Review of the Implementation of the Species Action Plan for the Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus Crispus 2009 - 2016
Review of the implementation of the Species Action Plan for the Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus 2009 - 2016
Report of Action A3 under the framework of Project LIFE EuroSAP (LIFE14 PRE/UK/002)
September 2016
Review of the implementation of the Species Action Plan for the Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus - 2009-2016 Hellenic Ornithological Society - Society for the Protection of Prespa
Photo cover: Panos Perantonakis / Hellenic Ornithological Society
Contributors to the SAP Implementation Review: Taulant Bino (Albanian Ornithological Society / AOS - Albania), Sebastian Bugariu (Romanian Ornithological Society / Birdlife Romania - Romania), Giorgos Catsadorakis (Society for the Protection of Prespa - Greece), Alexandru Dorosencu (Danube Delta Research and Development National Institute - Romania), Itri Levent Erkol (Doğa Derneği (BirdLife Turkey) - Turkey), Roland Lleshi (PPNEA - Protection and Preservation of Natural Environment in Albania - Albania), Tanyo Michev (Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Researches at Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Bulgaria), Ortaç Onmuş (Ege University of Turkey, Natural History Museum, Research and Application Center; Faculty of Sciences - Department of Biology - Turkey), Antonina Rudenko (Nation Natural Park "Dzharylgatsky" - Ukraine), Ivan Rusev (National Nature Park "Tuzlovsky Limany" - Ukraine), Pavel Simeonov (Foundation Le Balkan Bulgaria - Bulgaria), Sergej A. Soloviev (Omsk State University after Dostoevski - Russia), Stoycho Stoychev (Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds/BirdLife Bulgaria - Bulgaria), Vladimir V. Tarasov (Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, Ural branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences - Russia), Metodija Velevski (Macedonian Museum of Natural History - Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) and Andrej Vizi (Natural History Museum of Montenegro - Montenegro).
Note: Vladimir V. Tarasov and Sergej A. Soloviev (RU) provided two different regional reports for Russia but since no national report is available we do not have a clear picture of the implementation of the SAP at the national level. Thus, it was decided not to include Russia in the report
EuroSAP is a LIFE preparatory project, co-financed by the European Commission Directorate General for the Environment, the African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA), coordinated by BirdLife International and by each of the project partners.
Recommended citation: Catsadorakis, G. and D. Portolou (compilers) (2016) Review of the implementation of the Species Action Plan for the Dalmatian Pelican (Pelecanus crispus). Report of Action A3 under the framework of Project LIFE EuroSAP (LIFE14 PRE/UK/002). Hellenic Ornithological Society and Society for the Protection of Prespa (unpublished report).
2
Review of the implementation of the Species Action Plan for the Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus - 2009-2016 Hellenic Ornithological Society - Society for the Protection of Prespa
Contents
Background information ...... 4 Status review ...... 4 Conservation Status ...... 4 Status ...... 4 Evaluation ...... 5 Assessment of the implementation ...... 6 National and regional species action plans...... 6 Site protection ...... 6 Species conservation and site designation ...... 6 Site management ...... 7 Other conservation, research and public awareness measures ...... 8 Habitat conservation ...... 8 Power lines ...... 8 Research and monitoring populations, threats and habitats ...... 8 Research on ecological requirements of the species, threats, habitats ...... 8 Public awareness and training ...... 9 International cooperation and information exchange ...... 9 Other specific conservation measures ...... 9 Community financial support ...... 9 Other conservation projects ...... 10 Conclusions ...... 11 References ...... 13 Appendix ...... 14
3
Review of the implementation of the Species Action Plan for the Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus - 2009-2016 Hellenic Ornithological Society - Society for the Protection of Prespa
Background information
Single Species Action Plan (SSAP) published: 1996 Single Species Action Plan (SSAP) endorsed by CMS (1997), Bern Convention (1996) and EU (1995)
The European Species Action Plan for the Dalmatian Pelican (Crivelli 1996) was developed in 1994 and adopted in 1996. It has never been revised. Its implementation has been reviewed four times: in 2000 (Gallo-Orsi 2001), 2004 (Nagy & Crockford 2004), 2008 (Gallo-Orsi and Orhun 2008) and 2010 (Barov and Derhè 2011). Its geographical scope covers Montenegro, Albania, Greece, FYR of Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Russia and Turkey. All together the populations of these countries cover an unknown percentage of the global breeding population, presumably varying around 40% or even more, and c. 34% of its global wintering population. This uncertainty is due to the lack of high quality, updated information from colonies of Russia and Kazakhstan.
There have been slight differences regarding the scope of each previous evaluation, especially regarding the inclusion of Russia (Russian Federation in the past). Gallo-Orsi & Orhun (2008) have stated that they had included only the European part of the country, something not clarified enough either in the Species Action Plan itself (1996) or in subsequent evaluations. This creates some uncertainties. For example the easternmost colony included in the official geographical outline of “European Russia” (Shalkaro-Zhetykol'ski Lake system, Orenburg region, Russia, IBA RU1217) does not probably belong to the Black Sea/Mediterranean flyway but to the SW and S Asia flyway populations which overwinter in India, Pakistan and Iraq. In practice, only colonies lying west of the 42nd meridian should be considered belonging to the Black Sea –Mediterranean flyway, despite the uncertainty of the wintering sites of the birds nesting at the west of Azov Sea and Georgia.
Status review
Conservation Status In 2016 the species was classified as ‘Vulnerable’ in the global IUCN Red List (A2c,e; A3c,e; A4c,e; version 3.1, The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2016-1.
In the European Red List Assessment of 2015 the species was downgraded from ‘Vulnerable’ to ‘Least Concern’. The same holds for the EU27 Regional Assessment (BirdLife International 2015. European Red List Assessment. Pelecanus crispus. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/userfiles/file/Species/erlob/summarypdfs/22697599_pelecanus_ crispus.pdf). The species is listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive, Appendix II of the Bern and Bonn Conventions and in Annex II of AEWA.
Status The species is distributed in three separate flyways, practically isolated from each other: 1) the Black Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean flyway, 2) the Southwest Asia and South Asia flyway and 3) the East Asia flyway. The populations belonging to the Black Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean flyway are short distance migrants, wintering within a c. 1,000 km radius away from their breeding colonies. The most recent and unpublished estimation of their overall numbers (excluding juveniles) (Society
4
Review of the implementation of the Species Action Plan for the Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus - 2009-2016 Hellenic Ornithological Society - Society for the Protection of Prespa for the Protection of Prespa, unpublished) in combination with the available IWC data 2000-2016 (Wetlands International), raise the overall number to certainly more than 6,225 individuals, in contrast to the 4,350-4,800 estimated so far. The number of individuals present in SW Asia and S Asia has not been updated recently and it is still considered to be stable between 6,000-9,000 individuals (Crivelli et al. 2000) although this estimation is rather obsolete. The actual population size must be well over 13,000 individuals, since in January 2011 in only 5 different sites in Pakistan 12,656 individuals were counted (Chaudry et al. 2012). The Eastern Asian population, otherwise referred to as the Mongolian population, is not extinct and its size must be revised to at least c. 100 individuals according to recent surveys and data (Nyambayar 2016, pers. com. & Catsadorakis 2016, pers.obs.).
Unfortunately due to the lack of data for the SW and S Asian population the current global population of the species is impossible to be assessed reliably. The collection of recent data from the compilation of expected responses to the Status Review questionnaire in the present LIFE EuroSAP project (Action A6) will enable us to fill-in this gap.
Table 1: Breeding population estimates and trends by country for the period 2011-2012 (from: Catsadorakis et al. 2015). Years separated by dash: a population estimate exists for both years; years separated by slash: a low and high estimation is available for the specific period however it is unknown for which years exactly.
Population Previous Number Number of trend available Country Year of Census method used pairs (1990s - period colonies 2000s) estimation 2005-2007: Albania 2011 1 27 stable Nest counts via on-site visits 27 2011 / 1990-2009: Bulgaria 1 102-106 stable Nest counts from hide and on-site visit 2012 14-150
2011 / 2008: 1,150- Counts from vantage point and double- Greece 4,5 1315-1476 increasing 2012 1,300 check and count nests on-site after fledging
2011 / 2000-2010: 5- Counts from vantage point and double- Montenegro 1 16-22 stable 2012 14 check via on-site visits 2009: 312- Romania 2011 5 300-350 stable Counts from aircraft 330 2011 / 2000-2010: Turkey 6 390-440 increasing Nest counts via on-site visits 2012 220-270 1994-2009: 0- Ukraine 2010-2012 1 4-16 unknown Nest counts via on-site visits 14 Total SE Europe and 2,154-2,437 increasing 1,730-2,105
Turkey
The objectives / targets of the SAP (Crivelli 1996) had been the following: o In the short term, to prevent any further declines below 1994 levels in the population size and distribution of the Dalmatian Pelican. o In the medium to long term, to increase the population size of the Dalmatian Pelican to a level at which it no longer qualifies as a globally threatened species.
Evaluation The short term target of the plan had been achieved already since before the year 2000 and this fact has not changed since the last evaluation in 2009. The breeding population continues to increase as a whole in the geographical area covered by the SAP of 1996. The Dalmatian Pelican breeding
5
Review of the implementation of the Species Action Plan for the Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus - 2009-2016 Hellenic Ornithological Society - Society for the Protection of Prespa population in the Black Sea and Mediterranean countries increased from 1,730−2,105 pairs in the years 2000−2010 to 2,154−2,437 pairs in 2011−2012 (Catsadorakis et al. 2015) and over 2,600 pairs in 2014 (Catsadorakis 2016). However, there are no recent data for all the Russian populations, with the most recent available data referring to the year 2006 (Barov & Derhè 2011). Again it must be noted that there is uncertainty about the exact geographic range used.
Unfortunately, due to the lack of recent data for the SW and S Asian population, it is impossible to assess the global population of the species and it is expected that the Status Review questionnaire and the present SAP project will collect and compile all necessary recent data to enable us to do this. So in fact, the success of the medium and long term targets of the plan cannot currently be assessed.
Assessment of the implementation
National and regional species action plans Currently only Bulgaria (2013-2022) and Romania (2009-) have completed National Species Action Plans. In Albania a national Species Action Plan is to be published soon. A National Species Action Plan is planned to be produced in Greece within the next two years. In Montenegro there is a National Species Action Plan published but it has not been officially adopted. National working groups coordinate the activities in Greece, Albania, Montenegro, Bulgaria and Romania. In the long run, the situation with respect to the coordination of pelican actions in Turkey is uncertain. In general it is not clear to what extent these action plans are officially adopted and the degree of implementation varies, nevertheless it seems to be satisfactory only in Bulgaria.
An Action Plan covering globally threatened waterbirds (including the Dalmatian Pelican) has been developed by BirdLife International and its national partners in the Southern Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia) (Gallo-Orsi & Orhun 2008).
Site protection
Species conservation and site designation The species is legally protected in all range states covered by the plan. Catching of chicks and adults is banned everywhere except Ukraine. Shooting of pelicans, although banned has not yet been controlled effectively almost anywhere and especially in Ukraine.
Although the proportion of legal protection of crucial habitats is in general high, in practice it seems that a few sites used regularly by pelicans still remain without a protection status in Albania, Montenegro, Turkey and Ukraine.
There is still some work to be done in most countries, except Greece, Bulgaria and Romania in order to designate all key wintering, feeding and migration areas as protected areas. There are 76 IBAs designated for the species in the action plan range (+ 32 IBAs in the European part of Russia) and 54 in the EU. In Romania, Bulgaria and Greece all breeding and roosting sites are designated as IBAs and SPAs, as well as the most important (but still not all) feeding habitats.
6
Review of the implementation of the Species Action Plan for the Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus - 2009-2016 Hellenic Ornithological Society - Society for the Protection of Prespa
In Romania 29 sites hosting Dalmatian Pelicans have been designated as Natura 2000 sites, of which 5 for wintering, 1 for breeding and 28 host concentrations. In Greece 41 sites hosting Dalmatian Pelicans have been designated as Natura 2000 sites, of which 23 for wintering, 3 for breeding and 27 host concentrations. In Bulgaria 49 sites hosting Dalmatian Pelicans have been designated as Natura 2000 sites, of which 30 for wintering, 6 for breeding and 39 host concentrations.
Site management Quality of site management varies greatly between countries and between sites. It is only in the small Srebarna National Park, one of two sites where Dalmatian Pelicans nest in Bulgaria and a strict nature reserve, that a satisfactory degree of management has been achieved. Much needs to be done especially for habitat restoration and proper management of hydrological regime. The latter being a matter influenced by many factors and affected heavily by decisions of human societies living around wetlands. Chemical pollution and eutrophication seem also to be very difficult to tackle but only a few efforts have already started. As expected, in general, small and highly protected sites are better managed than very large sites hosting pelicans to the exception of the Danube Delta.
Albania: Both the Divjaka-Karavasta National park and the Prespa National Park have Management Plans. Guarding and monitoring of the pelican colony in the Karavasta lagoon is satisfactory after 2014. An artificial platform has been built in 2015 but has not been used by pelicans yet.
Bulgaria: Management of the Srebarna colony is performed through fencing, reed cutting, artificial platforms and wardening. A Management Plan is in force since 2008. There is also a Management Plan but not much information on the management of the new colony (2016) in Persina Swamp at Belene Island on the Danube River with more than 10 pairs of Dalmatian Pelican and 3-4 pairs of Great White Pelicans nesting on an artificial platform erected and maintained since 2009.
Greece: Pelican colonies are safe from human disturbance in Lake Mikri Prespa. There is still a threat to colonies from wildfires in reedbeds. Eutrophication and potential blue-green algae and cyanobacterial blooms cannot be easily coped with. In Lake Kerkini the local Management Body of the Lake Kerkini National Park looks after the elevated platforms and the nesting islands they have constructed successfully since 2003. There is a pending decision for the water level of the Karla reservoir colony which may flood the nesting islands also existing there. Inaccessibility and ban of use of boats save birds from disturbance, but eutrophication and events of cyanotoxin occurrence threaten the population. The Amvrakikos and Messolonghi colonies still suffer from disturbance by poachers and possibly by fishermen. In general in Greece shooting is still an important threat (SPP, unpublished data) while collisions with power lines are less important but still occur widely.
Romania: Little effect of the occasional reed burning in the Danube Delta on breeding colonies, but fires can harm 2 of the colonies, surrounded by reedbeds. Although banned, burning of reed in the spring is still happening and it is very difficult to control. Occasionally, the hydrological regime still has an effect on one colony located in the lagoon area. Conservation measures have been implemented through the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Management Plan. No habitat restoration has taken place since 2009 and no sites recorded that they have suffered from pollution. Dumping of residues and chemical pollution are forbidden in all the sites where the Dalmatian Pelican is present.
Montenegro: The breeding habitat at Skadar Lake has not been degraded by human activities. Traditional fishing does not pose a threat to the habitat. A water management system does not exist, although the water level is in some cases dependant on the operation of hydropower dams on Drin river in Albania. Eutrophication and pollution are present, but not assessed. Artificial
7
Review of the implementation of the Species Action Plan for the Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus - 2009-2016 Hellenic Ornithological Society - Society for the Protection of Prespa
floating rafts have increased the survival rate and significantly contributed the population progress. Rafts constructions are not durable.
Other conservation, research and public awareness measures
Habitat conservation
Power lines Interventions regarding power lines have been implemented in Bulgaria in Atanasovsko Ezero (760 bird diverters) by BSPB in 2013 and some are planned for Prespa, Greece for 2017.
Research and monitoring populations, threats and habitats Monitoring quality, intensity and coverage also varies greatly between sites and countries. It seems that pelican populations and ecological traits are monitored better and more completely than their habitat attributes and their environments (water levels and quality, prey), strikingly few information exists and monitoring carried out for their main prey (fish), while there is few work done for their dispersal and movements, except in Greece.
In general, there seems to be annual monitoring of breeding population size in the majority of sites, but there are some difficulties in Amvrakikos, Greece and Ukraine. Monitoring carried out with funding by targeted, time-restricted projects in Albania, Montenegro and Turkey is not ensured for the future except if officially adopted by some reliable entity. Monitoring in Greece is coordinated by the SPP in a partnership with the Hellenic Ornithological Society (HOS) and 12 Management Bodies of protected areas hosting pelicans.
IWC counts are regularly performed, but in some areas roost counts are not carried out. In Bulgaria the Foundation “Le Balkan” regularly monitors breeding pairs and young at Srebarna. Monitoring in Lake Skadar (Montenegro) has improved much but is not yet complete. In Albania monitoring is satisfactory in Divjaka-Karavasta colony.
Research on ecological requirements of the species, threats, habitats In Montenegro studies on hydrology have been conducted, but not recently. In addition, no direct cooperation between different organizations (e.g. hydro-meteorological institute, university, etc.) is established. Diet composition of the Dalmatian Pelican has been studied, but no recent reliable information on fish stocks is available. Mortality and morbidity causes, except some insight on climatic factors are not assessed.
In Albania there is a kind of integrated study of the ecological status of Karavasta lagoon, the sole breeding site in the country.
Monitoring of feeding habitats was carried out in 2016 in Albania, Greece and FYROM.
8
Review of the implementation of the Species Action Plan for the Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus - 2009-2016 Hellenic Ornithological Society - Society for the Protection of Prespa
In Bulgaria and Greece there is a satisfactory level of research on the ecological requirements of pelicans and the threats these and their habitats face. Is this a sign of agreement that more targeted research must be done about pelican ecology?
Public awareness and training There is equivocal agreement that there is still much space for more and more effective public awareness campaigns with respect to pelicans and more training of all those working with and monitoring pelicans.
In Greece, an effort started two years ago to train all people working in protected wetlands hosting pelicans by the SPP.
In Romania much work has been done in the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve but less so elsewhere.
In Bulgaria a live video shows the Srebarna Dalmatian Pelican Colony and BSPB’s Visitor Centre at Poda protected sites provides information on pelican ecology threats and conservation measures. Various educational activities targeting the local community take place near Burgas lakes and the Persina natural park.
In Montenegro’s Skadar Lake there are social and political difficulties in working with the local community and there have been few attempts so far to involve locals into pelican conservation within agro-, or eco -tourism activities which provide financial income.
In Albania in 2014 within the framework of the conservation project "Dalmatian Pelicans and Wetlands in the Mediterranean Basin” a Pelican Day at Divjaka-Karavasta National Park was organised, as well as Eco-tourism guide workshops and training of groups of young local bird- watchers.
International cooperation and information exchange In the past coordinating efforts were carried out by the Tour du Valat project and initiative on pelicans, which supported the activities of the WI and IUCN SSC Pelican Specialist Group chairman.
After 2010 this role is carried out by the Society for the Protection of Prespa which supports the chairman of WI and IUCN SSC Pelican Specialist Group. An e-mail list entitled 'PELECANUS' has been operating successfully since 2012 with over 60 members from 20 countries. An international workshop was organised in May 2012 in Prespa. The first pan–European Dalmatian pelican census was organised in 2016 by SPP. The few people working with pelicans in each country who have still not joined the 'PELECANUS' group are expected to join soon.
Other specific conservation measures
Community financial support After 2009 there has been only one LIFE project (LIFE08NAT/BG/000277, 2009-2012, “Life for the Bourgas Lakes”) associated (but not exclusively) with Dalmatian Pelicans in Bulgaria regarding conservation measures for the Bourgas wetlands, an important migration stop-over site.
9
Review of the implementation of the Species Action Plan for the Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus - 2009-2016 Hellenic Ornithological Society - Society for the Protection of Prespa
Constructed platforms were used by pelicans as resting sites and collision risk with power lines was reduced (total budget €1,331,254).
A new LIFE project (LIFE15 NAT/GR/000936) titled “Bird conservation in Lesser Prespa Lake: benefiting local communities and building a climate change resilient ecosystem” which targets primarily Dalmatian pelicans, among other species, is going to start soon in Lake Lesser Prespa, Greece.
Other conservation projects Greece: The SPP is performing research on breeding, feeding and migration ecology, monitoring, coordination and networking, as well as providing support to the Pelican Specialist Group chair, (c. 70.000 € per year), SPP, Greece.
Bulgaria: A very small private donor funding for Belene marshes and Persina swamp (11.000 €), BSPB, Bulgaria, has been provided.
Turkey: The project “Investigation of Population Size and Trend, Breeding Biology, Migration and Gene Flow patterns of Dalmatian Pelican in Turkey in a Conservation Perspective” (50.000 €, 2012- 2015), Ege University, Turkey, has come to an end.
Albania / Greece: The Project "Wetland Management and Dalmatian Pelican Conservation in the Mediterranean Basin" 2013-2017, (Noè Conservation-France and many other partners) with a total budget of c. 850.000 € started in 2013 in Montenegro and in 2014 in Karavasta, Albania and Kerkini, Greece.
10
Review of the implementation of the Species Action Plan for the Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus - 2009-2016 Hellenic Ornithological Society - Society for the Protection of Prespa
Conclusions In general, progress of the implementation of the Species Action Plan has been very good (Average IS=2.63, but note that in contrast to previous evaluations Russia is not included). National Implementation Scores (NIS) are highest in Bulgaria, Romania and Greece, very high in Albania and the FYR of Macedonia, medium in Turkey and low in Ukraine. All countries exhibit an increase in their national IS compared to 2010, while only Turkey shows a small decline and Greece is stable.
The Average Implementation Score has increased since 2010 in all sub-actions, apart from sub-action 1.1.2 (Establish a total ban on catching chicks or adults for zoos or tourism purposes) and 2.2.1 (Establish effective site protection for the species), thus more work is required in these two points. However, the difference can also be artificial due to inter-personal variation between national evaluators.
Figure 1. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action listed in the Dalmatian pelican species action plan. Colours represent Priority Score (High, medium, low priority).
Six years after the last assessment of the status of the species, the species continues to be increasing and we cannot but agree with Barov & Derhè’s (2011) conclusion that the continuing increase of Dalmatian pelican in Europe is both a result of enforcement of the legal protection of the species as well as rather effective protection of key sites. However, improving the protection and effective management, including monitoring and prevention of threats of all key sites, is still a high priority.
The sustainable management and use of wetlands still leaves much to be desired. Information sharing has improved much but although international cooperation has improved, there are still many things to be achieved.
Further measures and work is especially needed in the field of: . Preparation, official adoption and implementation of National Species Action Plans . Guarding of breeding colonies to protect them from disturbance . Habitat restoration and management in a few cases . Integrated water basin management (water quality and water regimes)
11
Review of the implementation of the Species Action Plan for the Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus - 2009-2016 Hellenic Ornithological Society - Society for the Protection of Prespa
. Reducing eutrophication rates . Ensuring monitoring and conservation in Albania and Turkey after the end of time-restricited projects. . Extending systematic monitoring and guarding of colonies in Ukraine . Achieve full monitoring of all breeding colonies in Russia . Expand networking and info-exchange between pelican experts to Russia . Intensify public awareness campaigns on pelicans and their habitats . Prevent collisions with structures
12
Review of the implementation of the Species Action Plan for the Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus - 2009-2016 Hellenic Ornithological Society - Society for the Protection of Prespa
References
Barov, B. & M. Derhè. 2011. Review of the Implementation of Species Action Plans for threatened Birds in the European Union, 2004-2010, Final Report. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.
Catsadorakis, G. 2016. An update of the status of the two Pelecanus species in the Mediterranean- Black Sea region. In: P. Jesou, J. Sultan, J. Walmsley, & H. Azafzaf (eds). 2016. Conservation of marine and coastal birds in the Mediterranean. Proceedings of the UNEP-MAP, RAC/SPA Symposium, 20-22 February 2015, Hammamet, Tunisia, pp. 47-53.
Catsadorakis, G., O. Onmuş, S. Bugariu, O.Gül, D. Hatzilacou, O. Hatzofe, M.Malakou, T. Michev, T. Naziridis, H. Nikolaou, A.Rudenko, D. Saveljic, S.Shumka, M. Sıkı &A.J. Crivelli. 2015. Current status of the Dalmatian Pelican andtheGreat White Pelicanin the Palearctic with emphasis on South-Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Endangered Species Research 27: 119-130.
Chaudhry, M.J.I., Arshad, M. & Akbar, G. 2012. Some Observations on Threatened and Near Threatened avifauna of Pakistan. Rec. Zool. Surv. Pakistan 21: 65-72.
Crivelli, A. J., G. Catsadorakis, D. Hatzilacou, D. Hulea, M. Malakou, M. Marinov, T. Michev, T. Nazirides, N. Peja, G. Sarigul& M. Siki. 2000. Status and population development of Great white and Dalmatian pelicans, Pelecanusonocrotalus and P.crispus breeding in the Palearctic. Medmaravis 5th Pan-Mediterranean Seabird Symposium, Malta. October 1998, pp. 38-45.
Crivelli, A. J.(compiler). 1996. Action Plan for the Dalmatian pelican (Pelecanuscrispus)in Europe BirdLife International.
Gallo-Orsi, U. & C. Orhun. 2008. Review of the implementation and the effectiveness of 15 action plans for waterbird species. Report to the AEWA Secretariat. Stichting Rubicon, AS Horn, The Netherlands.
Gallo-Orsi, U. (ed.) 2001. Saving Europe’s most threatened birds: progress in implementing European Species Action Plans, BirdLifeInternational, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Nagy, S. & N. Crockford. 2004. Implementation in the European Union of species actionplans for 23 of Europe’s most threatened birds. Report to the European Commission. Contract No B4- 3040/2003/362169/MAR. BirdLife International, Wageningen.
13
Review of the implementation of the Species Action Plan for the Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus - 2009-2016 Hellenic Ornithological Society - Society for the Protection of Prespa
Appendix
14
Review of the implementation of the Species Action Plan for the Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus - 2009-2016 Hellenic Ornithological Society - Society for the Protection of Prespa
Table 2: Implementation of the action plan in the European range states. AL = Albania, BG = Bulgaria, GR = Greece, MK = FYR of Macedonia, MNE = Montenegro, RO = Romania, TR = Turkey, UK = Ukraine PS = Priority Score; Ave. IS = Average Implementation Score; API = Action Priority Index; National IS = National Implementation Score.
Action Measure PS AL BG GR MK MNE RO TR UA Ave. IS API
To ensure the legal protection of the Dalmatian pelican, as well as its 1.1.1 4 3.5 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3.56 0.58 key breeding, wintering, feeding and migratory sites a. The species is protected by law. 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.5 4 3.94 0.08
b. All crucial habitats of the species are protected by law. 4 3 4 4 4 2 4 2.5 2 3.19 1.08
Establish a total ban on catching chicks or adults for zoos or tourism 1.1.2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 3.63 0.50 purposes Catching of chicks and adults is completely banned 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 3.63 0.50
1.1.3 Promote sustainable development in wetlands hosting pelicans 4 2 3 2.667 1.667 1 3.167 1.667 1 2.02 2.64 a. Wetland habitats protected from development, pollution, changes in 4 2 3 3 1 1 3.5 2 1 2.06 2.58 hydrological regime. b. Tourism and fishing policies include wetland conservation. 4 2 3 3 2 1 3.5 1.5 1 2.13 2.50
c. Local communities involved in the conservation and management of 4 2 3 2 2 1 2.5 1.5 1 1.88 2.83 wetlands. Establish and enhance international cooperation and information 1.1.4 2 3 2 3 3 2.5 2.75 2 1.5 2.47 1.02 exchange a. International co-operation for the conservation of trans-border 2 3 2 3 3 2 3.5 0 1 2.50 1.00 wetlands in place b. International collaboration and information exchange in place 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2.50 1.00
1.1.5 National Action Plan 2 3.667 4 1 1 2 3.167 1.5 1.333 2.21 1.19 a. National body for the compilation of an action plan established. 2 4 4 1 1 1 3.5 2 1 2.19 1.21
b. National action plan developed. 2 4 4 1 1 2 3.5 1 2 2.31 1.13
c. National action plan implemented. 2 3 4 1 1 3 2.5 0 1 2.21 1.19
2.1.1 Establish effective site protection for the species 4 3.333 2.667 3 3 2.667 3.833 2.167 1.667 2.79 1.61 a. All breeding and key wintering, feeding and migration areas have been 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 2 3 3.13 1.17 designated as protected areas
15
Review of the implementation of the Species Action Plan for the Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus - 2009-2016 Hellenic Ornithological Society - Society for the Protection of Prespa
Action Measure PS AL BG GR MK MNE RO TR UA Ave. IS API b. Implementation of hunting ban and high penalties inflicted for 4 3 2 2 3 2 3.5 2.5 1 2.38 2.17 perpetrators c. All breeding colonies declared non-intrusion zones and wardens in 4 4 3 3 0 3 4 2 1 2.86 1.52 place 2.2.1 Establish effective site management 3 1.917 3.714 2.429 2 1.667 2.3 1.667 1.5 2.15 1.85 a. Burning or cutting of reeds in spring within the breeding areas stopped 4 2 4 3 3 0 3 2.5 0 2.92 1.44
b. Habitat restoration, if needed, in key sites implemented 4 1 4 2 0 0 2 2 1 2.00 2.67
c. Hydrological regime properly managed at key sites 4 1.5 4 3 0 1 1.5 1.5 1 1.93 2.76
d. Dangerous powerlines buried or made visible to the birds to avoid 3 2 3 3 0 0 2.5 1 1 2.08 1.92 collisions. e. Artificial structures to facilitate nesting /roosting provided in protected 1 3 4 3 0 3 2.5 2 0 2.92 0.36 areas, where needed. f. Dumping of residues, chemical pollution and eutrophication stopped at 1 2 4 2 1 1 0 1 0 1.83 0.72 key sites. g. Sites that have suffered from pollution restored. 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 2.33 0.56
3.1.1 Regularly monitor population sizes, threats and habitats used 3 2.375 3.111 3 1.889 2 3.167 1.722 1.778 2.38 1.62 a. Annual monitoring of breeding numbers carried out by trained people. 4 4 4 3 3 3 3.5 3 4 3.44 0.75
b. Wintering birds counted annually at roosting sites. 4 4 4 4 3 3 3.5 2 4 3.44 0.75
c. Water levels monitored at key sites. 4 1 3 4 2 4 3.5 1.5 1 2.50 2.00
d. Water quality monitored at key sites. 4 2 3 2 2 1 3 1.5 1 1.94 2.75
e. Ecological changes monitored at key sites. 4 1 3 3 2 1 3 1.5 2 2.06 2.58
f. Effectiveness of conservation measures and management monitored. 3 3 3 3 1 1 3.5 1.5 1 2.13 1.88
g. Conservation measures modified according to their effectiveness. 3 3 3 3 1 2 3 1.5 1 2.19 1.81
h. Fishery catches monitored at key sites. 2 0 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 1.71 1.52
i. Dispersal of pelicans understood and monitored. 2 1 3 3 1 2 2.5 2 1 1.94 1.38
Study the ecological requirements of the species, the threats it faces and 3.2.1 2 1.833 3.25 3.25 2 2.25 2.25 1.5 1.5 2.23 1.18 its habitats a. Studies on hydrology, possibly at catchment level, carried out. 3 1 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 2.00 2.00
b. Existing or potential conflicts between people and pelicans identified. 1 3 3 4 3 3 2.5 2.5 3 3.00 0.33
c. Impact of pelicans on fish population and commercial fisheries 1 0 3 3 1 3 2 0 1 2.17 0.61 evaluated.
16
Review of the implementation of the Species Action Plan for the Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus - 2009-2016 Hellenic Ornithological Society - Society for the Protection of Prespa
Action Measure PS AL BG GR MK MNE RO TR UA Ave. IS API d. Research undertaken on mortality causes. 1 1.5 3 3 0 1 2.5 1 1 1.86 0.71
Inform the public and increase awareness of the need to protect DP and 4.1.1 its habitats, and adequately train those involved in the conservation of 2.5 3 1.5 2.5 2 2 2.5 1.25 2 2.09 1.59 the species a. Public awareness campaign targeting local communities, hunters, 3 3 2 3 2 2 2.5 1 3 2.31 1.69 fishermen and local authorities carried out. b. Training courses on wetland issues carried out. 2 3 1 2 2 2 2.5 1.5 1 1.88 1.42
National & Average IS 30.5 2.908 3.193 3.007 2.601 2.366 3.245 2.184 1.645 2.64
National & Average IS (2010) 2.43 3.04 2.07 2.28 2.86 2.33 1.47
17
Review of the implementation of the Species Action Plan for the Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus - 2009-2016 Hellenic Ornithological Society - Society for the Protection of Prespa
18