Background The European equine industry is very important, accounting for around 4% of total income of European agriculture and its share is growing. It includes the whole chain of racing, training and basic horse management. In 2001, there were 4.4 million horses in the EU, 11.7 horses per a thousand citizens. The majority of the enterprises in the industry, however, are small. The industry must tackle a range of problems including those resulting from animal welfare, nutrient load from pasture and grazing activity, nuisance of smell and hair to neighbours, and conflict with competing land-users. Specific welfare issues include the stress suffered by horses during transportation, sports events and the use of medicine. Horse paddocks also have an environmental impact as a result of nutrient load and horse manure, etc. A small section of the equine industry is regulated now by the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, but innovative tools are required to meet the expectations of the general public and safeguard the environment. EquineLife proposed to develop integrated management tools with a corresponding auditing scheme for equine industry in order to satisfy sustainable development objectives. Objectives The EquineLife project aimed to develop a performance model for ecologically and ethically sustainable equestrian sports. EMAS (Eco-Management and Audit Scheme) and other environmental schemes were to be used as standards in addition to considering health and safety issues. Two equestrian centres were to be introduced and officially register the EMAS. Implementation handbooks for stables and event organisers were planned based on the experiences gained from the construction of prototypes of various shelters, racing track and free running stable, as well as from participating in the organisation of two major equestrian events. Results The main achievements of the project included the EMAS registration of the two pilot equestrian centres (Equine College Ltd and MTT Equine Research). The EquineLife project also published handbooks – based on the developed performance model for ecologically and ethically sustainable equestrian sports (stables and events) – and constructed the paddock surfaces, weather shelters, running track and free running stables using environmentally sound design and materials. Though the period for testing and sampling was relatively short and only preliminary results and tentative recommendations were presented, funding for continued testing at some of the sites has been secured, which increases the viability and sustainability of the project. Results of the prototypes will furthermore be used for demonstration in the future. Locally the project is very well known and the prototypes have been extensively used for demonstration on a national scale. International outreach is modest, although contacts with international organisations (especially with the Federation International Equestrian) were established in 2007 and further steps were made to disseminate the project results in Europe. The project set some very ambitious and, when thinking back, too demanding plans (policy change) but has succeeded in introducing the discussion of environmental issues in the equestrian sector with two (first-ever) EMAS registrations. The results are also being used in several European co-operation projects, such as the Equestrian Federation of Finland and Finnish Trotting and Breeding Association, which declared 2008 as the year of equine welfare. Continued testing at all the sites was not possible and therefore the availability of long-term recommendations is limited. Local commitment level of some of the actors (SMEs)was quite low and thus further application of the system has not been secured. Finally, replication of the results and suitability of the recommendations in other EU countries is low as environmental regulations vary greatly from one state to other and there is a lack of common strategy for equestrian industry at both national and European level. The project suffered from delays from the start, partly due to numerous changes in the project team, and partly due to the complicated set-up (eight partners and binding contracts with partners who failed to deliver as agreed). Delays occurred in some of the tasks resulting in an overall delay in the completion of the final deliverables. The prototypes have been well received by the interested parties and dissemination activities were launched locally and nationally. Further information on the project can be found in the project's layman report and After-LIFE Communication Plan (see "Read more" section).