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:	Soil erosion protection, landscape improvement e.t.c.

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:			In better soils where even the understorey has already come.

3. Have the functional goal(s) been attained? (see III.1.4 and V.3)
	-	Yes
	-	No
		Partly
Description:			As far as the protective purpose is concerned.

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:

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:	Because of degraded land and grazing in the past
	-	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:

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:	Because the site quality is very bad in many place

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?
Yes
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):
Yes
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:	Recreation, aesthetics, ecological balance, e.t.c.


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