Evaluation of implementation process and results (03/2026)

Key messages:

1. Freshwater restoration typically unfolds over decades. Projects act as stepping stones within longer restoration trajectories rather than representing complete restoration efforts.

2. Across MERLIN cases, actors articulated long- term visions to 2040–2050 and beyond, often combining biodiversity recovery with climate adaptation, water management, and regional development goals.

3. Institutional capacity, financial continuity, and monitoring stewardship appear to influence whether restoration progresses steadily or remains closely tied to individual project cycles.

4. Permitting, land access negotiations, and coordination requirements frequently require redesign or staging of measures during restoration implementation.

5. A partially completed measure may represent structured staging in programme settings but carry higher continuity risks in project-based contexts without secured follow-up.

6. Project monitoring provides early signals but cannot demonstrate long-term outcomes. Continued monitoring responsibility helps generate cumulative evidence for adaptive management.

7. Depending on context, projects may catalyse action, amplify programmes, strengthen organisational capacity, or reinforce legitimacy for restoration.

8. Projects appear more likely to support longer- term progress when responsibilities, follow-up steps, and monitoring continuation are clarified beyond the funding period.