Search REACTION projects Map REACTION projects

Project General Description Data Sources Climate Topography Geology Soils & Ecology Degradation, Impacts & Drivers Restoration Goals Planning & Financing Technical Monitoring & Assessment Landscape & Environmentetal Assessment Socio-Economic Assessment Summary Judgements Units Documents / Images

VII. SUMMARY VII.1. ACHIEVEMENT OF PROJECT GOALS 1. Have the defined success criteria (if any) been attained? (see section III.4.6 and sections V &VI) - Yes  - No There were not defined success criteria - Only for some restored units.Describe:   - Only for some criteria. Describe:   2. Have the structural goal(s) been attained? (see III.1.3 and V.1 & V.2) - Yes - No Partly Only for some units. Describe: Quercus suber survival is lower than expected, and Pinus pinaster survival is very low in the lower cota areas (near water lines), probably due to bad drainage in winter time, as well as due to the po  3. Have the functional goal(s) been attained? (see III.1.4 and V.3) - Yes - No Partly Description: Erosion control wasn't fully achieved near water lines and forestry production is low, because the stand isn't yet mature   4. Have the landscape goal(s) been attained? (see III.1.5 and VI.1) Yes - No - Partly Description:   5. Have socio-economic goals been attained? (see III.1.6-8 and VI.2) - Yes - No Partly Description: Better conditions for the development of cinegetic species where achieved but, due to stand age, wood products aren't yet exploitable  6. According to survival and growth of planted/seeded species, the plantation/seeding success was: (see V.1.4, V.1.5, V.1.6.a-g) - Very high - High Medium - Low - Very low VII.2. STRUCTURAL QUALITY 1. How natural is the composition of the restored ecosystem(s)? (see V.2.5, V.2.6 & V.2.7) Fully - Partly. Explain:   - Depend on the restored unit. Explain:   2. How natural/mature is the structure and pattern of the restored ecosystem(s)? (see V.2.1, V.2.2, V.2.3, V.2.4 & V.2.12) - Fully Partly. Explain: The stand isn't mature yet  - Depend on the restored unit. Explain:   3. Presence of important biodiversity (according to species richness, and the presence of indicator, rare, endemic,endangered, protected species; see V.2.9, V.2.10, V.2.11, V.2.12 & V.2.13): - Yes Medium - No 4. In the restored area, the project has: (according to species richness, and the presence of indicator, rare, endemic,endangered, protected species;see V.2.9) Increased biodiversity - Decreased biodiversity - Conserved biodiversity VII.3. FUNCTIONAL QUALITY 1. Ecosystem dynamics: Does the restored ecosystem regenerate naturally? (see V.1.6.h,i,j & V.3.6):   Yes - Not fully. Explain:   Do natural successional dynamics occur? (see V.3.6): - Yes No - Partly. Explain:   2. Overall functioning: How are the soil characteristics? (see V.3.3, V.3.4 & V.3.5): - Stable Slightly degraded - Seriously degraded How is the potential for nutrient cycling? (see V.3.1, V.3.2 & V.3.3): - High - Medium Low How is the ecosystem productivity? (see V.1.6.g, i, V.3.10, VI.2.2, VI.2.3 & VI.2.4): - High - Medium Low 3. How is the overall ecosystem health? (see V.4) - Good (No relevant pests, diseases, invasive species, or dead/damaged plants by abiotic factors.) Medium (Some individuals affected; low severity level) - Poor (Relevant pests, diseases, invasive species, or dead/damaged plants by abiotic factors.) What are the pollution levels? - High - Medium Low 4. The project significantly increases Resistance (e.g., to grazing, pests, fire, drought, see II.6. and V.3.7 & V.3.8): - Yes No - Partly Resilience (e.g., to fire, pests, drought, etc., see II.6.2 and V.3.9 & V.4 ):  - Yes No - Partly Erosion control (see II. 6.1 and IV.2.14, V.3.4, V.3.5 & VI.1.8 ) Yes - No - Partly Flood control (see II. 6.1 and VI.1.7): Yes - No - Partly VII.4. LANDSCAPE QUALITY 1. The project significantly increases: Forest surface (see VI.1.2):  - Yes - No Slightly Connectivity among patches of formerly isolated populations (see VI.1.4.c,d & VI.1.5): - Yes - No Slightly Integration among forests and other habitats (see VI.1.2 & VI.1.5d,e): - Yes No - Slightly Habitat diversity (see VI.1.2): - Yes - No Slightly The protected surface (see VI.1.4):  - Yes No - Slightly 2. Aesthetic value (see VI.1.5, VI.1.6,VI.2.7 & VI.2.8): - Very high - High Medium - Low VII.5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS 1. Cultural value (see VI.1.3, VI.2.7 & VI.2.8): Does the project area have particular cultural significance to local inhabitants? No The project has... - increased - decreased preserved - created - damaged ...the cultural value of the site. Degree of local participation (see VI.2.9): - High - Medium Low 2. Has the project generated ecosystem goods for the local population? (see VI.2.1, VI.2.2, VI. 2.3 & VI.2.4): No Amount of timber and non-timber goods provided : - Very high - High - Medium - Low 3. Has the project enhanced ecosystem services? (see III.1.4 and V.3, VI.1.7 & VI.1.8): Yes Description:   4. Does the project contribute to fix/support/increase rural population by increasing tourist and recreational value, by direct employment, or by providing homeland? (See VI.2.5, VI.2.6, VI.2.7): - Yes - No Slightly

REACTION: This research is supported by the "Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development" programme, under contract EVK2-2002-80025