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