000

elm trees over 10 cm in diameter compared with if there had been no Life Project. In addition from the

veteran elm tree population that has been surveyed the project has directly ensured the survival of

around 1000 elms that have high biodiversity value.

DED and ADB have seriously affected two keystone tree species in terms of their biodiversity values

in Sweden and across Europe. As a result, both elm and ash have been placed on the Swedish Red

Data Book http://www.artdatabanken.se/naturvaard/roedlistning/). Gotland is considered as a possible

refuge for elms and the species dependent on elm for their survival. A large number of species are

directly dependent on ash and/or elm and 118 species on the Swedish Red Data Book have been

identified as more or less dependent on ash and/or elm (Artportalen, 2018) and many of these can be

found on Gotland. A conservative estimate would be that approximately 50 % are exclusively

associated with ash and/or elm (Thor 2018, pers com). This means that the control programme has had

a direct and positive impact on the populations of species associated with elm.

The project aimed to eradicate DED, however, it is clear that this has not been possible within the

timeframe of the project. Other control programmes have identified a mortality rate of 0,5% per

annum when a control programme is in place (Syracuse, Quebec, Netherlands). The mortality rates

from the monitoring work on Gotland suggest a similar rate of mortality; in the region of 0,5% per

year. Professor Jan Stenlid, SLU has been doing some analyses of the outcomes of Life ELMIAS, with

84

the aim of producing a prognosis with a continued control programme and if it were to stop,

comparing with scientific studies carried out elsewhere.

Figure 14 below (assuming a population of 1 000 000 elm trees) shows that with continued control

such as has been implemented thusfar we could expect either Prediction II or Prediction III.

Prediction II is based on a model prediction and assumes a mortality rate similar to what has been

observed during 2017-2018. Prediction III is based on the actual figures from Gotland over the last

decade. With Prediction III there would still be in the region of 60% of the elm population remaining

on Gotland, which also gives time for new trees to grow up and replace ones that have been lost and

also the potential for resistant clones to be developed. Without continued control Prediction I is likely

and within 10 -15 years the population would be down to 10% and is based on mortality rates reported

from other areas where control measures have been discontinued. This implies that measures to keep

down the number of infected elm trees (see also Annex F8) will have a large impact on the number of

living elm trees.

Figure 14 – the various Predictions I, II, and III, with (II, III) and without (I) a control programme

showing the proportion of elm population that remains

If the control programme stops, it will not take long before up to 90% of the elms will be dead.

Combined with restoration measures it might therefore, still be possible to preserve the biodiversity in

the wooded Annex 1 habitat.

In addition as a direct consequence of the project more people are aware of the problems connected

with invasive alien species such as DED and ADB and the serious problems that these create for our

native biodiversity and the Natura 2000 network.

b. Relevance for environmentally significant issues or policy areas (e.g. industries/sectors with

significant environmental impact, consistency with 6th or 7th (as applicable) EU Environment Action

Programme and/or important environmental principles, relevance to the EU legislative framework

(directives, policy development, etc.)

LifeELMIAS aimed to have a positive impact on nature conservation and the birds and habitats

directive by reducing/eliminating the threats caused by the DED and ADB on the target species in the

wooded Annex 1 habitats. In addition, the project is also followed the alien species directive by

striving for eradication of DED, but also finding resistant/tolerant ash trees. The work in relation to the

After Life Plan has also raised national issues regarding the management of alien species in Sweden.

85

There is hope that a cross-government agency group may be set up to help deal with existing and

future alien species, when these can currently fall between stools.

Saving elm and ash creates a long-term carbon sink and a better living environment for people and

wildlife. Ash and elm ecosystems are unique and provide wide range of ecosystem services and

habitats for wide range red-listed and vulnerable species directly associated with these tree species.

Besides, both elm and ash themselves are in the Swedish Red Data Book (see the Swedish Red Data

Book) https://www.artdatabanken.se/globalassets/ew/subw/artd/2.-var-verksamhet/publikationer/22.-

rodlistan-2015/rodlistan_2015.pdf

The impact of Life ELMIAS on the ecosystem services provided by the elm trees was evaluated using

I-Tree and focusing on three services: carbon storage, carbon sequestration and uptake of air pollution.

Over the course of the project, only taking carbon storage and uptake of air pollution into account, the

Life ELMIAS project has directly saved 7 102 935 Euros. This is an economic valuation which

amounts to more than double the Life ELMIAS budget. This is without taking account of the social

and cultural history values that the wooded meadows and pastures on Gotland provide. The project

also contributed to the socioeconomic situation on Gotland by the creation of almost 15000 working

days for both the project partners and contractors, with many people increasing their competence in

several different areas.

5.3.2 Long-term benefits and sustainability

a. Long-term / qualitative environmental benefits

LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity: What is the outlook for the targeted habitat type and/or species?

How do you plan to continue and to develop the actions that were initiated in the LIFE project in the

years that follow the end of the project and how will the longer-term management of the site(s) be

assured? What are the remaining threats? Details should be given regarding what actions should be

carried out, when, by whom and using what source of finance. (For LIFE-Nature projects, you must

also annex the After-LIFE conservation plan which shall be delivered in English and also in the

language(s) of the beneficiary/ies.)

In the application, in the event of scenario 2 – the project has been partly successful and DED is under

control but not eradicated then more work needs to be done to ensure the long-term sustainability of

the Annex I habitats and species targeted on Gotland. Funding is however the crucial factor and the

situation currently is that there is funding from SFA to continue with the control programme in 2019,

but not beyond (actions C2, C3 and C4). There are no funds available from SEPA and an application

for funds to support the development of a new Life application was rejected. This means that the

habitats are potentially still under threat due to the fact that even if the control programme is stopped

for just one year, the likelihood of control declines exponentially. The investment in resistant/tolerant

ash trees is very positive and will hopefully provide replacement trees in the not too distant future,

however the timescales for delivery are challenging with the mortality rates that would occur (9% for

elm with no control and 2.2% for ash).

The project actions that are planned to be carried out after the end of the project are as follows:

All conservation plans and management plans (A2) were approved within the timescale of the project

and will be used as the basis for future management after the end of the project. These will be

implemented by CAB, who have direct responsibility for managing the Natura 2000 sites. The

ongoing management of the Natura 2000 sites will continue, ensuring that the restoration efforts

undertaken as a part of the Life ELMIAS project are maintained (C1). The work will be funded by the

ongoing funding that the CAB receive annually for management of protected sites supplemented by

RDP environmental subsidies where possible.

The control programme; actions C2, C3 and C4 will continue at least during 2019 and will be

managed and funded by SFA. Further funding opportunities will be sought out beyond this time frame.

86

Additionally discussions are in place to find support for developing appropriate remote sensing

techniques which could reduce the cost and improve the accuracy of identifying sick trees (C2). This

will be led by SFA and SLU. Further work to find out more detail regarding the structure of the elm

population on Gotland and the character of the elm trees that support the greatest biodiversity will also

be undertaken led by SFA and CAB on Gotland. C7 (controlling the risks for new introductions) will

form a part of the standard advisory role that SFA and CAB have in their work. The ash seedling

plantation and the associated database (A5/C8) will continue to be managed and used for further

research depending on availability of funding by SLU. The site will be maintained by SLU.

D1 – monitoring of the N2000 sites will form a part of the standard national monitoring programme

(developed by SEPA) that CAB have responsibility for undertaking. In addition CAB will revisit the

trees monitored within the project five years after the end of the project (in 2023). Ideally an additional

survey of the lichens, bats and collared flycatcher will also take place in 2023 following the same

methods, but these actions can only be undertaken if funds are available and if the DED control

programme continues. D2 – monitoring of the spread of DED will form a part of the continued control

programme assuming funding is available.

The website (E1) will be maintained by SFA for at least two years after the end of the project and

longer if the control programme can be financed for longer. The noticeboards (E3) will be checked

annually by the respective organisation (SFA, CAB) for 2 years after the end of the project. Media

contact (E4) and requests for networking (E6) will continue as a part of the ordinary work of SFA and

CAB beyond the end of the project. GAG (E5) is a voluntary organisation and will continue after the

end of the project. Visitor days and training sessions (E8/E9) will continue at a reduced level due to

the significantly reduced need for this due to the fact of the success of the project in building local

capacity and knowledge. The two manuscripts of the six produced (E12) that have not yet been

published, will be submitted for publication after the end of the project and SLU will be responsible

for this work.

The work to find adequate financing for continuing with the DED control programme will continue by

SFA, CAB and SLU (F8). This has formed an integral part of Life ELMIAS and has been identified at

senior level in the partner organisations as a priority. There is clearly great uncertainty of the financial

situation beyond 2019 (see Annex F8 – After Life Plan and table 16 below).

87

b. Long-term / qualitative economic benefits (e.g. long-term cost savings and/or business

opportunities with new technology etc., regional development, cost reductions or revenues in other

sectors).

The collaboration with SLU opened up new opportunities for combating DED and the negative

consequences of DED and ADB. New directly applicable knowledge has been attained e.g. the seed

bank (action C8) of potentially ADB resistant ash seeds. This opens up opportunities for replacement

trees (action C1) not just for Gotland, but across Europe. New options might also emanate from the

Spanish Life project which has worked with the development of DED resistant clones of elm, Ulmus

minor and U. laevis (LIFE13 BIO/ES/000556). They are interested in obtaining elm material from

Gotland to test the level of resistance.

New technology in terms of the use of apps for surveying has resulted in cost savings and this

technique could be applied elsewhere to for example monitoring of Natura 2000 sites or for other

types of management work. The fact that digital information can be shared directly with the

contractors limits mistakes and allows the contractors to directly records what has been done, so this is

more efficient and accurate. The development of remote sensing techniques to identify sick trees also

has the potential to save money and time.

c. Long-term / qualitative social benefits (e.g. positive effects on employment, health, ethnic

integration, equality and other socio-economic impact etc.)

Many people, in different ways involved in the project, e.g those attaining meetings, education

sessions, permanent employees as well as temporarily employees and long term unemployed have

gained new and valuable knowledge. E.g how to perform inventories, destruction of infected wood,

restoration measures, monitoring etc. The project also contributed to the socioeconomic situation on

Gotland by the creation of almost 15000 working days for both the project partners and contractors,

with many people increasing their competence in several different areas.

As shown by the analyses of the ecosystem services impact that the Life ELMIAS project has had,

there was a significant and positive impact on human health in relation to the uptake of air pollution by

the elm trees that were saved as a consequence of the control programme. It was not possible to assess

the impact on tourism directly as there is no real comparison with Gotland.

d. Continuation of the project actions by the beneficiary or by other stakeholders.

Table 17 - An overview of the actions that will be continued after the end of the project, who will be

responsible and where the finances will come from.

Action What will be done Beneficiary

Responsible

Finances

A2 No further work required CAB N/A

A5/C8 Ash database will be maintained, and SLU will continue to use

these trees as a basis for future research and potentially

resistant trees

SLU SLU

C1 The restoration work will be maintained CAB CAB

C2 Survey for DED infected trees 2019 SFA SFA 2019

C3 Felling and destroying of infected trees in 2019 SFA SFA 2019

C4 Killing of infected root by chemical control 2019 SFA SFA 2019

88

C5 Proven to be unsuccessful, no further action required N/A N/A

C6 No further vaccination will take place N/A N/A

C7 This will form a part of the normal advisory function of SFA

personnel

SFA SFA

D1 The Natura 2000 sites will be monitored as a part of the

standard monitoring of Natura 2000 sites. The trees will be

revisited in 2023. Additional surveys of bats, lichens and

collared flycatcher will take place in 2023 if the control

programme continues and if finances are available

CAB CAB

D2 Monitoring of the spread of DED will form a part of the

control programme if funding is available

SFA/SLU SFA/SLU

E1 Website will be maintained until at least 2021 and updated if

relevant

SFA SFA

E3 Notice board will be checked annually until 2021 SFA/CAB SFA/CAB

E4 Media work will be continued as a part of normal activity SFA/CAB SFA/CAB

E5 This is a voluntary organisation and will continue as long as

there is engagement

GAG? GAG?

E6 Responses to networking requests will be done as and when

requests come in for at least two years

SFA SFA

E8/9 Will continue at a reduced level depending on the control

programme

SFA SFA

E12 Manuscripts will be submitted to scientific journals SLU SLU

F8 Work to find further financing will continue until all options

are exhausted or DED is out of control

SFA/CAB/SLU SFA/CAB/SLU

5.3.3 Replicability, demonstration, transferability, cooperation:

a. Potential for technical and commercial application (transferability reproducibility, economic

feasibility, limiting factors) including cost-effectiveness compared to other solutions, benefits for

stakeholders, drivers and obstacles for transfer, if relevant: market conditions, pressure from the

public, potential degree of geographical dispersion, specific target group information, high project

visibility (eye-catchers), possibility in same and other sectors on local and EU level, etc.

Within the project the method to combat DED has been developed and refined. Now we know that it is

possible to fight DED, not eradicate it but at least keep DED under control. This methodology could

be applied elsewhere with similar problems. Project staff have been contacted by people who want to

learn about how to combat DED. E.g last summer an English manager of protected areas in Great

Britain came to visit LifeELMIAS in order to learn about how to combat DED and manage for ADB

in Natura 2000 sites. He has published a report (http://www.wcmt.org.uk/sites/default/files/report-

documents/Joe%20Also%20report_0.pdf) about his experiences of his visits to different projects in

Europe. At the final conference there were were opportunities for sharing experiences from the

scientific community internationally and beyond the boundaries of Europe. There were site managers

of Natura 2000 sites from other countries that attended looking to share experiences about how to

increase resilience of our Natura 2000 sites in the face of increasing numbers of invasive alien species.

The data collected from LifeELMIAS can provide good, robust data for other places working on

combating IAS, not just specifically DED. The ash seedbank and the associated genetic research could

help many other N2000 sites in Europe facing problems as a consequence of the loss of ash. Many

scientific papers have been published as a consequence of the work in Life ELMIAS, which has had

an impact on the quality control of the results, gives them greater credibility, but also ensures a greater

degree of dissemination. The fact that SLU have actually had four manuscripts published in peer

89

reviewed scientific journals is a very positive outcome for the project and encourages cooperation far

beyond the project and Sweden. It also means that the results from the work in the project have had a

much greater reach.

The work reviewing the impact on ecosystem services (Action D4) also provided an interesting

approach and will help both us and other similar projects to justify a control programme for tree

diseases for reasons in addition to biodiversity, in particular when trying to balance costs versus

benefits.

There may be a potential opportunity for development of resistant/tolerant elm trees in relation to the

Spanish Life project which has worked with the development of DED resistant clones of elm, Ulmus

minor and U. laevis (LIFE13 BIO/ES/000556). They are interested in obtaining elm material from

Gotland to test the level of resistance.

5.3.4 Innovation and demonstration value:

a. Describe the level of innovation, demonstration value: added by EU funding at national and

international level (including technology, processes, methods & tools, organisational & co-

operational aspects);

This was a demonstration project, to show that in isolated regions threatened by DED it is possible to

control or combat DED. This in combination with restoration measures it should be possible to secure

biodiversity. The collaboration with SLU has been crucial to gain new knowledge how to deal with the

problems connected to DED and ADB. SLU has also provided an element of quality control in terms

of the monitoring and results produced. The fact that four of the six manuscripts produced duringthe

project period have already been published in peer reviewed scientific journals makes for great added

value.

New technology in terms of the use of apps for surveying has resulted in cost savings and this

technique could be applied elsewhere to for example monitoring of Natura 2000 sites or for other

types of management work. The fact that digital information can be shared directly with the

contractors limits mistakes and allows the contractors to directly records what has been done, so this is

more efficient and accurate. The development of remote sensing techniques to identify sick trees also

has the potential to save money and time. The connection and opportunity to make use of the

destroyed trees as woodchip in a thermal power station was also innovative, but also provided

significant added value by the use of a resource for something positive.

The work looking at the impact on ecosystem services using I-Tree-Eco provided a good

demonstration of how these kind of evaluation systems can be used to undertake a cost-benefit

analysis. It also showed how the EU project money gave more than double in return in terms of carbon

storage and savings to human health due to air pollution. This could be further developed and used

more widely. In addition this provided a very positive results of something which otherwise can be

perceived as being negative i.e. destruction of trees. It is a tool that can be used to convince sceptics.

The training investment is something that will add value beyond the life of the project. The people

trained will be able to use their skills for other types of management work in and outside of Natura

2000 sites.

The conference (E11) was a new and innovative approach in contrast to traditional Life project final

conferences. The real tangible benefits were in bringing international researchers to Gotland and

putting them in the same room as Natura 2000 site managers and looking at the problems faced out on

site. This probably helped move both groups forward by several years in terms of generating a greater

understanding of the practical problems for biodiversity and the potential implementation of research.

This opportunity was quite unique and gave much food for thought. The discussion session in

90

particular gave great insight in how the future for elm, ash and biodiversity could be with more

cooperation.

5.3.5 Long term indicators of the project success:

Describe the quantifiable indicators to be used in future assessments of the project success, e.g. the

conservation status of the habitats / species.

Many species and habitats included in the habitat’s directive are dependent on ash and elm, the living

trees as well as the dead wood. Species dependent on dead wood, e.g. bats, birds and insects, can in

the short term be disfavoured by the removal of infected elms. However, the amount of dead wood of

elm and ash are already unnaturally high all over Gotland because of DED and ADB. The most

important conservation action in the long term for all species dependent on ash and elm right now, is

to conserve living trees to ensure intact wooded habitats and to ensure future production of dead wood.

The long-term effect of the project on the wooded annex 1 habitats and accessory species will be

shown in future monitoring (outside the project period) of protected areas by CAB (see Annex F8).

The trees that were selected in D1 for monitoring will continue to be monitored to provide a measure

of the mortality rate, which provides a clear measure of the success of the work being carried out.

Keeping track of the numbers of elm trees removed and the size of these trees compared with the

totalpopulation will also be a quantifiable measure of success i.e. if the mortality rate of elm is

maintained at 0.5% then the control programme is working. In addition further work to identify the

population structure of elm on Gotland and match the ages of the trees with when they provide

greatest biodiversity value will also help to improve the understanding of the success of the restoration

measures (ie. Veteranisation) and any control programme. Bats and collared flycatcher and lichens

will also be monitored in 5 years’ time to see how the populations have responded to the restoration

work and/or control programme.

A series of maps have been produced based on the numbers of live veteran elm trees over time using

the different mortality rates identified in the project (figure 15a, b, c, d, e, f below). The maps and

analysis have been carried out in a square area selected around Allvena on Gotland, where the veteran

trees have been surveyed, where Dutch Elm Disease has been identified and from where we have

enough data. These maps show change over time and highlight the potential change in functionality of

the wooded landscape by highlighting the density of veteran elm trees per hectare which are not more

than 250 m from one another. These maps have been done for 2013, 2018 and 2038 to show the long-

term nature of the issue. It is otherwise very difficult to show the impact on ecosystem function and

biodiversity over such a short period of time (6 years). Without a control programme in 2038, figure g,

the landscape would be much more fragmented in comparison with with a control programme c and e

(based on 0.55 and 1.77% mortality). This type of kernel density analysis can be done again in the

future to provide a proxy measurement of ecosystem function and habitat sustainability with updated

mortality rates.

91

a)

b) c)

d) e)

f) g)

Figure 15 – the density of live veteran elm trees

per hectare around Alvena. The redder the tone

indicates greater density of veteran elm trees.

Red means that there are more than 100 veteran

elm trees per hectare.

a) 2013, b) 2018 with 0.55% mortality, c) 2038

with 0.55% mortality, d) 2018 with 1.77%

mortality, e) 2038 with 1.77% mortality, f) 2018

with no control programme 9% mortality, g)

2038 without a control programme where 90%

of the elm trees would likely be dead.

92

4.4 Outside LIFE: work done outside of the Life Project and financing

The control programme (actions A4, C2, C3 and C4) in 2017 were undertaken with finances outside of

Life, from SFA and SEPA. This was very important as at that time, there were no finances available

from the Life budget to undertake the work in 2017, which would have resulted in a break in the

control progamme. The budget amendment which was approved allowed the control programme to

continue in 2018 with money from Life ELMIAS. SEPA contributed 3,000,000 SEK for the season

2017-2018. SFA contributed remaining funds, 2 300 000 SEK, to carry out the DED inventory and

control measures (C2, C3 and C4).

There are also a number of synergies between LifeELMIAS and other projects: 1) PhD project entitled

Expression analysis of candidate defence genes for Hymenoscyphus fraxineus in Fraxinus excelsior is

using some of ash materials from Gotland in order to evaluate the candidate defence genes in the ash

population in Sweden; 2) PhD project entitled Occurrence and virulence of tree-pathogenic fungi

vectored by bark beetles compares insect and fungal data sampled in Gotland with corresponding data

in other areas of the Baltic Sea region; 3) the Dutch elm disease pathogens sampled in Gotland are

used in other collaborative activities to study genetics and virulence of these fungi.

More funds were used from SFA to cover the 2% rule increase as a consequence of the problem with

temporary workers.

Karin Wågström (project manager) has been nominated for the National Nature Conservation Prize,

given out by the Swedish Species Information Centre for a person’s efforts for nature conservation

above and beyond the call of duty. The prize will be awarded in April 2019. Karin was nominated for

her efforts to save elm on Gotland and for ensuring that there has been no break in the control

programme since DED was discovered on Gotland.

93