Management of Natura 2000 habitats Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix 4010 : Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.
Date: 2010-05-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, biotope, coastal region, environmental protection, protection of plant life, wildlife

Technical Report 2008 08/24

MANAGEMENT of Natura 2000 habitats
Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica 
tetralix
4010

Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and 
of wild fauna and flora

  
The  European  Commission  (DG  ENV  B2)  commissioned the  Management of Natura 2000 habitats.  4010 
Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix 

This  document  was  completed  in  March  2008  by  Mark  Hampton  (NatureBureau,  UK)  on  behalf  of 
Ecosystems. 

Comments, data or general information were generously provided by: 

Mats Eriksson, MK Natur- och Miljökonsult, Sweden. 
Simon Barnett, Countryside Officer, West Berkshire Council, UK. 
Ola Bengtsson (ecological consultant), Pro Natura, Sweden 
Simon  Caporn,  Reader  in  Environmental  Ecology,  Department  of  Environmental  &  Geographical 
Sciences,Manchester Metropolitan University, UK. 
Geert De Blust, Research Institute for Nature and Forest, Research Group Nature and Forest Management, 
Belgium 
Simon Stainer, Natural England, UK 

Coordination: Concha Olmeda, ATECMA & Daniela Zaghi, Comunità Ambiente 

©2008 European Communities 

ISBN 978-92-79-08323-5 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged 

Hampton  M.  2008.  Management  of  Natura  2000  habitats.  4010  Northern  Atlantic  wet  heaths  with  Erica 
tetralix. European Commission 

This  document,  which  has  been  prepared 
contract 
(7030302/2006/453813/MAR/B2 "Natura 2000 preparatory actions: Management Models for Natura 2000 
Sites”), is not legally binding. 

framework  of  a 

service 

the 

in 

Contract realised by: ATECMA S.L. (Spain), COMUNITA AMBIENTE (Italy), DAPHNE (Slovakia), ECOSYSTEMS 
(Belgium), ECOSPHÈRE (France) and MK NATUR- OCH MILJÖKONSULT HB (Sweden). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 

Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 1

1. Description of habitat and related species........................................................................................... 1 

Distribution.................................................................................................................................................................................1 
Northern Atlantic wet heaths in Natura 2000 sites .................................................................................................1 

Main habitat features, ecology and variability ...............................................................................................................2 
Ecological requirements...................................................................................................................................................3 
Main subtypes identified..................................................................................................................................................3 

Species that depend on the habitat...................................................................................................................................4 

Related habitats ........................................................................................................................................................................5 

Ecological services and benefits of the habitat ..............................................................................................................6 

Trends...........................................................................................................................................................................................6 

Threats..........................................................................................................................................................................................7 
Overgrazing ..........................................................................................................................................................................7 
Grazing abandonment or under stocking..................................................................................................................7 
Uncontrolled burning .......................................................................................................................................................8 
Artificial drainage................................................................................................................................................................8 
Nitrogen deposition...........................................................................................................................................................8 
Afforestation.........................................................................................................................................................................9 
Invasive species ...................................................................................................................................................................9 
Recreation .............................................................................................................................................................................9 

Climate change effects ...........................................................................................................................................................9 

2. Conservation management.................................................................................................................. 10 

General recommendations ................................................................................................................................................ 10 

Active management ............................................................................................................................................................. 10 
Grazing ................................................................................................................................................................................ 10 
Burning................................................................................................................................................................................ 12 
Cutting (by mowing) ...................................................................................................................................................... 13 
Grazing combined with controlled burning and complementary cutting .................................................. 14 
Scrub removal and Sod cutting .................................................................................................................................. 14 
Habitat Restoration ......................................................................................................................................................... 14 

Other relevant measures..................................................................................................................................................... 15 
Monitoring ......................................................................................................................................................................... 15 

Special requirements driven by relevant species ....................................................................................................... 17 

Cost estimates and potential sources of EU financing.............................................................................................. 18 
Management of grazing................................................................................................................................................ 19 
Cutting................................................................................................................................................................................. 19 
Burning................................................................................................................................................................................ 19 
Habitat restoration, anti-erosion measures ............................................................................................................ 19 
Bracken control ................................................................................................................................................................ 20 
Monitoring ......................................................................................................................................................................... 20 
Potential sources of EU financing............................................................................................................................... 21 

Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................................................................. 21 

3. References.............................................................................................................................................. 22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4010 | Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix 

40 – Temperate heaths and 
scrubs 

EUNIS classification: 

F4.11 - Northern wet heaths 

Heathland in New Forest, UK, including North Atlantic wet heaths. This site is grazed 
by ponies and cattle. Photo: Steve Humble. 

Summary 

North  Atlantic  wet  heath  is  a  natural  or  more  commonly  semi-natural  habitat  of  humid,  peaty  or  semi-
peaty character. The habitat is dominated by dwarf shrub species and usually occurs on acidic, nutrient-
poor substrates, such as shallow peats (<0.5m) or sandy soils with impeded drainage. Wet heath generally 
has a water table that is above or at ground level for at least some of the year.  

The  community  includes  mixtures  of  Erica  tetralix  (cross-leaved  heath),  Trichophorum  cespitosus  (deer 
grass),  Calluna  vulgaris  (heather)  and  Molinia  caerulea  (purple  moor-grass),  and  in  some  cases  over  an 
under-storey of mosses, often including carpets of Sphagnum species (bog mosses).  

The community is restricted in its distribution to the Atlantic fringe between Scandinavia and Normandy. 
The majority of the wet heath resource in the EU is in the UK and Ireland (85%) and it spans upland (up to 
600m) and lowland altitudes (below 300m). In the UK wet heath is usually found in the wetter climates of 
the  north  and  west,  and  in  Sweden  it  is  restricted  to  regions  with  similar  climate  conditions  in  south-
western parts of the country. These areas tend to have relatively high rainfall (generally between 60 to 
110 cm per year) and more importantly, an even spread of rainfall throughout the year, 

Wet  heath  is  thought  to  be  a  naturally  occurring  community  with  interaction  between  species  formed 
over millions of years by abiotic factors such as climate and soil conditions. Conditions such as soil acidity, 
low  nutrient  status  and  waterlogged  conditions,  and  possibly  grazing  from  large  herbivores  may  have 
arrested succession to woodland, resulting in the maintenance of an open dwarf shrub community.  

Its present variability is however related to human activities. The open heathland complex found across 
Europe  is  due  to  agricultural  practices  such  as  domestic  grazing,  burning,  turf  collection  and  cutting, 
which began to be developed around 6000 years ago.  

Traditional forms of management remain a key requirement for the maintenance of wet heath within a 
wider  heathland  complex.  These  practices  combine  to  stop  succession  to  woodland  once  areas  were 
cleared;  with  balanced  grazing  as  the  main  management  concept  while  additional  or  complementary 
measures such as controlled burning or cutting are recommended to be applied much more restrictively. 

1

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. Description of habitat and related species 

North Atlantic wet heath is a natural, or more commonly, a semi-natural habitat of humid, peaty or semi-
peaty soils. Typically, it is shaped by traditional farming methods such as turf cutting for fuel, grazing and 
cutting forage for animals. The heathland landscape is dominated by dwarf shrubs such as heather and 
Erica species, and wet heath in particular has a water table that is at, or above ground level for at least 
some of the year.  

Distribution 

North Atlantic wet heath is restricted in its distribution to the Atlantic fringe between Scandinavia and 
Normandy. The majority of the wet heath resource in the EU is in the UK and Ireland (85%) and it spans 
upland  (up  to  600m)  and  lowland  altitudes  (below  300m).  In  the  UK  wet  heath  is  usually  found  in  the 
wetter climates of the north and west, and in Sweden it is restricted to regions in south-western parts of 
the country with similar climate conditions. 

Percentage distribution of the total surface of Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix in Natura 2000 

Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix in Natura 2000 sites 

The  following  data  have  been  extracted  from  the  Natura  2000  Network  database,  elaborated  by  the 
European Commission with data updated on December 2006. The surface was estimated on the basis of 
the  habitat  cover  indicated  for  each  protected  site  and  should  be  considered  only  as  indicative  of  the 
habitat surface included in Natura 2000. 

1

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Biogeographical 
region 
Atlantic 
Continental 
Mediterranean 
Boreal 
Countries 

United Kingdom 
Ireland 
France 
The Netherlands 
Denmark 
Belgium 
Germany 
Portugal 
Sweden 
Poland 
Latvia 
TOTAL 

Nº of sites  

334 
172 
1 
17 

Nº of sites  

Estimated surface  
in Natura 2000 (ha) 
155,906 
5,729 

888 
543 
Estimated surface 
in Natura 2000 (ha) 

% of total surface in 
Natura 2000 

95.61 
3.51 
0.55 
0.33 

% of total surface IN 
Natura 2000 

71 
36 
49 
51 
31 
67 
167 
1 
42 
7 
2 
524 

99,370 
37,898 
9,187 
5,152 
3,862 
3,576 
1,578 

888 
815 
574 
166 

163,066 

60.94 
23.24 
5.64 
3.16 
2.37 
2.19 
0.97 
0.54 
0.50 
0.35 
0.10 

100 

Main habitat features, ecology and variability 

North Atlantic wet heath is dominated by dwarf shrub species and usually occurs on acidic, nutrient-poor 
substrates, such as shallow peats (<0.5m) or sandy soils with impeded drainage. The community includes 
mixtures  of  Erica  tetralix  (cross-leaved  heath),  Trichophorum  cespitosus  (deer  grass),  Calluna  vulgaris 
(heather) and Molinia caerulea (purple moor-grass), and in some cases an under-storey of mosses, often 
including carpets of Sphagnum species (bog mosses) (JNCC 2008a, HC 2008).  

Wet heath is a naturally occurring community, having been formed over millions of years, due, in part, to 
the interactions of abiotic factors such as climate and soil conditions, competition between species, and 
possibly also as a consequence of grazing from large herbivores (Tubbs 2001, Luxmoore & Fenton 2005). 
Its present variability is however related to human activities.  

The  open  heathland  complex  found  across  Europe  is  due  to  agricultural  practices  such  as  domestic 
grazing,  burning  and  cutting,  which  began  to  be  developed  around  6000  years  ago.  These  practices 
arrested succession to woodland once the areas were cleared. Without traditional forms of management 
some areas would no doubt have succeeded to scrub and then back to open woodland. However, the 
reduction  of  soil  nutrient  levels  through  removal  of  any  former  canopy,  coupled  with  leaching  of 
nutrients in areas of high rainfall means that many areas may no longer support significant tree growth. 

In the UK, large areas of wet heath are found in western and northern Britain, although fragmented areas 
can be found in the south and east (Rodwell 1991). It is defined by >25% cover of ericoid dwarf shrubs in 
wet situations and where peat depth does not exceed 0.5 m. It is often found as a transitional community 
within a mosaic of dry heath and blanket mire (Backshall et al. 2001).  

Details  of  interpretation  may  differ  between  countries;  for  example  for  Sweden,  the  borders  are  set  at 
maximum  30%  of  shrubs  and  trees  and  a  peat  depth  not  exceeding  0.3m  (Naturvårdsverket  1997).  In 
Flanders (Belgium), a maximum of 5% tree and shrub cover is required for good conservation status; and 
5-30% tree and shrub cover is considered to be of  moderate conservation status. In all situations, peat 
depth does not exceed 0.2m. 

Other plant species associated with wet heathlands include, in addition to the ones mentioned above, 
Drosera spp, Erica spp, Gentiana pneumonanthe, Hammarbya paludosa, Lycopodiella inundata, Narthecium 
ossifragum, Rhynchospora alba, Rhynchospora fusca and Sphagnum spp. 

2

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ecological requirements 

Wet heath is a community of acid, nutrient poor soils that are at least seasonally water logged; drainage 
and peat cutting have extended its range on to once deeper and wetter peat (Rodwell 1991). Wet heath 
often occupies areas of impeded drainage on lower valley sides and less steeply-sloping ground. Clearly 
drainage is a key factor, and wet heaths can develop when there are layers of clay within sandy strata or 
when iron oxide is deposited in the B-horizons of podsols to form impermeable iron-pans.  

In the north of Belgium and the Netherlands, wet heath is often situated in continental dunes within local 
depressions. These depressions are the result of former erosion by wind, and are often found where the 
water  table  is  a  ground  level  (then  erosion  stops).  Under  these  conditions  it  is  not  necessary  that  an 
impermeable layer is present, although (when old enough) a podsol with iron-pan may have developed. 

Wet  heath  can  occur  naturally,  due  to  abiotic  factors  such  as  the  soil  acidity,  low  nutrient  status  and 
waterlogged  soil  conditions,  with  succession  to  woodland  being  potentially  arrested  by  these  factors 
(Gimingham 1992). However, grazing, cutting and burning remain key requirements for the maintenance 
of wet heath within a wider heathland complex. 

The  habitat  is  restricted  to  the  oceanic  and  sub-oceanic  climates  in  the  north  of  the  Northern  Atlantic 
region, below the alpine zone. These areas have relatively high rainfall (generally between 60 to 110 cm 
per year) and more importantly, an even spread of rainfall throughout the year, with a high number of 
rain days (typically above 115 per year - if a 'rain day' is defined as one in which there is at least 1 mm).  

Relative  humidity  remains  moderately  high,  even  in  the  driest  months.  The  proximity  of  the  Atlantic 
Ocean  (including  the  Gulf  Stream  influence)  also  has  a  buffering  effect  on  temperatures,  preventing 
winters from becoming very cold and summers from becoming very hot. Mild winter temperatures are 
undoubtedly important for many of the individual plant and animal species that characterise heaths in 
the south-west of England and in western Ireland (Gimingham 1972). 

Main subtypes identified  

For the UK, key subtypes identified are based on the UK National Vegetation Classification for Mires and 
Heaths (Rodwell 1991). These represent the Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix as described 
by habitat account for priority habitats in Europe (JNCC 2008a, EC 2007). The information below is taken 
from the website at: 
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/habitat.asp?FeatureIntCode=H4010. 

M15 Scirpus – Erica wet heath is found in areas with a moderate to high rainfall, and is the typical form of 
wet heath in the north and west of the UK. Erica tetralix and Calluna vulgaris are typically accompanied by 
abundant Trichophorum cespitosum and Molinia caerulea. In the far north-west of Scotland, Erica cinerea 
(bell  heather)  and  Racomitrium  lanuginosum  (woolly  fringe-moss)  are  also  characteristic,  along  with  an 
abundance of Atlantic bryophytes. In the north, there may be a high cover of Cladonia lichens. At high 
altitude  northern  and  montane  species  are  represented.  Where  there  is  movement  of  mildly  base-rich 
water through the peat, Carex spp. (sedges) and a wide range of species favoured by flushing occur. The 
latter includes distinctive variants that are often characterised by abundant Myrica gale (bog-myrtle), or 
Schoenus nigricans (black bog-rush).  

M16 Erica – Sphagnum wet heath is characteristic of drier climates in the south and east, and is usually 
dominated by mixtures of Erica tetralix, Calluna vulgaris and Molinia caerulea. The bog-moss Sphagnum 
compactum is typically abundant, while on Orkney and at high altitude in the eastern Scottish Highlands, 
Cladonia lichens are abundant. In the south, species with a mainly southern distribution in Britain, such as 
Gentiana pneumonanthe (marsh gentian), Rhynchospora fusca (brown beak-sedge) and Cirsium dissectum 
(meadow thistle), enrich wet heaths. At high altitude in northern Scotland, forms of the community occur 
which are rich in northern and montane species, and often also have an abundance of Cladonia lichens.  

On the Lizard in Cornwall, Erica vagans (Cornish heath) growing with Schoenus nigricans, Erica tetralix and 
Molinia  caerulea  forms  a  distinctive  and  unique  form  of  wet  heath  (H5  Erica  –  Schoenus  heath),  found 
nowhere else in Europe.  

3

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
A further very local wet heath type is M14 Schoenus – Narthecium mire, which is mainly associated with 
transitions from heath to valley bog at a small number of lowland sites in southern Britain.  

For France, three sub-types have been identified and related to geographical variation (Gaudillat & Haury 
2002): 

•  A subtype dominated by Calluna vulgaris and Ulex minor in the northern parts of the country and in 

Normandy. 

•  A  subtype  dominated  by  Erica  tetralix  and  Ulex  minor  located  more  inland  than  the  above 

mentioned subtype. 

•  A subtype dominated by Erica tetralix and Erica scoparia in more central parts of the country. 

For Scandinavia, the 4010 sites are predominantly Erica tetralix heath with Erica tetralix and Trichphorum 
cespitosum as dominating species. Other characteristic species are Calluna vulgaris, Carex panicea, Drosera 
rotundifolia,  Gentiana  pneumonanthe,  Juncus  squarrosus,  Molinia  caerulea,  Myrica  gale,  Narthecium 
ossifragum, Pedicularis sylvatica and various Sphagnum species (Påhlsson 1998). 

In the Netherlands and Belgium subtypes are identified that are related to geographical position and to 
the nutrient status of the soil: 

• 

• 

• 

subtype with Empetrum nigrum, Carex trinervis, Salix repens and Oxycoccus macrocarpus in acid 
coastal  dune  slacks  with  the  groundwater  near  (or  above  in  winter)  the  surface.  Distribution: 
boreo-atlantic; southern part Baltic Sea – The Netherlands 
subtype  with  orchids,  Pedicularis  sylvatica,  Danthonia  decumbens  on  acidified,  moderately 
nutrient rich loamy sand soils 
local subtypes, associated with successional phases and micro-climate (Schaminée et al. 1995). 

Species that depend on the habitat 

Tetrao tetrix (black grouse) 

The  black  grouse  is  listed  in  Annex  I  of  the  Birds  Directive  and  ranges  between  the  upper  limit  of  the 
North  Atlantic  region  and  the  high  altitude  grasslands.  It  requires  a  mosaic  of  habitats  including  open 
scrub  woodlands,  clear-felled  areas  with  well-developed  field  and  shrub  layers,  moorland  edge 
allotments  and  unimproved  grassland,  which  include  wet  heath  as  a  food  source  of  both  plants  and 
invertebrates (UKBP 2008a). 

Coenagrion mercuriale (southern damselfly) 

The southern damselfly is listed in Annex 2 of the Habitats Directive. This globally threatened damselfly 
breeds  in  heathland  streams  and  runnels  and,  more  rarely,  wet  (rhos)  pasture,  chalk  streams  and 
calcareous  mires  (UKBP  2008b).  Most  sites  are  on  wet  heath  and  the  larvae  live  in  flushes  and  shallow 
runnels, often less than 10 cm deep, with slow-flowing water. Adults fly from June to August. Females lay 
eggs onto submerged plants, and the predatory aquatic larvae probably take two years to mature (JNCC 
2008b). 

Maculinea alcon (alcon large blue butterfly) 

The alcon large blue butterfly is restricted to wet heathland communities. The females only lay eggs on 
the Gentiana pneumonanthe (marsh gentian) on which the caterpillars live for about 10 days. Like other 
blue butterflies the alcon large blue has an intimate relationship with ants (Myrmica spp.) and in the 4th 
larval stage, they are fed in the ant nest by ant workers until the next spring. Pupation takes place in June 
and butterflies hatch from the pupae in the beginning of July. The alcon large blue is vulnerable all over 
Europe and threatened in most NW-European countries (Maes et al. 2008). 

4

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Plebejus argus (silver studded blue butterfly) 

The  silver-studded  blue  butterfly  occurs  on  lowland  heathland,  calcareous  grassland  and  peatland 
habitats such as wet heath. In all habitats, the species requires the presence of ant species of the genus 
Lasius (see alcon large blue above), open ground for breeding, and either bare soil or short vegetation. 
Suitable conditions, such as 2-5 year re-growth of heather and open conditions are usually maintained by 
grazing or a burning regime.  

It is found throughout Europe except Scandinavia, occurring in a wide range of habitat, including alpine 
grassland,  meadows,  forest  clearings  and  xerophytic  scrubland.  However,  it  is  declining  in  the  west  of 
mainland Europe (Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark) and in the UK the range decline is estimated 
at 80% (UKBP 2008c). 

Bruchia vogesiaca (bruchia moss) 

Bruchia moss is listed in Annex 2 of the Habitats Directive. It often occurs in areas with an oceanic or sub-
oceanic  climate  and  has  a  very  restricted  ecology.  It  grows  in  small  niches,  including  bare  turned 
tussocks, on the banks of small intermittent rivulets and always on well-humidified black organic soils. It 
is  strongly  dependent  on  humidity  and  avoids  areas  with  high  January  temperature  (Sergio  &  Draper 
2002). 

Other species 

Other bird species listed in Annex 1 of the Birds Directive that utilise wet heath but have a wider range 
than  just  wet  heathland  communities  include  Falco  columbarius  (merlin),  Circus  cyansus  (hen  harrier), 
Circus  pygargus  (Montague’s  harrier),  Sylvia  undata  (dartford  warbler)  and  Pluvialis  apricaria  (golden 
plover).  Merlin,  hen  harrier  and  Montague’s  harrier,  being  predator  species,  utilise  the  open  heathland 
area as a hunting ground for small mammals and birds and as a breeding site. Dartford warblers tend to 
have  territories  in  dry  heath,  but  are  known  to  utilise  wet  heath  communities.  Golden  plover  use 
peatlands, including wet heath, for breeding. 

Other  species  that  depend  on  wet  heath,  which  have  restricted  distribution  due  to  their  habitat 
requirements  include  Lagopus  lagopus  (red  grouse  –  UK  Biodiversity  Action  Plan  (UKBAP)  priority 
species), Numenius arquata (curlew), Coenonympha tullia (large heath butterfly - UKBAP priority species) 
and Lycopodiella inundata (marsh clubmoss - Annex 5 and UKBAP priority species). 

Related habitats 

Within  the  overall  heathland  complex,  North  Atlantic  wet  heaths  occur  in  several  types  of  ecological 
gradient.  In  the  drier  lowland  areas,  wet  heaths  are  local  and  often  restricted  to  the  transition  zone 
between  4030  European  dry  heaths  and  constantly  wet  valley  mires.  In  the  uplands  they  occur  most 
frequently  in  gradients  between  dry  heath  or  other  dry,  acid  habitats  and  7130  Blanket  bogs.  At  high 
altitude  in  regions  with  warmer  climates  wet  heaths  occur  in  mosaics  with  4060  Alpine  and  Boreal 
heaths. In Scandinavia, however, the distribution of wet heaths and Alpine/Boreal heaths do not overlap.  

4020 Temperate Atlantic wet heaths with Erica ciliaris and Erica tetralix 

Temperate Atlantic wet heaths with Erica ciliaris (Dorset heath) and Erica tetralix are characteristic of the 
western Mediterranean region and within the EU are found in France, Spain and Portugal and parts of the 
south west of England. These hygrophilous heaths are found in areas with a temperate oceanic climate, 
and with a more stringent dominance of Erica ciliaris than the Northern Atlantic wet heaths (e.g. Gaudillat 
& Haury 2002). 

4030 European dry heaths 

European  dry  heaths  typically  occur  on  freely-draining,  acidic  to  calcareous  soils  with  generally  low 
nutrient content. Dwarf-shrubs dominate the vegetation, with the most common being heather Calluna 
vulgaris, in combination with Ulex spp. (gorse), Vaccinium spp. and  Erica cinerea. Nearly all dry heath is 
semi-natural,  having  developed  through  a  long  history  of  grazing  and  burning.  Most  dry  heaths  are 

5

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
managed  as  extensive  grazing  for  livestock  or,  in  upland  areas  in  the  UK  and  Ireland,  as  grouse moors 
(JNCC 2008c). 

7130 Blanket bogs 

Blanket  bogs  have  formed  in  areas  where  there  is  a  climate  of  high  rainfall  and  a  low  level  of  evapo-
transpiration, allowing  peat  to  develop  not  only  in  wet hollows  but  over  large expanses of  undulating 
ground.  The  term  blanket  'bog'  strictly  applies  to  that  which  is  exclusively  rain-fed.  This  is  a  globally 
restricted  peatland  habitat  confined  to  cool,  wet,  typically  oceanic  climates.  Peat  depth  can  be  very 
variable  from  0.5m  to  depths  in  excess  of  5m.  There  is  no  agreed  minimum  depth  of  peat  which  can 
support  blanket  bog  vegetation.  Typical  plants  include  peat-forming  species,  such  as  Sphagnum  spp 
(bog-mosses) and Eriophorum spp (cotton grasses), or Molinia caerulea in certain circumstances, together 
with Calluna vulgaris and other ericaceous species. (JNCC 2008d, UKBP 2008d). 

Other bog habitats (7110, 7120, 7140) 

Peat  depth  is  decisive  if  the  habitat  is  to  be  classified  as  wet  heaths  or  as  any  other  relevant  acid  bog 
habitats  (mostly  active  or  degraded  raised bogs  (*7110, 7120),  transition  mires  or  quaking  bogs  (7140) 
(e.g. Naturvårdsverket 1997, Gaudillat & Haury 2002). For Scandinavia, a peat depth of greater than 0.3 m 
is indicative. 

4060 Alpine and boreal heaths 

Alpine heaths develop above the natural altitudinal tree-line. Boreal heaths develop below the tree-line 
in gaps among scrubby high-altitude woods or as replacements for those sub-alpine woods lost due to 
grazing  and  burning.  On  lower  slopes,  Boreal  heaths  may  grade  into  floristically-similar  European  dry 
heaths. The dominant plants are usually dwarf-shrubs such as Calluna vulgaris, Vaccinium spp, Empetrum 
nigrum (crowberry) and Juniperus communis (juniper), which are low-growing or prostrate owing to poor 
soils conditions, exposure to high winds or prolonged snow cover at moderately high altitudes. 

Ecological services and benefits of the habitat 

The  diverse  environmental,  social  and  cultural  ecosystem  services  provided  by  wet  heaths  include 
carbon  storage,  biodiversity,  water  provision,  flood  protection,  aesthetic/recreational  value,  and 
economic value from tourism, sporting enterprises and grazing. 

Good quality, semi-natural wet heaths play an important role in carbon sequestration, as a habitat which 
often  overlies  peat.  Peat  plays  a  vital  role  regulating  carbon  levels  in  the  atmosphere  by  acting  as  a 
carbon sink. Alongside this, if wet heaths become degraded through loss of vegetation or drainage, flood 
risk  may  be  exacerbated,  and  pollutants  may  be  released  that  were  held  within  soils  (MF  2006).  Wet 
heaths  also  provide  habitat  for  plant  and  animal  species  found  nowhere  else,  adding  to  valuable 
biodiversity across northern Europe. 

Wet  heaths,  as  part  of  the  heathland  complex,  create  valuable  economic,  recreational  and  sporting 
services.  As  grazing  land,  heathland  supports  different  forms  of  livestock  such  as  sheep,  cattle  and 
ponies.  Heathland  is  also  a  beautiful  aesthetic  landscape,  and  provides  tourism  for  local  communities, 
particularly from hill walking activities. In addition it provides valuable employment and revenue for local 
communities from sporting activities such as shooting, particularly in the uplands. In the past and as part 
of a traditionally managed system, heathlands provide fuel, forage and thatch.  

Trends 

Wet heath is a naturally occurring dwarf shrub habitat, and prevention of succession to woodland is most 
likely due to the high water table along with the low nutrient status of the soils (Gimingham 1992). Other 
heathland  species  would  also  have  been  found  naturally  within  open  woodland  communities, 
particularly  on  ‘poorer’,  low  nutrient  status  soils.  However,  the  extent  of  heathland  across  Europe  is 
intimately related to human activities, and the large open heathland complex, which includes wet heath, 
developed around 6000 years ago.  

6

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
As early agricultural practices began, woodland areas were cleared for grazing, cutting turf, cutting for 
fuel  and  harvesting  for  fodder,  and  large  open heathland  communities  began  to  develop  (Gimingham 
1992,  Webb  1998).  For  thousands  of  years  people  worked  the  heaths,  creating,  maintaining  and 
reshaping this unique environment, as a valuable source of livelihood to many communities.  

Traditional  management  has  continued  to  maintain  heathland.  However,  across  Europe  there  is  the 
potential  for  declines  in  grazing,  burning  and  cutting  which  may  have  a  profound  impact  on  the 
heathland  community.  During  the  middle  part  of  the    last  century,  farming  methods  altered  with  the 
development  of  artificial  fertilisers,  herbicides  and  modern  forms  of  machinery  for  ploughing  and 
drainage. Farmers were encouraged to ‘improve’ heathland areas through ploughing where possible, but 
also domestic stock numbers rose significantly with the introduction of farm subsidies. Heathland areas 
in  the  UK  in  particular  suffered  from  overgrazing,  and  it  is  only  since  the  headage-based  subsidy  was 
replace  in  2005  that  numbers  of  animals  on  heaths  are  no  longer  encouraged  to  excess.  In  the  future, 
there is a risk that heathlands that have been overgrazed may no longer be agriculturally viable, and will 
end up ungrazed. 

Threats 

Overgrazing 

A key threat to the habitat is overgrazing. It can lead to the loss of dwarf shrubs, which are substituted by 
species  that  are  more  resistant  to  grazing,  usually  facilitating  expansion  of  grassland  habitats  that  are 
already present. 

Dwarf  shrubs  such  as  heather  species  (Erica  and  Calluna)  go  through  specific  growth  phases,  from 
pioneer  through  to  building,  then  mature,  and  finally  degenerate.  The  vigour  of  heather  plants  is 
greatest during the first two phases, while stand productivity is greatest when all the heather plants are 
in the building phase. At this stage the heather canopy attains maximum coverage and density.  

Grazing  at  low  densities  can  impact  dwarf  shrub  growth  on  heaths  by  utilising  annual  growth.  It  can 
maintain the plants in the developing or maximum phase of growth and prevent them from passing into 
the later, degenerate phase. However, too much grazing leads to the loss of dwarf shrub cover (Backshall 
et al. 2001). Heather cover will generally decline if grazing animals utilise more than 40% of the season's 
growth  (as  shown  for  dry  heath),  potentially  allowing  other  species  such  as  grasses  to  dominate  the 
habitat (Thompson et al. 1995).  

However,  overgrazing  may  not  occur  on  a  well  developed,  infertile  wet  heath  (with  intact  soil  and 
hydrological characteristics) because the vegetation type may be avoided by the animals (unless they are 
forced to use it, which will be related to stocking rates). Although, a species-rich wet heath, growing on 
more  fertile  soil,  usually  contains  a  considerable  amount  of  grasses  and  can  be  prone  to  overgrazing, 
which can cause the expansion of the grasses and herbs. Overgrazing can also impact upland wet heath, 
growing on a peaty soil that has been (superficially) dried out (De Blust, pers. comm.).  

Importantly on wet heath, large numbers of animals trampling on the wet, peaty soils may cause erosion 
leading to the loss of the characteristic wet heath community. 

Grazing abandonment or under stocking 

Along  with  overgrazing,  under-grazing  can  also  be  a  threat  to  heathland  communities  through 
vegetation succession. Although it is thought that undisturbed wet heath could be maintained without 
management (see below), most wet heath communities will be reliant on some form of disturbance such 
as grazing, particularly as part of a heathland mosaic. If none occurs, the dwarf shrubs will move from the 
building  phases  of  growth  into  the  mature  and  degenerate  phases  becoming  increasingly  ‘leggy’  with 
gaps forming in the canopy. This may lead to their replacement by other species, eventually leading to 
woodland (Gimingham 1992). 

7

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  south-west  Sweden,  quite  rapid  declines  in  the  abundance  of  Pedicularis  sylvatica  (lousewort)  have 
been related to grazing abandonment. 

Uncontrolled burning 

Burning of heathlands has been an element of the traditional land-use, in order to enhance the grazing 
conditions  for  livestock.  However,  uncontrolled  fire  (in  contrast  to  controlled  or  prescribed  burning)  is 
primarily detrimental for the conservation status of wet heaths. It may be that wet heath is particularly 
susceptible  to  damage  by  burning,  especially  with  regard  to  the  lower  plant  flora  such  as  bryophytes. 
Sphagnum spp, which are generally slow colonisers and may have taken many years to establish, may be 
lost due to burning where fires burn into the moss and litter layer (Gimingham 1992). Intense and hot 
fires can also cause peat erosion, drying of the habitat and loss of dwarf shrubs allowing different plant 
communities  such  as  grassland  to  develop.  Natural  England  (previously  English  Nature)  produced  a 
research note on the detrimental effects of burning, which are highlighted below.  

A Natural England research note highlights the following significant detrimental impacts of fire 
(from Tucker 2003):  

•  Combustion and loss of peat and humus layers by hot fires in dry conditions.  
• 

Increased rates of run-off and erosion, particularly after hot fires and where large or old stands 
of Heath are burnt, and on steep slopes.  

•  Reduction in peat accumulation, even under well controlled prescribed burns, and potentially 
emission  of  carbon  dioxide  and  other  greenhouse  gases  from  carbon  stores  in  peat  if  these 
ignite or dry out as a result of hot burns.  

•  Reduction of structural and species diversity and vegetation composition changes if carried out 

• 

too frequently or over large areas.  
There will be value of sympathetic burning regimes in certain habitats, notably dry heath, but 
also  recognises  that  other  habitats,  notably  peatlands  (blanket  bog  and  wet  heath)  can  be 
severely damaged by inappropriate burning. 

•  Post-fire establishment of invasive species such as Pteridium aquilinum, for example where old 

Calluna stands are burnt. 

•  Destruction and long-term exclusion of fire sensitive and slow colonising species. 
•  Removal  of  cover  for  ground-nesting  wildlife  and  destruction  of  birds  nests  and  clutches 

during spring burning periods. 

However, a study into the effect of uncontrolled fires on heathland communities, including wet heath, 
suggested that, after the initial impact the wet heath, the habitat showed few responses to the fire and 
all  effects  were  transitory  (Bullock  and  Webb  1995).  This  suggests  that  more  clarity  on  the  use  of  fire 
within a heathland system is required. 

It is most likely that regular or hot uncontrolled fires within the same wet heath area could destroy the 
habitat, or trigger damaging peat erosion on a large scale. 

Artificial drainage  

Drainage of wet heaths will undoubtedly have a detrimental effect on wet heath, as it will change the 
hydrological regime. Drainage could lead to lowering of the water table and ultimately to the loss of wet 
heath  (Backshall  et  al.  2001).  This  will  usually  be  associated  with  groundwater  extraction  (for  drinking 
water), agricultural improvement, forestry or development. 

Nitrogen deposition 

The increase of soil nitrogen levels, particularly through increased levels of ammonia in the atmosphere, 
could threaten wet heath (Dalton and Brand-Hardy 2003, Aerts 1993). To ensure the maintenance of wet 

8

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
heath  it  is  important  that  soil  conditions remain  low  in  nutrients  such  as  nitrogen.  Increasing nitrogen 
levels  will  favour  more  competitive  grass  species  such  as  Molinia,  leading  to  a  change  in  plant 
community (Barker et al. 2004). In addition it is predicted that low intensity grazing may not be sufficient 
to  maintain  heathland  communities  alongside  nutrient  addition  (from  the  atmosphere)  (Hardtle  et  al. 
2006, Terry et al. 2004). 

Afforestation  

Planting of tree crops will lead to the loss of open habitat within the heathland complex, including wet 
heath. This may potentially have a knock on effect of increased predation for adjacent heath breeding 
birds (Backshall et al. 2001) and other heathland animals. 

Invasive species  

Species  such  as  Pteridium  aquilinum  (bracken)  and  Molinia  caerulea  can  be  damaging  to  extensive 
heathland areas by forming dense stands of vegetation and litter at the expense of ericaceous species. 
Pteridium  aquilinum  tends  to  be  more  invasive  on  the  drier  heathland  areas,  being  less  tolerant of  wet 
conditions.  Molinia  can  come  to  dominate  wet  heath  areas,  which  can  be  caused  by  inappropriate 
management such as overgrazing or burning, nitrogen deposition or lack of management. 

Recreation  

Recreational activities can also have a negative effect on heath vegetation, but compared to other issues, 
may be of little conservation significance. However, activities such as hill walking and mountain biking 
can be detrimental to fragile ecosystems such as wet heath, leading to erosion and loss of vegetation. 
Management  of  visitors  and  their  use  of  the  open  moorland  is  crucial  to  alleviate  any  harmful  effects 
(Backshall et al. 2001). 

Development such as housing and roads can cause loss and fragmentation of wet heath communities. 
This has more of an impact in the lowland heaths, particularly in the south of England and previously in 
Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. 

Climate change effects 

Any  predictions  regarding  climate  change  have  to  be,  to  a  certain  extent,  theoretical,  but  the  general 
consensus appears to be that wet heath will not be adversely affected, and may even benefit from the 
predicted milder, wetter winters and drier summers (Berry et al. 2002).  

The predicted increase in annual rainfall totals in the uplands may encourage the development of wet 
heath  at  the  expense  of  dry  heath,  but  this  may  be  offset  by  increases  in  evapo-transpiration  under 
warmer conditions and an increase in dry heath in southern areas.  

However, it may be that warmer summers and wetter winters could affect the peat soils of upland heath 
habitats. Higher evapo-transpiration under warmer summers may lower water tables leading to aerobic 
conditions  and  increased  decomposition.  Winter  re-wetting  may  cause  greater  erosion  of  these  less 
stable peats. Both factors will exacerbate current erosion and possibly encourage new erosion to occur, 
leading  to  a  decline  in  heathland  quality  and  extent  (Defra  2001).  Any  climate  change  scenarios  that 
show peat soils to be under threat will have longer-term detrimental impacts on wet heath. 

9

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. Conservation management 

General recommendations 

There  is  still  a  debate  as  to  whether  wet  heaths  require  any  form  of  management.  If  all  things  remain 
equal,  undisturbed  wet  heath  communities  may  be  maintained  without  management  because  the 
prevailing  ecological  conditions  (soil  nutrients,  hydrology,  acidity)  restrict  successional  processes 
(Burgess et al. 1995, Gimingham 1992). 

However, as discussed previously, wet heath is usually associated with a wider heathland/mire complex 
and management becomes essential for maintaining the complex as a whole.  

Most  of  the  wet  heaths  and  their  nature  conservation  value  are  related  to  the  impact  of  low  intensity 
grazing  over  a  very  long  period.  Thus,  grazing  is  the  key  form  of  management  that  management 
in  Europe  (e.g.  Gaudillat  &  Haury  2002, 
guidelines  tend  to 
Naturvårdsverket 2005, UKBP 2008e). The main issues for wet heath are the number and type of livestock 
used and timing of grazing. 

identify  across  various  countries 

For other forms of heathland management, such as burning and mowing, a general view is that they may 
have a detrimental impact on the community. For example in the UK the general recommendation is that 
burning and mowing should not be used as management on wet heath, while a less restrictive approach 
has been adopted for Sweden, Belgium and other parts of Europe. 

It  is  recommended  that  instructions  prohibiting  or  regulating  fertilizing,  supplementary  feeding  of 
livestock,  drainage  or  introduction  of  non-native  species  are  included  in  management  plans  and 
protection regulations for wet heath sites (Naturvårdsverket 2005). 

For  case  studies  of  sites  with  wet  heath,  which  include  site  management  and  relevant  issues  see 
references: DEFRA 2007a-c, Forestry Commission 2008, JNCC 2008a. 

Active management 

The  following  text  is  primarily  based  on  experiences  from  the  management  of  wet  heaths  in  UK  and 
Ireland,  which  host  85%  of  the  surface  area  of  this  habitat  in  the  EU.  The  management  prescriptions 
within  the  UK  tend  to  be  quite  strict;  particularly  with  regard  to  burning  (i.e.  if  in  doubt  do  not  use 
burning  as  management  on  wet  heath).  However,  across  the  rest  of  Europe  controlled  burning  (along 
with  vegetation  cutting  and  soil  removal  (sod  cutting))  is  considered  vital  for  heathland  management 
(including wet heath).  

Given that traditional management includes burning, vegetation cutting and sod removal, it may be that 
a  site-by-site  approach  is  required  when  developing  management  prescriptions  for  wet  heath.  This 
should involve site evaluation as to what the community structure is (level of water table, grass to dwarf 
shrub  ratios,  general  species  composition,  amount  of  bare  ground  etc.),  which  will  determine 
management tools, such as stocking levels for grazing, use of controlled burning, vegetation cutting and 
sod removal.  

The  general  text  below  is  based  on  UK  prescriptions  for  grazing,  burning  and  cutting  (mowing),  with 
other European prescriptions such as those used in Sweden and Belgium given as examples presented 
under separate headings below. 

Grazing 

The  main  reason  for  grazing,  in  terms  of  conservation,  is  to  arrest  successional  change,  ultimately 
stopping woodland from colonising the heathland areas. This is especially the case when different types 
of  livestock  are  used  in  concert,  which  will  generate  variations  in  habitat  structure,  encourage  species 
diversity and will be more efficient at maintaining the open heathland flora. 

10

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
As indicated above, it is likely that light grazing has been a natural feature of wet heaths for thousands of 
years, and is beneficial for maintenance of the habitat (Burgess et al. 1995). For successful management 
of  wet  heath,  low  stocking  rates  are  therefore  essential.  Heavy  grazing  should  be  avoided  on  good 
quality wet heath as it can lead to a decline in characteristic dwarf shrub cover in favour of grass, sedge 
and rush species, as well as excessive poaching and erosion of the underlying peat (English Nature 2004).   

Appropriate  stocking  levels  for  wet  heaths  should  be  determined  by  taking  into  consideration  its 
conservation status, other management practices, such as burning, and the numbers of wild herbivores 
present (Backshall et al. 2001). 

Levels of grazing for wet heath as recommended in Northern Ireland (Millsop 2008) 

• No grazing from 1 November to 28/29 February inclusive.  
• Overgrazing and/or poaching is not permitted at any time.  
• During  the  remainder  of  the  year  the  stocking  level  must  not  exceed  0.25  LU/ha  (LU  = 

Livestock Unit) at any one time [that is, 1.6 sheep per ha].  

• Cattle will not normally be permitted on wet heath but where they are the only livestock on 
the farm they will be allowed to graze during June, July and August at 0.2 LU/ha with the 
written permission of Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. 

Levels of grazing in England by Backshall et al. (2001), with aditions by Stainer (pers. comm.) 

To maintain wet heath (and blanket bog) in favourable condition: 

• undisturbed  wet  heaths  and  blanket  mires  require  little  management  and  may  be  left 

unmanaged (Burgess et al. 1995), but few pristine sites now remain in  England; 

• Light or no grazing in the autumn or winter, with at most very light grazing in the summer is 

the ideal grazing regime on most wet heaths and blanket mires; 

• year round stocking rates should not exceed 0.25-0.5 ewes/ha or 0.037-0.075 LUs/ha;  
• winter  stocking  rates  should  be reduced  by  at  least  25%,  with  all  cattle  and horses  removed 

where there is a risk of poaching; 

• Blanket bog or wet heath dominated by Molinia will be better grazed with cattle or ponies in 
the  spring  and  summer  months,  as  this  will  reduce  the  dominance  of  this  grass  over  time 
and aid restoration. 

To bring wet heath and blanket bog into favourable condition: 

• a  maximum  year  round  stocking  rate  of  around  0.1  sheep/ha  or  0.015  LUs/ha  has  been 

recommended, with winter levels lower still or stock removed; 

• if the habitat is very degraded a period (several years) of no grazing may be appropriate; 
• if  bare  peat  is  exposed,  it  is  very  difficult  to  stabilise  and  any  stocking  could  prevent  re-

vegetation; 

• restoring  high  water  levels  may  be  the  most  important  factor  in  reversing  deterioration  of 

vegetation and peat soils. 

Grazing by different animal species should be taken into consideration because different species favour 
or refuse different sorts of food. For example, goats can be used to tackle areas where Juncus spp (rushes) 
have come to dominate (Gimingham 1992), but this needs to be alongside the use of other animals and 
should  be  monitored  as  to  the  effects  of  goats  on  the  habitat  as  a  whole.  In  some  cases,  temporary 
fencing may be an option to enable different management regimes to be implemented (Backshall et al. 
2001). Also, the use of traditional breeds of cattle is thought to have a greater impact on conservation of 

11

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
heathland compared to those breeds bred for production, through hardiness and choice of vegetation 
eaten. 

Successful  maintenance  of  wet  heath  through  grazing  will  require  careful  management.  The  most 
vulnerable periods for poaching, particularly by large animals such as cattle, will be in the winter and it is 
recommended that no, or very extensive grazing be allowed on wet heath through the winter.  

Wet heaths are often seasonally dry in the summer, with a water table up to 10 cm below the soil surface 
(Burgess  et al 1995). Allowing light grazing (see stocking rates above) through the summer should not 
adversely affect the wet heath community. Herbivores, through creating vegetation mosaics, will have a 
positive  effect  on  the  biodiversity  of  the  community  and  will  help  control  dominant  species  such  as 
Molinia caerulea in certain situations. 

Caution needs to be applied in terms of zero or low intensity grazing as it has been suggested that this is 
not  sufficient  to  maintain  heathland  communities,  and  management  would  also  involve  regular  tree 
cutting (Bokdam and Gleichman 2000).  

In  terms  of  wet  heath,  it  may  be  that  as  long  as  the  habitat  maintains  a  suitably  high  water  table,  low 
intensity grazing would be enough. However, open scrub will enhance the wider biodiversity of heaths, 
and  scrub  was  an  integral  part  of  these  habitats  prior  to  human  management,  as  shown  in  the  pollen 
record. 

A  potential  difficulty  in  terms  of  grazing  for  nature  conservation,  on  nature  reserves  is  finding  graziers 
prepared  to  graze  extensively.  This  has  been  an  issue  in  the  UK  and  an  initiative  called  the  Grazing 
Animal Project (GAP) was developed to give advice on grazing for conservation and to act as a point of 
contact for projects trying to find graziers. The GAP website is also the source of a wealth of information 
on grazing, particularly for conservation (GAP - http://www.grazinganimalsproject.org.uk/index.html).  

Burning 

Burning  has  been  used  for  centuries  to  manage  vegetation  in  some  EU  countries,  such  as  the  United 
Kingdom, and for stimulating new growth of grasses or heather for agriculture, game rearing and wildlife 
conservation (Backshall et al. 2001). However, inappropriate use of this technique can be dangerous for 
the survival of wet heaths as it can damage bryophyte and lichen flora and increase erosion through the 
loss of peat soils.  

Thus, the general recommendation in the UK is do not burn wet heath communities as regular burning 
on  short  cycles  will  eventually  destroy  wet  heath,  favouring  grassland  species  such  as  Molinia  caerulea 
(Backshall 2001). However, this is not considered to be the rule in other countries (see below). 

If  vegetation  is  to  be  managed  by  burning  as  part  of  an  overall  management  structure,  then  different 
regimes should be applied to different areas, leaving wet heath for longer periods between burns or left 
as  no-burn  zones;  this  will  prevent  damage  to  wet  heath  and  also  increase  habitat  biodiversity  by 
creating a varied structure to the vegetation.  

Timing  of  burns  is  important  to  ensure  successful  management.  Burns  should  be  carried  out  in  late 
winter, early spring with very wet soil conditions, avoiding very windy periods that have a drying effect 
on vegetation litter and may affect the control of the fire. Only small areas should be burnt at a time, and 
preventing the outbreak of the fire outside the area by use of firebreaks is also important in controlling 
the burn.  

12

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Recommendations  concerning  burning  of  blanket  mire  and  wet  heath  in  UK  (taken  from 
Backshall et al. 2007) 

•    As a general rule when managing mires for nature conservation, if in doubt, do not burn. 
•    Where  blanket  bog  and  wet  heath  is  in  favourable  condition,  the  ideal  option  for    nature 

conservation purposes is not to burn at all. 

•    A  20-year  burning  regime  is  the  recommended  minimum  rotation for blanket  mires, which 

may also apply to wet heath, and a burning rotation of 20-30 years may be preferable. 

•    Where burning is conducted, for conservation purposes it is desirable to convert or maintain 
sensitive areas (such as wetter, steeper, or higher altitude locations) to no burning areas. 
•    When  conducting  any  burning  on  blanket  mire  or  wet  heath,  follow  all  the  legal 
requirements,  areas  to  be  avoided  and  other  recommendations  contained  in  the  previous 
boxes. 

•    Large areas of old, tall heather on wet substrates are ideally left un-burnt, because of the risk 

of very hot fires and little regeneration. 

•    Areas which contain pools or peat hagging, and close to eroding runnels, should also not be 

burnt. 

•    Where  accidental  fires  are  likely  and  extensive  areas  of  old,  woody  heather  exist,  burn  fire 
breaks as a precaution or consider cutting fire breaks, but consider the possibly damaging 
effects of the use of machinery. 

•    Areas  where  Molinia  caerulea  is  present  at  more  than  20-30%  cover  are  best  not  burnt, 

because this may encourage this grass, particularly in the presence of sheep grazing. 

Cutting (by mowing) 

Cutting,  like  burning,  is  a  drastic  event  for  the  vegetation  and  its  associated  fauna,  particularly  on  wet 
heath  as  heavy  machinery  can  cause  compaction  and  erosion.  For  these  reasons,  mowing  should,  if 
possible, be avoided on wet heath communities (Backshall et al. 2001). 

However, cutting may be the only form of management available, and may need to be considered. When 
it  is  used  for  management,  it  should  be  adequately  planned  and  monitored.  It  is  possible  to  use  two 
different techniques: cutting by hand (depending on  the area to be cut) and using mechanical means. 
Where  large  areas  are  to  be  managed,  tractor  mounted  mowers  may  be  the  only  viable  option,  but 
machinery used in cutting can damage fragile ground, such as the peats of wet heath. To avoid excessive 
damage,  cutting  should  be  carried  out  in  drier  months  of  summer,  but  this  should  be  after  the  bird 
nesting season, not before mid-July (to be assessed in the field). However, this may be in conflict with the 
fact that heather regeneration is usually better after a spring cut (Backshall et al. 2001).  

If cutting is carried out when the ground is still wet, vehicles will need to have low ground pressure tyres 
and monitoring will be essential to ensure that recovery of wet heath species has occurred post cutting.   
Removal  of  all  cuttings  may  increase  the  speed  of  regeneration  but  it  is  not  essential  to  maintain  the 
habitat (Stainer, pers. comm.). 

Cutting  is  more  expensive  than  burning,  but  in  some  particular  cases,  the  sale  of  cut  heather  for 
commercial purposes can reduce the cost (North York Moors National Park 1991). Also heather foraging 
may be used for heathland restoration projects, with the cuttings sold to the receptor project. Note that 
foraging will need to be carried out when there will be mature seed available in autumn/early winter. 

Recommendations concerning heather cutting in UK (Backshall et al. 2001) 

•  Plan a programme of cutting 
•  Avoid cutting during the main bird-nesting season 
•  Regeneration is generally better after spring rather than autumn cutting 
•  Consider removing cuttings for more rapid regeneration (Stainer, pers. comm.) 

13

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Grazing combined with controlled burning and complementary cutting 

For  south-west  Sweden,  a  different  management  approach  is  used.  The  main  concept  is  grazing  in 
combination  with  recurrent  burning,  and  it  is  recommended  that  the  historical  land-use  traditions 
regarding the grazing regime are followed. Complementary cutting of overgrowth and more occasional 
burning may be considered as additional measures, if needed. This should be decided on a site-by-site 
basis (Naturvårdsverket 2005, Larsson 2007). A higher grazing pressure during late autumn (as well as in 
winter if practically possible) and early spring is recommended in order to reduce the re-growth of young 
trees and bushes and the litter layer. In the summer, a lower grazing pressure is thought to be beneficial 
in order to allow flowering of important nectar and pollen sources of host plants. This management is 
thought  to  reflect  the  traditional  management  system  where  winter  grazing  was  common  (Larsson 
2007). 

The use of fire as a tool to maintain the conservation values associated with both wet and dry heaths is 
seen as essential in Sweden (Larsson 2007), and in accordance with traditional land-use. This is however 
not uncontrolled burning but recurring prescribed burning in the spring. Ideally, burning takes place in 
small sections so that the site contains a mosaic of successional stages from newly burnt areas to areas 
with old heather. 

Done properly, it creates a varied vegetation structure and a diverse flora and fauna, and it is probably a 
more  important  disturbance  factor  than  grazing.  The  cessation  of  burning,  however,  tends  to  result  in 
homogenous vegetation dominated by ericoid species and a reduced diversity of species. For example, 
many of the species on the national red list and associated with heathlands have responded positively to 
this  management,  and  the  lack  of  burning  is  believed  to  be  one  of  the  most  important  factors  in  the 
decline of threatened species such as Gentiana pneumonanthe (marsh gentian) and alcon blue Maculinea 
alcon (Appelqvist & Bengtsson 2007). 

Also in Belgium and the Netherlands, burning is considered to be an important management tool for wet 
heath, when carried out under controlled conditions, and should be used when appropriate (Kvamme et 
al. 2004). 

Scrub removal and Sod cutting 

Cutting of trees and shrubs may be required when grazing is not sufficient, to ensure that scrub does not 
come  to  dominate  the  habitat.  More  important  however  is  sod  cutting.  This  was  and  is  a  traditional 
management  technique  for  heathland,  including  wet  heath.  It  was  used  formerly  as  part  of  the 
agricultural  use  of  wet  heath  for  animal  bedding  and  fuel;  now  it  is  used  as  a  means  to  maintain 
conditions for pioneer vegetation belonging to the wet heath complex. Sod cutting is not only applied as 
a means to restore degraded wet heath (overgrown by Molinia), but also on a small scale, and by hand, to 
maintain the different successional stages of wet heath. 

Habitat Restoration 

Generally,  it  is  of  higher  nature  conservation  priority  and  most  cost-effective  to  concentrate  effort  on 
restoration by improving the condition of degraded heaths, rather than trying to re-create it where it has 
completely  disappeared  (Thompson  et  al.  1995).  Also  important  will  be  connectivity  to  wet  heaths  in 
good  condition;  the  closer  the  restoration  project  is  to  favourable  wet  heath,  the  more  likely  species 
dispersal will occur into the restored area. 

The  first  step  will  be  the  reduction/removal  of  the  cause  of  habitat  degradation.  This  may  involve 
removal of excessive nutrients or restoring the hydrological regime. Sod removal has been carried out to 
reduce  nutrient  levels  with  varying  degrees  of  success.  A  study  in  Belgium  succeeded  with  wet  heath 
restoration  when  soil  (peat)  and established  vegetation  were  removed,  rather  than  just mowed, which 
had  little  impact  on  restoration.  The  authors  found  that  peat  removal  reduced  cover  of  the  dominant 
Molinia and enabled establishment of Erica tetralix and other wet heath species (Jacquemart et al. 2003).  

Another study in the Netherlands found that restoration of wet heath by sod cutting was hampered by 
raised  levels  of  ammonium  ions  originating  both  from  aerial  deposition  of  nitrogen  and  from 

14

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
mineralization  of  organic  material  (Dorland  et  al.  2003).  Also  in  the  Netherlands,  experimentation  with 
lime  addition  on  wet  heath  for  restoration  purposes  are  being  carried  out.  The  aim  is  to  raise  soil  pH, 
which speeds up the conversion of soil ammonium (which at high levels is toxic) into nitrate by microbial 
nitrification, a process inhibited by soil acidity (Dorland et al. 2005). However, this should not be applied 
‘automatically’  and  ‘everywhere’,  but  only  restrictively  and  on  a  site-specific  basis  (e.g.  in  terms  of  an 
impact analysis). Some wet heath types, which have low species richness, have very acid soil conditions 
naturally. The cation exchange capacity of these soils is very low and will not be increased permanently 
by a once-only liming. An analysis of the site conditions is necessary before using this technique. 

Wet heath is reliant on a high water table and degradation may have been a result of the drying of the 
habitat,  due  to  drainage.  Re-establishing  the  hydrological  regime  will  be  vital  for  success,  such  as 
applying  sluice  gates  or  damming  ditches,  allowing  water  to  stay  in  the  system  for  longer  and  re-
establishing the natural level of the water table.  

Where  soil  removal  is  the  best  option  for  restoration,  seed  application  of  favourable  species  may  be 
required,  and  has  been  shown  to  have  success  in  restoration  projects  (Pywell  et  al.  1995).  This  will  be 
important where no seed bank remains, which should be examined as part of a restoration project before 
carrying  out  any  seed  addition.  Seeds  can  be  obtained  from  adjacent  seed-bearing plants  or  local  wet 
heath  communities.  A  forage  harvester  or  flail  mower  and  baler  can  be  used  where  conditions  are 
suitable (e.g. relatively flat, no boulders, not too wet) and this material is normally applied at about 600 g 
per m². Collecting seed, litter and soil from areas of wet heath, either by hand or an industrial vacuum 
cleaner  can  provide  an  alternative  source  of  seed.  This  material  is  usually  spread  at  the  lower  rate  of 
about 200 g per m². If storage of either type of material is required, it should be dried first. (Backshall et al. 
2001).  The  different  equipment  that  can  be  used 
found  at 
http://www.floralocale.org/content.asp?did=24045.  

for  harvesting  seed  can  be 

Indicators of restoration success on areas of upland wet heath in UK (DEFRA 2005a) 

• No burning of the area of recovering dwarf shrub heath. No-burn areas should be incorporated 

into future management plans (Stainer, pers comm.). 

• Between  February  and  April  no  more  than  33%  of  Heather  shoots  should  show  evidence  of 

grazing.  

By year 5  

• Less than 10% of bog-mosses (Sphagnum) should be damaged or dead.  
• Flowering Heather plants should be frequent between July and September.  
• Dwarf shrubs should be at least frequent.  
• The cover of scattered scrub should be less than 20%.  
• The cover of Bracken should be less than 10%.  
• The cover of invasive weeds such as Rhododendron, Creeping and Spear Thistle, docks, should 

be less than 1%.  

• The area of disturbed bare ground should be less than 10%.  

By year 10  

• At least 2 dwarf shrub species should be frequent.  
• The  cover  of  dwarf  shrubs  should  be  up  to  75%  or  have  increased  by  at  least  20%.  Heather 
should have a diverse age range, with pioneer stage plants covering between 25% and 50% of 
the area and mature/degenerate plants covering at least 10% 

Other relevant measures 

Monitoring 

It  is  vital  that  monitoring  is  carried  out  on  the  North  Atlantic  wet  heaths,  as  it  will  assess  whether 
management  being  carried  out  is  maintaining  the  nature  conservation  interest  found  within  the  wet 

15

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
heath community. More importantly, it will identify when and where degradation is occurring, alerting 
site managers to assess management needs. 

Monitoring  on  wet  heath  will  need  to  assess  habitat  features  such  as  the  composition,  cover  and 
structure of the vegetation, which in wet heaths can be very variable (JNCC 2006). According to the JNCC 
common standards monitoring (CSM) guidance, vegetation height is usually 10 - 30 cm, and more rarely 
50  cm  or  more  where  protected  from  grazing  and  burning.  Other  features  highlighted  in  terms  of 
monitoring include: 

• 
• 

There tends to be a mixture of dwarf-shrubs, graminoids, bryophytes and lichens.  
The  presence  of  Erica  tetralix  at  high  frequencies  is  one  of  the  few  characteristics  which 
seem to be common to most forms of this feature.  

•  Calluna  vulgaris,  Molinia  caerulea,  Trichophorum  cespitosum  and  Sphagnum  spp.  are  often 
present and sometimes abundant, but relative dominance is influenced by management. 

The following table is taken from the Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Upland habitats in UK 
– wet heath (JNCC 2006). 

Table 1.  Methods of assessments for wet heath in UK (JNCC 2006) 

Mandatory 
attributes 
Feature extent 

Targets 

Method of assessment / Comments 

1) There should be no measurable decline, in 
the area of the feature. 

Field comparison with baseline map of 
features, or occurrence of feature at 
sample points on a systematic sample 
grid. 

Vegetation composition 
— frequency of 
indicator species 
Vegetation composition 
— cover. 

(1) Erica tetralix should be present within a 20 
m radius of the centre of the quadrat. 

Target (1) assessed against visual estimate 
up to 20m from centre of the quadrat. 

(1) At least 50% of vegetation cover should 
consist of species which indicate wet heath 
(as listed in the guidance) and at least 20% of 
the vegetation cover should consist of ericoid 
species*. 

(2) Less than 20% of vegetation cover should 
be made up of scattered native trees and 
scrub. Qualifiers: For target (2) exclude Betula 
nana and Myrica gale. 

(3) Less than 10% of vegetation cover should 
be made up of bracken. 

(4) Less than 1% of vegetation cover should 
be made up of non-native species. 

(5) Less than 1% of vegetation cover should 
consist of, collectively, Agrostis capillaris, 
Holcus lanatus, Phragmites australis, 
Ranunculus repens. 

(6) Less than 10% of the vegetation cover 
should consist of Juncus effusus. 

(7) None of the following should make up 
more than 75% of vegetation cover: (a) 
dwarf-shrubs; or (b) graminoids. 

Targets (1 and 7) assessed against visual 
estimate at 4 m2 scale. 

Targets (2-4) assessed against visual 
estimate for as much of the feature as is 
visible while standing at a sample location.

Targets (5 and 6) assessed at two scales, 
and should be met at 
both scales: 
(a) Against visual estimate at 4 m2 scale; 
and 
(b) Against visual estimate for as much of 
the feature as is visible while standing at a 
sample location. 

* For the purposes of this recording 
Empetrum should be regarded as ‘ericoid’.

Monitoring protocols such as the JNCC models are set as generic assessments for high quality sites. For 
monitoring restoration programmes the Defra model could be used (DEFRA 2005a).  

For  Sweden,  it  is  proposed  that  the  following  criteria  are  investigated  for  the  evaluation  of  the 
conservation status of a specific site (e.g. Naturvårdsverket 2005): 

16

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  The surface area (in hectares), which should meet the definition of 'Northern Atlantic wet heaths'. 
•  The percentage of well-managed or well-grazed heath. 
•  Canopy coverage of trees and scrubs (typical target is ca 1%, but with a wide range between sites, 

and an upper target of 30%). 

A minimum percentage of monitored study plots will have vascular plants characteristic of the habitat 
(examples of species proposed to be selected for single sites are Erica tetralix, Gentiana pneumonanthe, 
Lycopodiella inundata and Pedicularis sylvatica). 

Site  specific  monitoring  protocols  rather  than  generic  models  could  be  developed,  which  take  into 
account what is present on a particular site and what the nature conservation objectives are for that site. 
These measures of success can be tailored to suit sites, which may differ significantly across the natural 
range (Hurford and Schneider 2006). 

Special requirements driven by relevant species 

In general, the correct management of wet heaths such as extensive grazing, some minimal burning and 
cutting when required will be sufficient to maintain the important species associated with the habitat. 
However, all species have particular requirements and the specifics for three species are given below as 
examples. The key for most rare species will be to get grazing levels right to ensure a varied mosaic of 
habitat from open ground, dwarf shrub cover to some scattered scrub. 

Tetrao tetrix 

Over-frequent  moorland  burning  and  overgrazing  can  affect  the  habitat,  leading  to  the  formation  of 
impoverished  acidic  grasslands  and  resulting  in  the  loss  of  key  food  plants  (Thom  &  Court  2000, UKBP 
2008a), but the main threats to the species linked to management are connected with the regulation of 
the grazing inside the habitat. 

•  Overgrazing:  the  management  indications  of  grazing  for  the  benefit  of  the  black  grouse  are  the 
same  as  for  the  heathland  habitat  itself.  Heavy  grazing,  especially  along  the  lower  edge  of  the 
moor, not only erodes the heather line, but it produces a short turf without the cover and food of 
tall  grasses  and  herbs  (Black  Grouse  UK  2008).  In  addition,  the  reproduction  areas  of  the  black 
grouse  may  need  to  be  excluded  from  grazing  to  avoid  damages  to  the  eggs  and  to  chicks 
between  April  and  July,  although  extensive  grazing  will  usually  produce  suitable  breeding 
conditions. 

Coenagrion mercuriale 

A  lack  of  appropriate  levels  of  grazing  to  maintain  open  habitat,  lack  of  ditch  management  to  ensure 
water levels are maintained, and deepening of water channels resulting in loss of suitable habitat due are 
the key issues in terms of site management for southern damselfly (UKBP 2008b, Hampshire Biodiversity 
Partnership 2000). 

•  Undergrazing and overgrazing: both these management issues can affect the survival of southern 
damselfly.  Sites  need  a  certain  level  of  poaching  of  flush  areas,  preferably  by  cattle  (although 
ponies  are  also  important).  Sites  thus  need  to  be  in  active  grazing  management,  particularly  in 
order  to  control  the  dominance  of  purple  moor  grass  and  black  bog  rush,  western  gorse  and 
willow scrub (Devon Biodiversity Action Plan 2005). A balance in grazing is required, as too much 
poaching will lead to the loss of food plants. 

• 

Site  hydrology:  a  need  for  shallow,  open  water  streams  (runnels)  is  vital  for  this  species  survival 
(Devon Biodiversity Action Plan 2005). If areas become overgrown and potentially dry up through 
lack of management (grazing etc.), or dry up due to water extraction, this will lead to the loss of 
this species. 

17

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Maculinea alcon 

The alcon blue butterfly and its host species Gentiana pneumonanthe (marsh gentian) are declining in all 
parts  of  their  European  distribution  range.  In  Sweden,  both  species  are  associated  with  wet  heath 
mosaics influenced by grazing and burning that help to maintain suitable "micro-habitats" for the host 
ant species (Appelqvist & Bengtsson 2007). 

•  Undergrazing  and  overgrazing:  Lack  of  grazing  has  led  to  the  scrubbing  over  of  suitable  open 
heathland resulting in a change of ant species communities and unfavourable conditions for both 
marsh  gentian  and  alcon  blue.  Active  afforestation  has  had  the  same  effect.  Overgrazing  in  the 
summer on the other hand, has in some places, led to a severe reduction in the number of stems 
of  marsh  gentian.  The  number  of  suitable  egg  laying  sites  for  the  alcon  blue  has  thus  been 
reduced. 

• 

Lack of burning: The marsh gentian is a perennial plant species able to survive for a long time even 
under suboptimal conditions. In the long term however, regeneration from seed is necessary. The 
marsh gentian produces a large amount of very tiny seeds unable to germinate in a closed sward 
of grasses or dwarf shrubs. Burning seems to be the most important factor for creating patches of 
bare ground suitable for germination.  

Cost estimates and potential sources of EU financing 

In  the  UK  the  biodiversity  partnership  estimates  that  the  overall  cost  of  maintaining  and  enhancing 
existing  heathland  at  approximately  £95  (approx.  €126  in  February  2008)  per  hectare,  per  year,  up  to 
2010.  The  data  are  based  on  targets  where  58,000  hectares  of  existing  heathland  habitat  will  be 
appropriately maintained and improved and 6,000 hectares of heathland will be re-established through 
to 2010 (UKBP 2008d).  

A guide to payments for upland and lowland heathland from Environmental Stewardship programme in 
England  is  given  below.  These  are  based  on  management  of  good  quality  sites,  which  has  been 
developed  in  light  of  the  EU  Common  Agricultural  Policy  reform  to  single  farm  payments  and  cross-
compliance. 

Table 2. Extracted from Higher Level Stewardship: Payments for Land Management Options, Supplements and 
Capital Items (DEFRA 2005b) 

MOORLAND AND UPLAND ROUGH GRAZING OPTIONS 
Maintenance of moorland 
Restoration of moorland 
Creation of Upland heathland 
Maintenanace of rough grazing for birds 
Restoration of rough grazing for birds 
Shepherding supplement 
Seasonal livestock exclusion supplement 
Moorland  re-wetting supplement 
Supplement for management of heather, gorse and grass by 
burning, cutting or swiping 
LOWLAND HEATHLAND OPTIONS 
Maintenance of lowland heathland 
Restoration of heathland from neglected sites 
Restoration of forestry areas to lowland heathland 
Creation of lowland heathland from arable or 
improved grassland 
Creation of lowland heathland on worked mineral sites 

Payments. £/ha (€/ha, February 2008) 
40 (52) 
40 (52) 
60 (78) 
80 (104) 
80 (104) 
5 (7) 
10 (13) 
10 (13) 
7 (9) 

200 (260) 
200 (260) 
200 (260) 
450 (585) 

150 (195) 

For  Sweden,  the  current  approximate  compensation 
levels  (February  2008)  within  the  agri-
environmental scheme is €120-270/ha for grazing and €120-380/ha for mowing, with the highest level 
for  sites  of  high  conservation  value.  Also,  landowners  may  in  certain  cases,  qualify  for  a  maximum 
compensation of around €380/ha (February 2008) for restoration measures such as cutting of overgrown 
heaths and grasslands, if it is followed up by regular grazing or mowing. 

18

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A further breakdown of the costs associated with heathland management is given below. These are just 
estimates as costs will vary both from place to place and by project. The prices below will however give a 
guideline. 

Management of grazing 

The  following  costs  are  from  a  local  government  authority  site  manager  in  the  UK  who  manages  a 
lowland heathland site, which give a guide to site management costs in 2008 (Barnett, pers. comm.): 

standard stock fencing - £3.50 - £4 (€4.60 – 5.20 ) per metre. 

• 
•  Annual maintenance costs of fencing per metre – approx. £0.50 (€0.65) per metre 
•  Water supply - depends on the works the water Company will have to do i.e. distance of trough 

from mains supply etc. (£1 (€1.3) per metre as a rough rule). 

•  Water troughs - £35 (€46, 3ft) to £100 (€130, 10ft), installation by qualified plumber c. £100 
• 

Stock checking – employment of someone to do the daily checks, deal with vets, supplementary 
feeding and worming off-site and move livestock about - cost (incl. anticipated vets fees/worm 
counts) per animal for Exmoor ponies – approx. £500 (€650)/yr; Cattle – no data, but will most 
likely be in the same price range. 
To buy livestock for a site – no data - price of livestock varies. 
'Lay off land' - lease - £400 (€520)/month. 

• 
• 

Wet heath sites may need to be left ungrazed in the winter, so costs of moving and/or over-wintering 
animals in sheds and feeding will be incurred if the landowner/project owns the animals.  

Cutting 

If cutting is required for management through lack of grazing or as additional managment, the following 
is given as guideline, which is taken from the same source as the grazing information above from the UK 
(Barnett, pers. comm.): 

• £250 – 300 (€325 – 390)/hectare for foraging heather cuttings. 
• £150 (€195)/hectare grassland mowing. 

Costs  can  be  reduced,  if  there  are  large  areas  to  be  cut  in  one  section  -  £200-250  (€260-325)/ha  for 
foraging  heather  and  £75  (€98)/ha  for  grassland.  Costs  may  be  off-set  by  selling  the  foragings  for 
restoration projects. 

Burning 

Estimates  on  the  area  of  heather  to  burn  varies  on  a  case  by  case,  but  a  guide  for  England  estimates 
about 2 ha per person per day, which is calculated using a speed of fire advance of about 2 m per minute, 
a  fire  width  restricted  to  30  m  and  6  hours  of  actual  burning  time  in  a  day  (Backshall  et  al.  2001). 
Therefore the cost of burning is relatively cheap and corresponds to the cost of the manpower. 

Habitat restoration, anti-erosion measures 

The cost of these types of actions varies according to the means to be used and products to be obtained. 
It  always  includes  the  cost  of  elaborating  a  technical  blueprint  as  well  as  the  manpower,  the  eventual 
rental and/or use of mechanical means and the cost of plants/seed to be used for re-vegetation, etc. 

19

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Bracken control  

Bracken  control  can  be  in  the  form  of  cutting,  rolling  or  spraying.  In  general,  no  control  measure  will 
remove bracken completely, but will reduce cover (Marrs et al. 1998). The following is given as guideline, 
which  is  taken  from  the  same  source  as  the  grazing  information  above  from  the  UK  (Barnett,  pers. 
comm.):. 

• Bracken  control  -  large  areas  (over  2ha.)  (using  contractor  with  Quad  bike  and  tow-behind 

applicator – roller or flail mower) - £250 (€325)/ha. 

• plus chemical (Asulox) approx. £200 (€260)/ha. 

Monitoring 

Monitoring  is  often  carried  out  by  competent  institutions,  such  as  research  bodies,  universities  or 
specialist  ecological  consultants.  The  costs  should  include  the  cost  of  the  monitoring  program,  the 
researchers  and  eventually,  of  the  equipment  for  triangulation  of  the  habitat  on  the  territory  and  for 
cartography. 

The Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) in the UK provided a costing for monitoring climate change 
on biodiversity, which included soil analysis and species monitoring (Morecroft et al. 2006).  

The  actual  work  was  not  regarding  management  practices,  but  similar  staff  input  would  be  required, 
such  as  species  surveys  and  soil  analysis.  The  table  below  shows  both  the  initial  costs  of  establishing 
monitoring at each site and ongoing costs. Monitoring at each site was estimated to cost up to £11,000 
(€14,300)  to  establish  and  £7,000(€9,100)  per  year  to  operate  (costs  inclusive  of  equipment,  staff  time, 
chemical  analysis  etc.). Costs  will  vary  on a  site-by-site basis  depending  on  the  size  of  the  site  and  the 
analysis required. 

A number of assumptions were made in estimating these costs, the most important ones were that the 
cost of site-based staff is £150(€195) per day (based on information from conservation agencies) and that 
of science specialists (e.g. vegetation surveyors) is £171(€222) per day (CEH band 6 rate). These prices will 
vary,  and  the  cost  of  a  specialist  surveyor  appears  quite  low  for  this  project.  The  cost  of  a  specialist 
surveyor along with the written report could in actual fact cost up to £300 (€390) per day, with total cost 
driven by the size, quality and variation of the site and the project scope. 

Table 3. Estimated costs of measurements. Total cost, including staff time, chemical analysis and equipment, 
for each site, unless stated otherwise (taken from Morecroft et al. 2006).  

Measurement 

Climate  
Wet deposition 
Ammonia  
Soil  
Vegetation (including epiphytic 
lichens and tree growth) 

Butterflies  
Birds  
Site management  

Total nitrogen deposition 
measurement  
Total  
Additional Costs, independent 
of number of sites 
Remote sensing (all sites) 
Nitrogen deposition  
Birds  
Butterflies  
Total 

Local staff time, days 
On-going 
Initial cost 
cost per site 
per site 
1 
1 
2 
1 
1 
2 
5 
10 

1 
1 
1 

10 
4 
3 

Total cost, £ (€) 

Initial cost per 
site 
6684 (8700) 
650 (845) 
250 (325) 
750 (975) 
2000 (2600) 

150 (195) 
150 (195) 
150 (195) 

85.5 (110) 

On-going cost per site 

492 (640) 
934 (1215) 
842 (1090) 
627 (815) 
1771 (2300) 

1500 (1950) 
600 (780) 
450 (585) 

21 

22 

10870 (14140) 

7216 (9375) 

2565 (3335) 
2565 (3335) 
1710 (2223) 
885 (1150) 
7625 (10043) 

1526 (1984) 
885 (1150) 
885 (1150) 
885 (1150) 
4181 (5434) 

20

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Potential sources of EU financing 

Among  the  diverse  sources  for  EU  funding,  the  following  funds  might  primarily  be  of  interest  for  the 
management of North Atlantic wet heaths: 

•  The  European  Fund  for  Rural  Development  (EARDF):  This  program  has  a  potential  to  cover  several 
management activities that might be relevant for the wet heaths, although the measures have to be 
covered in the National Strategy and related measures Rural Development plans (RDPs) in order to 
be eligible on a national basis. However, costs for grazing of the wet heaths are mostly eligible for 
agri-environmental subsidies within this program. To some extent, necessary infra-structure, such as 
fences and shelters may also be eligible under this program. – LEADER projects may be designed to 
include management of sites in the Natura 2000 network. 

•  The  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF),  The  Cohesion  Fund  and  Interreg:  These  funds 
might  be  relevant  in  single  cases  although  activities  related  to  Natura  2000  sites  need  to  be 
integrated  in  a  broader  development  context,  and  for  ERDF  also  be  related  to  productive 
investments  (e.g.  infrastructure).  The  Interreg  approach  is  more  flexible,  but  needs  a  European 
objective  and  partnership.  Different  geographical  levels  are  defined  and  all  of  them  have  their 
specific rules, eligibility criteria and objectives. 

•  The Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+): The 'Nature' component of LIFE+ supports best 
practice  and  demonstration  projects  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  the  Birds  and  Habitats 
Directives,  but  only  exceptionally  outside  Natura  2000  sites.  The  'Biodiversity'  component  is  for 
demonstration  and 
innovation  projects,  contributing  to  the  objectives  of  the  Commission 
Communication  'Halting  the  loss  of  biodiversity  by  2010  –  and  beyond'.  Both  the  'Nature'  and 
'Biodiversity' components emphasise concrete non-recurring management actions (at least 25 % of 
the budget) and, when needed, compensation payments for restrictions in commercial land-use are 
eligible under 'Nature'. Recurring management is not eligible under LIFE+. 

To  identify  to  what  extent  management  measures  required  for  a  specific  site  are  eligible  for  financial 
support from various EU funds, further consultation of the "Financing Natura 2000 Guidance Handbook" 
(Torkler 2007) is recommended:  
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/index_en.htm 

.Furthermore an IT-tool is available on the EC web site: 
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/index_en.htm). 

In  England  the  main  source  of  funding  for  landowners  will  be  Environmental  Stewardship  and  in 
particular Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) payments (DEFRA 2005c). Success in obtaining HLS grants will 
be  driven  by  the  quality  of  the  habitat  present  on  the  land  and  the  potential  for  restoration.  In  Wales 
grants  for  farmers/landowners  are  administered  under  Tir  Gofal  and  in  Scotland  it  is  the  Rural 
Stewardship Scheme.  

Acknowledgements 

This document was elaborated by Mark Hampton (NatureBureau, UK on behalf of Ecosystems Ltd. 

The following people have kindly contributed with particularly important information and inputs for the 
elaboration of this document: Mr Mats Eriksson (MK Natur- och Miljökonsult, Sweden), Mr Simon Barnett 
(Countryside  Officer,  West  Berkshire  Council,  UK),  Mr  Ola  Bengtsson  (ecological  consultant,  Pro  Natura, 
Sweden),  Dr  Simon  Caporn  (Reader  in  Environmental  Ecology,  Department  of  Environmental  & 
Geographical Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK),  Mr Geert De Blust (Research Institute 
for Nature and Forest, Research Group Nature and Forest Management, Belgium) and Mr Simon Stainer 
(Natural England, UK). 

Kerstin Sundseth (Ecosystems) revised the final draft. 

21

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. References 

Case studies and practical examples 

DEFRA. - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2007a. Environmentally and Economically 
Sustainable  Grazing  on  Heather  Moorland  –  an  overview.  Project  number  BD1228.  Project  funded  by 
DEFRA, English Nature and Countryside Council for Wales, UK. 
http://www.defra.gov.uk/science/Project_Data/DocumentLibrary/bd1228/bd1228_6944_FRA.pdf.  

DEFRA.  2007b.  Determining  Environmentally  Sustainable  and  Economically  Viable  Grazing  Systems  for 
the  Restoration  and  Maintenance  of  Heather  Moorland  in  England  and  Wales.  A  Project  funded  by 
DEFRA, English Nature and Countryside Council for Wales. Grazing Regime Evaluation Case Study: Site 1 - 
Ashtrees Dipper, Northumberland, UK. 
 http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=bd1228_6967_FRA.pdf  

DEFRA.  2007c.  Determining  Environmentally  Sustainable  and  Economically  Viable  Grazing  Systems  for 
the  Restoration  and  Maintenance  of  Heather  Moorland  in  England  and  Wales.  A  Project  funded  by 
DEFRA, English Nature and Countryside Council for Wales. Grazing Regime Evaluation Case Study: Site 10 
– Exmoor, Devon, UK. 
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=bd1228_6958_FRA.pdf 

Forestry Commission, Scotland. 2008. Kinloch and Kyleakin Hills: UK. Natura 2000 networking programme 
- site management case studies. March 2008. 
http://www.natura.org/natura2000management/uk_kinloch_kyleakin_hills.html  

JNCC - Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 2008a. Habitat Account for Annex 1 habitat 4010 with case 
studies, taken from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee website March 2008: 
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/ProtectedSites/SACselection/habitat.asp?FeatureIntCode=H4010  

European and national guidelines 

EC 2007. Interpretation manual of European Union habitats. EUR 27, July 2007. European Commission DG 
Environment, Nature and Biodiversity. 

Gaudillat,  V.  &  Haury,  J.  (eds.)  2002.  "Cahiers  d'habitats"  Natura  2000,  Connaissance  et  gestion  des 
habitats et des espèces d'intérêt communautaire. Tome 3 – Habitats humide. MATE/MAP/MNHN. Éd. La 
Documentation française, Paris. 457 pages  
http://natura2000.environnement.gouv.fr/habitats/cahiers.html.  

HC  -  Heritage  Council.  2008.  A  guide  to  habitats 
http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/publications/habitats/6.html. February 2008. 

in 

Ireland :  Heath  and  dense  bracken. 

JNCC – Joint Nature Conservation Committee 2006. Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Upland 
Habitats. http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-2237.  

JNCC 2008a. SAC Interest Features. Habitats: Northern Atlantic Wet heaths with Erica tetralix.  
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/habitat.asp?FeatureIntCode=H4010. 
2008). 

(February 

JNCC. 2008b. Annex II Species accounts. Southern Damselfly.  
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/ProtectedSites/SACselection/species.asp?FeatureIntCode=S1044.(February 
2008). 

JNCC. 2008c. SAC Interest Features. Habitats: European dry heaths.  
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/habitat.asp?FeatureIntCode=H4030. 
2008). 

(February 

22

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JNCC. 2008d. SAC Interest Features. Habitats: Blanket Bog.  
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/habitat.asp?FeatureIntCode=H7130. 
2008). 

(February 

Naturvårdsverket  1997.  Svenska  naturtyper  i  det  europeiska  nätverket  Natura  2000.  Naturvårdsverket 
Förlag, Stockholm. 

Naturvårdsverket 2005. Natura 2000, art- och naturtypsvisa vägledningar: 4010 Nordatlantiska fukthedar 
med klockljung. Naturvårdsverket, Stockholm (available via www.naturvardsverket.se). 

Påhlsson,  L.  (ed.).  1998.  Vegetationstyper  i  Norden,  3rd  ed.  –  TemaNord  1998:510,  Nordic  Council  of 
Ministers, Copenhagen. 

Torkler  P.  (ed.)  2007.  Financing  Natura  2000  Guidance  Handbook.  European  Commission.  Available  at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/index_en.htm. 

Articles and other documents 

Aerts R. 1993. Competition between dominant plant species in heathlands. In Aerts R. & Heil G.W. (eds.). 
Heathlands: Patterns and Processes in a Changing Environment, 125-151. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 

Appelqvist  T.,  &  Bengtsson,  O.  2007:  Åtgärdsprogram  för  alkonblåvinge  och  klockgentiana  2007-2011 
[Biodiversity actionplan for alcon blue and marsh gentian 2007-2011]. Swedish Environmental Protection 
agency, report 5686 

Barker C.G., Power S. A., Bell J. N. B. & Orme C. D. L. 2004. Effects of habitat management on heathland 
response to atmospheric nitrogen deposition. Biological Conservation 120 (1): 41-52. 

Bokdam  J.  & Gleichman  M.  2000.  Effects of  grazing  by  free-ranging  cattle  on  vegetation  dynamics  in  a 
continental north-west European heathland. Journal of Applied Ecology 37 (3): 415–431. 

Berry, P.M., Dawson, T.P., Harrison, P.A. and Pearson, R.G. (2002) Modelling potential impacts of climate 
change  on  the  bioclimatic  envelope  of  species  in  Britain  and  Ireland.  (In  Climate  Change  and 
Conservation 
453-462. 
Ecology 
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/49227/. (February 2008). 

Biogeography 

Special 

Global 

Issue). 

and 

(6): 

11 

Backshall J., Manley J. & Rebane M. (Eds). 2001. The Upland Management Handbook. English Nature. 

Bullock,  J.M.  &  Webb,  N.R.  1995.  Responses  to  severe  fires  in  heathland  mosaics  in  Southern  England. 
Biological Conservation 73 (3) 207-214. 

Burgess N. Ward D. Hobbs R. & Bellamy D. 1995. Reedbeds, fens and acid bogs. In: Sutherland WJ, Hill DA 
(eds) Managing Habitats for Conservation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 149-196. 

Dalton H. & Brand-Hardy R. 2003. Nitrogen: the essential public enemy. Journal of Applied Ecology 40 (5): 
771-781. 

DEFRA - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2001. Literature review of the implications 
of climate change for species, habitats and the wider UK countryside. http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-
countryside/ewd/rrrpac/lreview/09.htm. 

DEFRA 2005a. Higher Level Stewardship Handbook, with reference to indicators of success for wet heath 
restoration – Appendix 1 moorland and upland options. 
http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/hls/handbook/options/hl10.htm.  

DEFRA  2005b.  Higher  Level  Stewardship  Payments  for  Land  Management  Options,  Supplements  and 
Capital Items. http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/hls/default.htm.  

23

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DEFRA 2005c. Higher Level Stewardship Handbook.  
http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/hls/handbook/default.htm.  

Devon  Biodiversity  Action  Plan.  2005.  Devon  Biodiversity  Action 
http://www.devon.gov.uk/dbap-insect-damselfly.pdf.  

for  Southern  Damselfly. 

Dorland E., Bobbink R., Messelink J. H. & Verhoeven J. T. A. 2003. Soil ammonium accumulation after sod 
cutting hampers the restoration of degraded wet heathlands Journal of Applied Ecology 40 (5): 804–814. 

Dorland E., van den Berg L.J.L., Brouwer E., Roelofs J.G.M. & Bobbink R. 2005. Catchment liming to restore 
degraded, acidified heathlands and moorland pools. Restoration Ecology 13 (2): 302-311. 

English Nature. 2004. A statement of English Nature’s views about the management of Wetley Moor Site 
of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). 
http://www.staffsmoorlands.gov.uk/downloads/Wetley_Moor_VAM_AppE.doc.  

Gimingham C.H. 1972. Ecology of Heathlands. London, Chapman and Hall. 

Gimingham  C.H.  1992.  The  Lowland  Heathland  Management  Handbook.  English  Nature  Science.  8. 
English Nature (Natural England), Peterborough. 

Hampshire  Biodiversity  Action  Partnership  2000.  Species  Action  Plan  for  Southern  Damselfly. 
http://www.hampshirebiodiversity.org.uk/pdf/PublishedPlans/SouthernDamselflyjjDTP.pdf. 

Hardtle W., Niemeyer M., Niemeyer T., Assmann T. & Fottner S. 2006 Can management compensate for 
atmospheric nutrient deposition in heathland ecosystems? Journal of Applied Ecology 43 (4): 759–769. 

Hurford  C.  &  Schneider  M.  2006.  Monitoring  nature  conservation  in  cultural  habitats:  A  practical  guide 
and case studies. Springer. Netherlands. 

Jacquemart A-L., Champluvier D. & De Sloover J. 2003.  A test of mowing and soil removal techniques in 
wet heaths of the high Ardennes, Belgium. Wetlands. Vol. 23 (2): 376-385. 

Kvamme  M.,  Kaland  P.E.  &  Brekke  N.  2004.  Conservation  and  management  of  North  European  coastal 
heathlands. Case study: The Heathland Centre, Western Norway. HEATHGUARD, The Heathland Centre, 
Norway. 

Larsson, K. 2007: Åtgärdsprogram för västsvenska ljunghedar [Biodiversity Action Plan for West swedish 
heathlands]. Swedish Environmental Protection agency, in prep. 

Luxmoore, R. & Fenton, J. 2005: The role of large herbivores in shaping the upland landscape of Britain. 
What does the science of herbivore ecology tell us? Report of a seminar at Battelby, Perth, Scotland, 16th 
February 2005. The National Trust for Scotland. 

Marrs  R.H.,  Johnson  S.W.  &  Le  Duc  M.G.  1998.  Control  of  bracken  and  restoration  of  heathland.  VI.  The 
response of bracken  fronds to  18 years  of  continued  bracken control or 6 years  of control  followed  by 
recovery. Journal of Applied Ecology 35 (4): 479-490.  

MF-  Moors  for  the  Future  2006.  Upland  ecosystem  service  conference  presentations  on  the  web. 
http://www.moorsforthefuture.org.uk/mftf/research/conference_2006.htm (February 2008). 

Millsop, C. 2008. A DARD adviser’s perspective on the Countryside Management Scheme. 
Department 
http://www.teagasc.ie/publications/2004/20041103/paper04.htm. (February 2008). 

Development 

Agriculture 

(DARD), 

Rural 

and 

of 

Northern 

Ireland. 

Morecroft  M.,  Sier  A.R.J,  Elston  D.A.,  Nevison  I.M.,  Hall  J.R.,  Rennie  S.C.,  Parr  T.W.  &  Crick  H.Q.P.  2006. 
Targeted  Monitoring  of  Air  Pollution  and  Climate  Change  Impacts  on  Biodiversity.  Final  report  to 
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Countryside Council for Wales and English Nature 
(CR0322). 

24

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
North York Moors National Park (United Kingdom) 1991. Moorland management programme. Helmsley. 

Pywell  R.F.,  Webb  N.R.  &  Putwain  P.D.  1995.  A  comparison  of  techniques  for  restoring  heathland  on 
abandoned farmland. Journal of Applied Ecology. 32 (2): 400-411. 

Rodwell  J.s.  (Ed.)  1991.  British  Plant  Communities,  Volume  2:  Mires  and  heaths.  Cambridge  University 
Press, Cambridge. 

Schaminée  J.H.J.  Weeda  E.J.    &  Westhoff  V.  1995.  De  vegetatie  van  Nederland.  Deel  2.  Opulus  Press, 
Uppsala, Leiden. 

Sergio C. & Draper D. 2002. How to evaluate species when distribution is poorly understood. The use of 
predictive studies for Iberian bryophytes. Portugaliae Acta Biologica 20: 37-48. 

Terry A.C., Ashmore M.R. Power S.A.  Allchin E.A. & Heil G. 2004. Modelling the impacts of atmospheric 
nitrogen deposition on Calluna-dominated ecosystems in the UK. Journal of Applied Ecology 41: 897-909. 

Thom T. & Court I. 2000. Nature in the Dales – a biodiversity action plan for the Yorkshire Dales National 
Park. Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority. 

Thompson D.B.A., MacDonald A.J. & Hudson P.J. 1995. Upland Moors and Heaths. In: Sutherland WJ, Hill 
DA (eds) Managing Habitats for Conservation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 84–99. 

Tubbs, C. R. 2001: The New Forest. New Forest Ninth Centenary Trust, New Forest Museum, Lyndhurst, 
Hampshire, England 

Tucker, G. 2003. English Nature Research Report 550. Research Information Note. Review of the impacts 
of heather and grassland burning in the uplands on soils, hydrology and biodiversity.  
http://www.english-nature.org.uk/pubs/publication/PDF/rin550.pdf 

UKBP  –  UK  Biodiversity  Project.  2008a.  Species  Action  Plan  for  Tetrao  tetrix  (black  grouse). 
http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=596. (February 2008). 

UKBP  –  UK  Biodiversity  Project.  2008b.  Species  Action  Plan  for  Coenagrion  mercuriale  (southern 
damselfly). http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=231. (February 2008). 

UKBP  –  UK  Biodiversity  Project.  2008c.  Species  Action  Plan  for  Plebejus  argus  (silver  studded  blue). 
http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=522. (February 2008). 

UKBP  –  UK  Biodiversity  Project.  2008d.  Habitat  Action  Plan 
http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=231. (February 2008). 

for  Lowland  Heathland. 

UKBP  –  UK  Biodiversity  Project.  2008e.  Habitat  Action  Plan 
http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=16. (February 2008). 

for  Upland  Heathland. 

Webb N. 1998. The traditional management of European heathlands. Journal of Applied Ecology. 35: 987-
990. 

Documents on the web: 

Black  Grouse  UK  2008.  Website  information  regarding  black  grouse,  in  support  of  the  UK  biodiversity 
action plan. http://www.blackgrouse.info/index.htm. (February 2008). 

Maes  D.,  Van  Dyke  H.  &  Vanreusel  W.  2008.  A  species  action  plan  for  the  threatened  Alcon  Blue 
(Maculinea 
http://www.english-
nature.org.uk/heathlands/network/pdf/maes.pdf. (February 2008). 

Belgium). 

Flanders 

(north 

alcon) 

in 

25

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Projects: 

Life  Nature  Project.  LIFE06  NAT/B/000091.  Rehabilitation  of  heaths  and  mires  on  the  Hautes-Fagnes 
Plateau; Belgium. 2007-2011.  
http://biodiversite.wallonie.be/offh/LIFEPLTHAUTESFAGNES/.  

Life  Nature  Project.  LIFE04  NAT/BE/000010.  Habitat  restoration  in  Landschap  De  Liereman;  Belgium. 
2004-2009. http://www.natuurpunt.be/default.aspx. 

Life  Nature  Project.  LIFE04  NAT/NL/000206.  From  Degraded  to  Active  Raised  Bogs:  pSCI  Bargerveen; 
Netherlands. 2003-2006. http://www.bargerveen.info/.  

Life  Nature  Project.  LIFE06  NAT/NL/000075.  From  Degraded 
Engbertsdijksvenen; Netherlands. 2003-2006.  

to  Active  Raised  Bogs:  pSCI 

Life  Nature  Project.  LIFE02  NAT/B/008595.  Minerotrofic  mires  and  heath  ecosystems 
Zuiderkempen; Belgium. 2002-2006. http://www.natuurpunt.be/default.aspx 

in  the 

Life  Nature  Project. 
heathlands in Dorset; United Kingdom. 2001-2005.  
http://www.dorsetforyou.com/index.jsp?articleid=3310.  

  LIFE00  NAT/UK/007079.  Combatting  urban  pressures  degrading  European 

Life  Nature  Project.  LIFE99  NAT/B/006298.  Intermediate  Atlantic  heathlands  in  the  Flanders;  Belgium. 
1999-2003. http://www.natuurpunt.be/.  

Life  Nature  Project.  LIFE99  NAT/NL/006280.  Restoration  programme  of  the  Fochteloërveen  raised  bog; 
Netherlands. 1999-2003.  
http://www.natuurmonumenten.nl/natmm-internet/natnh/websites.jsp.  

Life Nature Project. LIFE97 NAT/UK/004242. Securing Natura 2000 objectives in the New Forest; United 
Kingdom. 1997-2001. 

26