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: Sustainable pine forest was kept during the last 35 years  3. Have the functional goal(s) been attained? (see III.1.4 and V.3) - Yes - No Partly Description: Erosion and water infiltration objectives seem to be fulfilled, but forestry production is low, due to the harsh site conditions  4. Have the landscape goal(s) been attained? (see III.1.5 and VI.1) Yes - No - Partly Description: The local forest area was increased  5. Have socio-economic goals been attained? (see III.1.6-8 and VI.2) - Yes - No Partly Description: The stand is not yet mature, so wood exploration isn't at full scale  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:   Depend on the restored unit. Explain: The stand are not mature; units 1 and 2 structure and pattern aren't natural because spontaneous tree coverin this region is of the savana type ("montado" woodland)  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: Stone pine regenerates well only in sandy soils  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: Leisure and recreation  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