Review of the Implementation of Species Action Plans for Threatened Birds in the European Union

Review of The Implementation Of Species Action Plans for Threatened Birds in the European Union

2004-2010

FINAL REPORT

31 March 2011

Review of the implementation of species action plans of threatened birds in the European Union (2004-2010)

The present review was commissioned by the European Commission and prepared by BirdLife International as subcontractor to the “N2K Group” in the frame of Service Contract N#070307/2007/488316/SER/B2 “Technical and scientific support in relation to the implementation of the 92/43 ‘Habitats’ and 79/409 ‘Birds’ Directives”.

Compilers

Boris Barov, BirdLife International, [email protected] Mia Derhé, BirdLife International

Cover photo: Lesser kestrel © Svetoslav Spassov, NatureImages.eu

Table of contents

Executive Summary...... 3 Reviewing the Implementation of Species Action Plans...... 4 Methodology...... 6 Results...... 10 Overall Implementation of the Plans ...... 10 Implementation by Country...... 13 Implementation of the Conservation Actions by Type ...... 13 The Special Role of LIFE+ ...... 18 Site Protection Measures (Coverage with Natura 2000 and protected areas)...... 19 Overall Progress with Recovery of Threatened Species...... 21 Conclusions...... 23 ANNEX Species Accounts ...... 31

List of tables

Table 1 Implementation reviews of 31 EU SAPs and the achievement of recovery targets and further reference available...... 5 Table 2. The 13 stages of species recovery ...... 9 Table 3. Summary results of the implementation of EU Species Action Plans...... 12 Table 4. Protection status of key sites for 17 species from the 2010 SAP assessment...... 19 Table 5 Number of SPAs designated per assessed species by EU Member States ...... 20 Table 6 Overview of the progress with recovery of the 29 species subject of action plan work at EU level since 2008. The underlined species action plans are still recent and no information on their implementation is available yet, only information included in their action plan was used...... 21 Table 7 Distribution of responses to the questionnaire received for this review...... 25 Table 8 Current list of species action plans for birds from Annex I of the Birds Directive and their endorsement, implementation reviews and latest revision ...... 27

Executive Summary

The EU has been supporting the development of Species Action Plans for priority birds since 1993. So far 54 such plans have been approved for threatened species and subspecies listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive by the European Commission. Since their approval, the implementation of at least 31 species action plans has been monitored and reviewed by BirdLife and the information collected in this process was used to update the plans, revise their contents and inform future conservation actions. Reviewing the action plans involves evaluating their implementation using a methodology developed by BirdLife under previous contracts for the Commission. It is based on collecting information from national respondents from most (if not all) countries where the plans apply. By comparing a set of scores attributed to each action and on average for the entire plan one can judge the relative effort made to implement each species action plan, to compare across countries and to see which actions are implemented better than others. Finally, by comparing the results of the implementation assessment with the latest available data on population size and trends, conclusions about the overall impact of the plans could be made and the progress towards recovery of each species could be assessed. This report presents the results of the 2010 assessment of 23 species action plans, collected and analysed by BirdLife International under a contract with the European Commission (17 in 2010, 3 in 2009 and 3 in 2008). Highest levels of implementation have been achieved in species which occur in small number of countries and are well covered by protected areas (e.g. Fea’s and Zino’s petrels, Dalmatian pelican). On the contrary, implementation has been weaker for species that are dispersed over large areas (e.g. lesser spotted eagle, lesser kestrel) and whose conservation goes beyond implementing classic conservation approaches (e.g. designating and managing protected areas). The conclusions from this evaluation suggest that species recovery requires tackling large scale land-use pressures, such as agricultural intensification, commercial fisheries or urbanisation, all of which continue to cause habitat loss and degradation (as demonstrated by the little bustard and Balearic shearwater plans). It also suggests that well resourced and coordinated implementation efforts can deliver positive species recovery results (as demonstrated by most of the species subject of LIFE fudning). Eight species have clearly improved their population trend (from declining or stable to increasing) and one has continued to recover, most of them as a result of successful conservation work on the ground. The decline of four species has been halted, while five other remained stable or levelled off. There has been marked difference in the levels of implementation within and outside the EU in favour of the Member States. However, the implementation also varied among Member States reaching highest levels in countries which invest significant resources in implementing the plans through national legislation, institutional capacity, strong involvement of NGOs and expert groups, and national co- financing for LIFE projects.

Reviewing the Implementation of Species Action Plans

Bird populations respond rapidly to threats and changing environmental conditions. This dynamism requires that species recovery should be an iterative process with a possibility to adapt and learn from experience. Thus the actual planning and reviewing process is equally important to the final product – the species action plan. Each plan is conceived with an analysis of the current population status and trend of the species, followed by participatory but systematic planning exercise (usually a workshop) whose role is to assess the cause-effect link between external pressures (threats) and the way the population is affected. A well managed workshop involving experts and practitioners with good knowledge of the key threats and stakeholders helps to identify the measures needed to address the threats in the most practical way. Once developed and approved, the species benefits from coordinated implementation of the plan across the range and this should be supported by monitoring and communication among the actors involved. Following implementation, plans should be subject of regular reviews of progress and updating, ideally every five years (or more frequent if the situation with the species require). When monitoring the implementation indicates that the plan is not likely to achieve its objectives or when the duration of the plan has passed, the documents should be revised, new targets should be set, thus closing the management cycle.

From the 54 species action plans for Annex I bird species approved in the EU (Table 8), the implementation of 31 plans has been reviewed at least once (Table 1). Three separate assessments of different subsets of plans and of varying geographical scope have been carried out so far, as follows: • 2001 covering 23 plans in EU15 and 12 Central and Eastern European Countries, by BirdLife International1 • 2004 covering 23 plans in EU25, by BirdLife International2 • 2007 covering 12 plans in 95 AEWA Contracting Parties (data limited to 26 countries), by Rubicon Foundation 3

This report presents the result of a fourth assessment, carried out in 2008-2010 and covering 23 plans in EU27 and 11 neighbouring countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, FYR Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine).

1 Gallo-Orsi, U. ed. (2001) Saving Europe’s most threatened birds: progress in implementing European Species Action Plans, BirdLife International, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 2 Nagy and Crockford (2004) Report to the European Commission, Contract No B4-3040/2003/362169/MAR/BZ 3 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.

Table 1 Implementation reviews of 31 EU SAPs and the achievement of recovery targets4 and further reference available. Species Previous assessments Scope of this assessment 2001 2004 2007 2008 2009 2010 Information included in: Fea’s petrel Pterodroma feae short short long Annex Zino’s petrel Pterodroma madeira short long long Annex Dalmatian pelican Pelecanus crispus medium long none short Annex pygmy cormorant Phalacrocorax pygmeus short long long lesser white-fronted goose Anser erythropus none none none red-breasted goose Branta ruficollis medium medium none none Annex, Revised SAP marbled teal Marmaronetta angustirostris none none none none Annex, Revised SAP white-headed duck Oxyura leucocephala medium medium short cinereous vulture Aegypius monachus medium long medium Annex Eastern imperial eagle Aquila heliaca medium long long Annex Spanish imperial eagle Aquila adalberti medium medium medium Annex, Revised SAP lesser kestrel Falco naumanni short short short Annex, Revised SAP corncrake Crex crex medium medium medium great bustard Otis tarda none none short CMS report, Revised SAP Houbara bustard Chlamydotis undulata unknown unknown slender-billed curlew Numenius tenuirostris none none none Audouin’s gull Larus audounii long long long long Annex Madeira laurel pigeon Columba trocaz medium medium long Annex white-tailed laurel pigeon Columba junoniae unknown unknown short Annex dark-tailed laurel pigeon Columba bollii unknown unknown short Annex aquatic warbler Acropcephalus paludicola none none short Annex, Revised SAP blue chaffinch Fringila teydea short short short Annex Azores bullfinch Pyrrhula murina none none long Annex, Revised SAP bearded vulture Gypaetus barbatus none Annex Bonelli's eagle Aquila fasciata none Annex Eleonora's falcon Falco eleonorae long Annex little bustard Tetrax tetrax none none Annex, Revised SAP lesser spotted eagle Aquila pomarina short Annex Balearic shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus unknown Annex, Revised SAP great snipe Gallinago media none ferruginous duck Aythya nyroca none Total number of plans assessed: 23 23 12 3 3 17 23

4 The achievement of the recovery target was assessed using the latest available population data at the time of the assessment. The achievement of the ‘long’ term target means that the short and medium term ones have also been achieved. Species in bold were used for comparison between the 2001, 2004 and 2010 assessments. 5

Methodology

The scope of the present review of implementation of species action plans covers 23 species (Table 1), as follows: • 17 reviewed in 2010, 3 of which also revised. • 3 reviewed and revised in 2009 • 3 reviewed and revised in 2008

For 17 of the species (highlighted in bold in Table 1) it was possible to compare their implementation with two previous assessments, bearing in mind the difference in geographic scope in each of them.

The evaluation followed the methodology and scoring system developed by BirdLife (Gallo- Orsi, 2001), which follows three steps. • Updating of the factual information contained in the descriptive part of the plan (preparing a species account, see Annex) • Assessing the progress towards implementation of the actions and evaluation against the recovery targets set in the plan. • Estimating the overall effectiveness of the action plan to meet the planned population recovery objectives, using the latest available population estimate and trend.

The first and the second of these tasks was implemented with the help of a questionnaire with two electronic forms: Status form: collecting information about the latest population estimate, trend and threats. Implementation form: based on the contents of the action plan where each action was converted into a target statement to enable measurement of progress in implementation. First, the questionnaires were distributed among national experts (reviewers) in the relevant range states concerned by each plan (Table 7). When more than one expert per country was contacted, we compared responses and used the matching ones. For the differing responses we contacted back the experts to clarify their response and reach an agreement. The reviewers were asked to: • Review and correct, the information used for the action plan, i.e. information on population size, trend and threats; • Report on measures taken in relation to each action of which they are aware, including coverage of the species population in IBAs and protected areas, existence of management plans, implementation of LIFE and other significant projects; • Evaluate distance to target by assigning an Implementation score against each action (target statement); • Estimate the size of the population affected by the measure and; • Estimate the response of that population.

The priority of each action in the SAPswas expressed as Priority Score [PS], as follows: Essential or Critical 4 High 3 Medium 2 Low 1

6 To evaluate the distance to target achievemed each responded provided Implementation scores [IS], ranging between 0–4 according to increasing level of progress towards the target: 0: Action not needed/not relevant 1: Little or no work (0-10%) carried out, (only piecemeal actions not part of a strategic approach); 2: Some work started (11-50%), but no significant progress yet; 3: Significant progress (51-75%), but target still not reached; 4: Action fully implemented, no further work required except continuation of on-going work (e.g. in case of monitoring);

As a third step an Action Priority Index (API) was developed for each action across its geographical scope. It was calculated as follows (excluding “0” values):

Action Priority Index (API) = Priority Score (PS) × (4 – Implementation Score [IS]) ÷ 3

The range of the score is between 0 and 4. This index expresses the need for further action for each target. The API for a target of a high priority (e.g. PS=4) with a low level of implementation (IS=1) has the highest value (4). A target with a low priority (e.g. PS=1) and a high level of implementation (IS=3) has a low API value. (0.33). All the targets with fully implemented actions have an API value of 0 (= no further work required).

To facilitate the interpretation of these scores, the results were presented in a graphic format in the species accounts of each of the 17 species assessed in 2010 (fig 1 example)

API High priority Medium priority 4.0 Low priority 3.5

3.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 API 1.5 Average IS 1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0 1.1.1 1.2.1 1.3.1 1.4.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 3.1.1 3.2.1 3.3.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 Action

Figure i Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action listed in the little bustard Tetrax tetrax species action plan. Colours represent Priority Score.

Additional analysis was carried out to find out the National Implementation Score (NIS) for each country which combines the urgency of an action with its implementation level. The Implementation Score (IS) of each target was multiplied by its Priority Score (PS), and the sum of all these scores was divided by the sum of the Priority Scores (PS). The formula used was:

National Implementation Score NIS = Σ (PSxIS) ÷ Σ (PS)

7 The range of the NIS is, as with the IS, between 1 and 4, with 1 representing little or no implementation and 4 full implementation.

Secondly, beyond scoring the progress in implementation of the actions, the reviewers were also asked to evaluate the contribution of each action towards the conservation of the national population of the species, having in mind its current status and trend. Therefore, an assessment of the impact of the measures on the population in terms of size of the population affected by the measures taken and how the affected populations responded to these measures. After receiving filled in forms from individual respondents, all answers were checked and some scores were corrected if there were inconsistencies between the answer and the score or if the action was not relevant for the particular country. When in doubt, replies were checked by consulting the respondents individually. The information collected via the forms was used to prepare a Species Account (the first drafts of which were called Draft Implementation Report) for each species, which was published on the BirdLife forums website5 and circulated by e-mail to the respondents and other relevant experts. Three expert workshops were organised in addition, to help with the implementation review and the following revision of three action plans: Balearic shearwater (17-18 June, Palma de Mallorca), little bustard (24-25 June 2010, Madrid) and lesser kestrel (8-9 July 2010, Madrid). A fourth workshop was organised to review the species conservation status and implementation of the action plans for the Macaronesian endemic birds (26-29 July, Madeira): Zino’s and Fea’s petrel, white-tailed and dark-tailed and Madeiran laurel pigeons and blue chaffinch.

As a third step, the effectiveness of each action plan was evaluated using a combination of: (i) Output indicators, represented by the implementation scores: • Average Implementation Score for each plan • Natonal Implementation Score representing the average progress with implementation by the country • Action Priority Index representing the need for further action. (ii) Outcome indicators: • Population size, distribution and trends. • Evaluation against the population recovery targets set in the action plans. • Overall change in the species conservation status.

Finally, the overall progress with species recovery was represented as a journey with 13 distinct stages of recovery (fig. 2 and table 2). This conceptual model was applied to 29 species with action plans at EU level (23 reviewed in 2008-2010 listed in Table 1, and 6 new plans developed in 2008-2009 which have not been reviewed yet).

5 http://www.birdlifeforums.org 8

Figure 2 Diagrammatic representation of the species recovery journey Source: RSPB (2010) Safeguarding species – A strategy for species recovery

Table 2. The 13 stages of species recovery Stage Code Description Monitoring M Purely monitoring, no action taken Diagnosis (research) D1 No research undertaken/cause of decline unknown D2 Research underway, but limited understanding of causes of decline D3 Research is providing strong indication of cause of decline Solution testing Diagnosis provides sufficient results to trial solutions, but work only (research delivery) T1 initiated recently Trial management underway, but not yet clear evidence that it can T2 deliver objectives Trial management is providing strong indication that it will deliver T3 objectives Deployment of solution R1 Work initiated to roll out solutions across species' range Solutions adopted across the species' range but too early to R2 demonstrate successes against populations/range targets Solutions enable achievement against population/range targets but R3 only with continued conservation intervention Sustainable Indication that population/range targets being achieved with minimal management S1 conservation intervention Good evidence available that population/range targets being achieved and can be sustained with little or no conservation intervention (i.e. population maintained within regular land or marine management S2 practices) Population/range targets achieved and the species' conservation status S3 secured

9 Results

Overall Implementation of the Plans

The implementation review of 17 action plans was completed in 2010 and individual species implementation reports were produced (see Annex). For three of the species, a revised action plan was also prepared. The results of this review could be combined with the recent revision of six other existing action plans in 2008-20096 (which also included review of the implementation as part of the process). Thus, 23 plans could be covered by this report (Table 1). In addition, six new action plans were developed for the European Commission during this period, but as the time since their approval has been short, they were not included in most of the analyses (except where indicated).

Despite the difference in scope (species and number of countries), the current assessment followed similar methodology to the previous assessments (BirdLife 2001, BirdLife 2004) and the results are largely consistent. Comparisons between the years were made for 17 action plans for which 3 assessments were available (fig. 3).

18 17 16 15 14 13 12 long 11 medium 10 9 short 8 7 none 6 unknown 5 4 3 2 1 0 2001 2004 2010

Figure 3 Number of EU SAPs for globally (near-) threatened species achieving their recovery targets (unknown, none, short, medium and long). Comparison for 17 SAPs across three assessments could be made, including the following species: Fea’s petrel Pterodroma feae, Zino’s petrel Pterodroma madeira, Dalmatian pelican Pelecanus crispus, red-breasted goose Branta ruficollis, marbled teal Marmaronetta angustirostris, cinereous vulture Aegypius monachus, Eastern imperial eagle Aquila heliaca, Spanish imperial eagle Aquila adalberti, lesser kestrel Falco naumanni, great bustard Otis tarda, Audouin’s gull Larus audounii, Madeira laurel Pigeon Columba trocaz, white-tailed laurel pigeon Columba junonae, dark-tailed laurel pigeon Columba bollii, aquatic warbler Acrocephalus paludicola, blue chaffinch Fringilla teydea, Azores bullfinch Pyrrhula murina

6 See BirdLife’s reports to the EC in the framework of contract N#070307/2007/488316/SER/B2 10 Overall the progress that has been made in implementing the action plans over the 10 year period can be summarized in Table 3. Seven action plans have achieved their long term targets and new targets have to be developed through revision of the plans. Two have achieved their medium term targets and their implementation has to continue. In seven plans only the short term targets have been achieved and their implementation has to be improved. For five plans none of the targets has been achieved and they have to be revised and new targets and objectives have to be set (three of them, marbled teal, red-breasted goose and little bustard, were already revised in 2008-2010 and their implementation has to continue). For only one plan evaluation against the target was not possible (Balearic shearwater) due to the lack of population trend data of sufficient quality required to assess the target.

The review method allows comparisons to be made between species and countries. Thus, comparing the Average Implementation Score (AIS) indicates the relative effort made to implement each plan in all range countries combined (fig.4). Generally, the implementation has been moderate (~2) in most plans with highest levels achieved in species which are localized or endemic, or species whose (at least) breeding population is well covered in protected areas with active management (e.g. Fea’s and Zino’s petrels, Madeira laurel pigeon, Dalmatian pelican). On the contrary, implementation has been weaker in species which are dispersed (e.g. lesser spotted eagle) or whose conservation requires mitigation of large scale land-use pressures such as agriculture, forestry or urbanisation that cause habitat loss and degradation.

3 Average IS

r l r e e re n n re e rd n n el e al gl u o o trel tr o o tr l gle e at inch t e ltu e rb a rw ff Ea ul ige P u ige a d T a V Pelican P Falc s V Kes P e ea li's s l ial Eagle 's ’ d Busta ’s Pe w h Ch l re a a e er tted Eagle e rel o tic e ou r d s o ttl n a S e o Fe r s p Zi c ue n a e Li Laurel Pig Marbl Audouin’s riGull Bl Bon Imper o e L S a iner d Lau n B r ra d Lau Aqu h Imperial E e e se i e s C Dalmatian Ele s e i Bal tail n Le -tail Mad e ark- Easter it Spa D h W Species

Figure 4 Average implementation score of 20 action plans (17 assessed in 2010 and 3 in 2008) Average implementation scores: 4=full implementation, 3=significant progress, 2=some progress, 1=no implementation.

Table 3. Summary results of the implementation of EU Species Action Plans (17 plans in 2010, 3 in 2008 and 3 in 2009) and recommendation for future actions. Underlined species action plans were already revised in 2008-2010.

Species Result Recommended action Fea’s petrel Pterodroma feae Zino’s petrel Pterodroma madeira7 • Review threat category Eastern imperial eagle Aquila heliaca Long term target and conservation status. Audouin’s gull Larus audounii achieved • Revise plan and Madeira laurel pigeon Columba trocaz recovery objectives if Azores bullfinch Pyrrhula murina species still threatened. Eleonora's falcon Falco eleonorae

Cinereous vulture Aegypius monachus • Continue Spanish imperial eagle Aquila adalberti Medium term implementation. target achieved • Repeat assessment in 5 years or less. Lesser kestrel Falco naumanni Dalmatian pelican Pelecanus crispus8 • Revise plan and White-tailed laurel pigeon Columba junonae recovery objective. Only short term Dark-tailed laurel pigeon Columba bollii • Continue target achieved Blue chaffinch Fringila teydea implementation.

Lesser spotted eagle Aquila pomarina • Repeat assessment in 5 Aquatic warbler Acrocephalus paludicola years or less.

Marbled teal Marmaronetta angustirostris • Review threat category Red breasted goose Branta ruficollis and conservation status. Bearded vulture Gypaetus barbatus • Revise priority of Bonelli's eagle Aquila fasciata species and improve Little bustard Tetrax tetrax Targets not implementation throughout achieved range • Continue implementation with increased resources if species still priority. Balearic Shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus • Collect additional Unknown information and repeat assessment.

7 Forest fire in August 2010 in the breeding colony may have detrimental effect on this species, evaluation pending. 8 Despite of significant progress in the EU, implementation not matched in rest of breeding range which is the reason for missed target. 12 Implementation by Country

Information about the implementation of action plans was collected through questionnaires and publication review from 35 countries and territories, including 18 EU Member States (Table 7). The progress with implementation of the plans in different countries can be generalised by comparing National Implementation Scores (NIS). As the number of species in each country is different average NIS have been calculated for this purpose (fig. 5). However, this information is only indicative as it incorporates ‘average of averages’. Therefore it has to be used with caution.

12 3.5

11 3 10

9 2.5 8

7 2 No. species 6 Average NIS

No. species 1.5 5 Average NIS

4 1 3

2 0.5 1

0 0

e ic e y a nd ia ry us ia ia ia tria nc kia a ec n ar tvia s a a tugal ubl pain e Ital a en ola r rmany v ng p S Malta ma lg L v gdom Au P F Eston o or Gr Cypr in Ge Sl Hu P Re Ro Bu Lithuani Slo K ted Czech Uni Country

Figure 5. Average national implementation scores (NIS) per EU Member State for 17 species action plans assessed in 2010. The implementation of action plans varies considerably between countries. It was generally highest in countries with small number of applicable plans (e.g. Austria) and in countries with strong traditions and systems of species recovery work (e.g. France, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, Estonia) where implementation was driven by legislation or voluntary working groups. The geographical scope of this review has meant that some countries have been underrepresented in this assessment (e.g. UK, Latvia, Lithuania presented with only 1 species), while others (e.g. Portugal, Spain, Greece, Bulgaria and Italy) have been presented with 7 to 11 species. From this last group of countries, highest average implementation has been achieved by Portugal and Spain. The latter country has done extensive species recovery work which is carried out at autonomous community level, which lowers the average national score (as in some regions implementation has been stronger than in others).

Implementation of the Conservation Actions by Type

Analysis of the type of actions included in each plan and their implementation was carried out on 20 action plans (17 in 2010 and 3 in 2008, fig.8). We used the standard IUCN classification of conservation actions9 and applied it to the actions included in the action plans. We added category No. 8 Monitoring and research, as this is an important action type in all plans, while it is not included in the typology (fig. 6).

9 See http://iucn.org/about/work/programmes/species/red_list/resources/technical_documents/new_classification_schemes/ 13

1 Land/Water Protection 1.1 Site/Area Protection 1.2 Species & Habitat Protection 2 Land/Water Management 6 Livelihood, Economic & Other Incentives 2.1 Site/Area Management 6.1 Linked Enterprises & Livelihood Alternatives 2.2 Invasive/Problematic Species Control 6.2 Substitution 2.3 Habitat & Natural Process Restoration 3 Species Management 6.3 Market Forces 1 - Species and site protection 3.1 Species Management 6.4 Conservation Payments 2 - Site and habitat management 3.2 Species Recovery 3 - Species management 6.5 Non-Monetary Values 4 - Education and awareness 3.3 Species Re-Introduction 5 - Legislation and policy 7 External Capacity Building 3.4 Ex-Situ Conservation 6 - Payments and incentives 7 - Building conservation capacity 4 Education & Awareness 7.1 Institutional & Civil Society Development 8 - Monitoring and research 4.1 Formal Education 7.2 Alliance & Partnership Development 4.2 Training 7.3 Conservation Finance 4.3 Awareness & Communications 5 Law & Policy 8 Monitoring and Research 5.1 Legislation 8.1 Individual and population monitoring schemes 5.2 Policies & Regulations 8.2 Identification and research on threats and 5.3 Private Sector Standards & Codes management measures 5.4 Compliance & Enforcement

Figure 6 Typology of the conservation actions used

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

Total no. actions no. Total 20.0

10.0

0.0 12345678 Action Type

Figure 7 Number of conservation actions by type in 20 action plans analysed.

14 30

Number of actions 5

0 l e n le er ch gle on tre Gull ater strel Petrel ulture ’s Ke Warbl d V hearw Chaffinelli's Ea us Vulturan Pelicarel Pigeerial Eaglea's Falcon Fea urel Pigeon udouin’s Little Bustard Marbled Teal a Zino’s Pe A Blue Bon Imp onor Lesser Aquatic inereo almati Bearde er Spotted Eag C D iled Lau Ele s Balearic S Les panish Imperial Eagle Eastern Madeira Laurel SPigeon ark-ta hite-tailed L D W

Figure 8 Number of actions in each type and their distribution in 20 species action plans analysed.

The results of this analysis shows the great number of monitoring and research actions included in the action plans, followed by actions for legislation and policy changes and actions for site and habitat management (Fig. 7). The big number of research and monitoring actions is linked to the greater detail by which these actions are incorporated in the plans. In contrast, actions relating to policy changes and implementation of land-use policies on the ground and to economic incentives (e.g. agri-environmental schemes) or habitat management are often lumped in rather general descriptions, whose interpretation and evaluation is more difficult.

The highest numbers of conservation actions are linked to monitoring and research. This can be explained, on one hand, by the bias in the designing of the action plans due to the intensive participation of conservation researchers. One the other hand, it reflects the genuine needs for further investigation of threats and the effect of conservation actions. Further, large number of knowledge gaps still exists, especially in relation to migratory birds and their non-breeding quarters and migratory routes (e.g. lesser kestrel, lesser spotted eagle). For such plans, international cooperation in the framework of international agreements and bilateral programmes is essential. As far as implementation is concerned (Fig. 4), it has been good (average 2.3), highest for some endemic species (e.g. Fea’s and Zino’s petrels) and for species whose ecology has been studied in a given country (e.g. marbled teal in Andalucia, cinereous vulture in Spain, France and Greece).

The second most common action type relates to broadly defined legislation and land-use policy objectives. This group of actions is particularly important (high priority given) and it relates to the needs of integration of the conservation needs of the species into the broader policy context of land management. Highest implementation has been achieved for localized species (Fig. 4), which are affected by few targeted issues (e.g. petrels, blue chaffinch) or species that are well covered by strict protected areas and are relatively protected from negative impacts in the wider environment at least in part of their life cycle (e.g. Dalmatian pelican, cinereous vulture). On

15 the contrary, plans of species that are dispersed and/or largely dependent on land management practices beyond protected areas have been less successfully implemented e.g. lesser kestrel (agricultural intensification), Bonelli’s eagle (powerlines), and marbled teal (agricultural wetland drainage and pollution). The species where integration with agriculture is of critical importance such as the little bustard, implementation through agri-environmental schemes has been done but the scale was insufficient to ensure positive effect at biogeographical level. Regarding forest management, the ensuring of non-disturbance zones around nests and the protection of breeding habitats has been achieved to greater extent than in farmland (e.g. Eastern imperial and lesser spotted eagles).

The third most important action type is site and habitat management which refers to management plans in protected areas (and Natura 2000 sites). Here again, implementation has been highest in species confined to one or few protected areas (usually with stricter regime at a national level and responsible administration, e.g. national parks) e.g. Zino’s petrel, laurel pigeons. In the other extreme are species that are dispersed among many protected areas (e.g. SPAs) where establishment of effective conservation management with specific objectives to the species remains a challenge. In most of the cases where such management is delivered through e.g. agri-environmental measures, the levels of uptake and targeted implementation of the measures remains low (e.g. Fig 1, example of little bustard actions 1.1.1 and 3.1.1, relating to agri-environment measures, for details see the species account in the Annex). As an exception one can point out intensive local or regional schemes, kicked off in the framework of LIFE projects (e.g. little bustard in S and W France, Spanish imperial eagle, lesser kestrel in Portugal, Eastern imperial eagle in HU, SK and BG).

This information was further analysed at national level and compared between EU member states and non-EU states (Fig.9). Although this data is not easy for interpretation with simple methods (a more advanced multi-factor statistical analysis could be developed in the future), there are some emerging trends. First, the levels of implementation are consistently higher in EU member states that in non-EU states, Switzerland being a notable exception (Fig. 9a,). Secondly, the implementation between plans varies within countries. Member states that show consistently implementation levels above average in all plans are e.g. Austria, Estonia, France and Slovakia (few species, implementation levels highest on average) although as pointed earlier this may be influenced by the varying number of plans per country, followed by Portugal, Spain and Bulgaria (many species, implementation slightly lower on average). Other countries show less consistent results, with one or two plans showing high scores (explained by the existence of a national working groups or project) and lower scores in other. Further information regarding individual species action plans can be found in the species accounts (see Annex).

16 a)

4.00

3.75

3.50

3.25

3.00

2.75

2.50

2.25

2.00

1.75

1.50

1.25

1.00

c y y a ia ce ce l ia al tr ria rus bli ltar ta alt nd kia p ee I ug ania us Latvia M ola rt Spain gdom A elgium ulga Cy epu Estonia Fran Gr thuan P o om lova n B B R Germany Gibra Hungar Li P R S Slovenia h d Ki ec Netherlands e z C Unit Species and site protection Site and habitat management Species management Education and awareness Legislation and policy Payments and incentives Conservation capacity building Monitoring and research b)

4.00 3.75 3.50 3.25 3.00 2.75 2.50 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.50 1.25 1.00

s ia ia O o nia u t g bia ijan vina a r R gr r rkey a lar o o e e me rb e Cro S Tu Ar e B Ge itzerland Ukraine Az nia, FY o Monten Sw ced Ma Bosnia/Herzeg 1 Species and site protection 2 Site and habitat management 3 Species management 4 Education and awareness 5 Legislation and policy 6 Payments and incentives 7 Conservation capacity building 8 Monitoring and research

Figure 9 Implementation of the different types of actions from 20 action plans (17 in 2010 and 3 in 2008, Table 1) in the (a) Member States and (b) in non-EU countries part of this assessment.

The Special Role of LIFE+

The LIFE fund has been the main tool used by the Commission to stimulate the implementation of priority conservation measures for the threatened species and habitats in the EU. For example during 1992-2003 LIFE-Nature has invested some €367 million in projects targeting threatened bird species. This figure is not yet final for the current LIFE+ period, but estimates were made for a subset of threatened birds for this assessment (fig. 10). a)

LIFE Nature 1996-2003

50 € 80,000,000.00 € 75,000,000.00 45 € 70,000,000.00 40 € 65,000,000.00 € 60,000,000.00 35 € 55,000,000.00 € 50,000,000.00 30 € 45,000,000.00 25 € 40,000,000.00 € 35,000,000.00 20 € 30,000,000.00

number of projects of number 15 € 25,000,000.00 € 20,000,000.00 10 € 15,000,000.00 € 10,000,000.00 5 € 5,000,000.00 0 € 0.00

s a a s s s a lii e a d l u na ri l is a e ra az rex hu tri ri iae ll lata e ei c lberti c s st icol bo n o d x c a a tar d ic a f tro e n throp mu u ba no uf teyd a u undu m a Cr ad Otis ocephanuiro ry al r ro il a mo c e e ul gustiro p um a j ta is g mba il r n u u us leu lus mb rod i Larus audounii an a Col lu Frin droma ma Aquila heliaca Aq Falco naumannira nse Pyrrh ta h o Bra Pte Col u enius t A C mydot ro number of projects Pelecanus crispusy m net ep la Aegyp x u o h Pte O N pc C ar ro Total budget Phalacrocorax pygmeus m c r A Ma

LIFE Nature and LIFE+ Nature 2004-2009

15 € 30,000,000 14 € 28,000,000 13 € 26,000,000 12 € 24,000,000 11 € 22,000,000 10 € 20,000,000 9 € 18,000,000 8 € 16,000,000 7 € 14,000,000 6 € 12,000,000 5 € 10,000,000 number of projects of number 4 € 8,000,000 3 € 6,000,000 2 € 4,000,000 1 € 2,000,000 0 € 0 i s s s a n a s la ra a e e is is z u in nii a erti l a t u iac pu fe ol nicu a ico lb str a rb man do d nonia o fic a mar u cris teyde u da tir b fasciatus au a hel alu a j n s a l p a madeiill roma mba bollii a ru monachu s u ui lu ila a t mba troc tu Tetrax tetrax m ng o lu ius lco Aq anus us ri rod C qu p a Lar c al F e lumba angus pae Aquila poF Falco eleonorae Pt A a Bran Co y ele ph Co ett number of projects G P n Aegy Hieraeetus oce Pterodro Puffinus mauret r budget Ac Marmaro

Figure 10 Funding for the implementation of species action plans from LIFE (a) and LIFE+ (b).

Site Protection Measures (Coverage with Natura 2000 and protected areas)

The designation of SPAs is the key requirement under the Birds Directive as regards the conservation of threatened species. The relatively good knowledge on the species distribution and the existence of IBAs makes it possible to analyse progress against the site conservation targets with GIS methods. For the purposes of this review the following information about the designation of key sites (such as IBAs) for the target species was collected. • Status of protection of key sites per species per country (tables 4 and 5) • The availability of site management plans taking into account the conservation needs of the species (information included in the species accounts). • GIS based analysis of the overlap between IBAs and SPAs per species (fig. 12).

The results of this analysis show that good progress has been achieved with the designation of key sites as protected areas and Natura 2000 sites in the EU, although the same pattern applies – dispersed species are less well covered than concentrated species. Particular progress has been made recently with the identification and designation of marine SPAs (still incomplete) covering important feeding grounds of the marine birds assessed. The map presented as fig. 13 clearly illustrates the picture: most of the designated IBAs have been legally protected in the EU contrasted by the situation in the non-EU range states (esp. Russia and Turkey).

Table 4. Protection status of key sites for 17 species from 2010 SAP assessment No. of Total Area Total area Total protected No. of of protected of IBAs No. of Area of Species areas IBAs not areas not IBAs IBAs (incl. protected (incl. SPA) protected (ha) SPA) (ha) (ha) Audouin's Gull 65 101 13 1,159,451 1,187,173 452,068 Balearic Shearwater 12 21 38,562 77,278 Blue Chaffinch 7 5 16,650 98,490 Bonelli's Eagle 105 179 12 7,758,165 6,042,080 694,137 Cinereous Vulture 64 78 31 7,759,162 2,608,710 4,693,507 Dalmatian Pelican 105 63 53 4,354,502 467,997 2,908,389 Dark-tailed Laurel Pigeon 11 10 28,325 135,365 Eastern Imperial Eagle 171 47 132 9,691,222 1,894,1507,587,036 Eleonora's Falcon 69 72 20 1,467,038 399,026 1,035,978 Fea's Petrel 1 1 1,384 11,302 Bearded Vulture 53 54 22 7,042,806 993,255 5,769,486 Lesser Kestrel 124 145 54 7,032,277 3,650,628 2,548,317 Lesser Spotted Eagle 147 126 45 8,634,224 5,396,829 2,766,253 Little Bustard 130 142 60 6,791,079 3,609,600 2,928,544 Madeira Laurel Pigeon 2 2 18,653 16,745 White-tailed Laurel Pigeon 11 8 30,715 122,363 Zino's Petrel 1 2 3,411 16,745

19 Table 5 Number of SPAs designated per assessed species by EU Member States10

Fea's Petrel Fea's Petrel Zino's Petrel

No. of species Little Bustard Lesser Kestrel Lesser Kestrel Bonelli's Eagle Blue Chaffinch Blue Chaffinch Audouin's Gull Gull Audouin's Bearded vulture Number of SPAs SPAs of Number Eleonora's falcon Dalmatian Pelican Cinereous Vulture Balearic Shearwater Lesser Spotted Eagle Lesser Spotted hite-tailed Laurel Pigeon Eastern Imperial Eagle Imperial Eastern Country Pigeon Madeira Laurel Dark-tailed Laurel Pigeon Dark-tailed Pigeon Laurel W Austria 0 0 Bulgaria 3 20 12 2 11 48 5 Cyprus 2 2 1 5 3 Czech Republic 0 0 Estonia 7 7 1 Finland 0 0 France 6 11 2 3 30 52 5 Germany 20 20 1 Gibraltar (to UK) 0 0 Greece 19 4 16 3 36 16 24 8 126 8 Hungary 12 4 16 2 Ireland 0 0 Italy 38 7 12 20 7 84 5 Latvia 12 12 1 Lithuania 9 9 1 Poland 27 27 1 Portugal 9 4 1 6 13 2 8 2 45 8 Romania 27 10 14 51 3 Slovakia 8 13 21 2 Slovenia 1 1 2 2 Spain 38 21 138 5 65 10 23 38 83 92 513 10 United Kingdom 0 0 Grand Total

5 1 2 8 2 21 78 63 10 47 72 54 101 101 179 145 126 142 1056

However, as illustrated by the implementation scores for site and habitat management (see above) the challenge has clearly shifted from designation and protection to actual targeted management of SPAs, which was identified as a the most important conservation priority for several species (e.g. little bustard, lesser kestrel, Eastern imperial eagle, Dalmatian pelican and lesser spotted eagle).

10 Only SPAs especially designated for the 17 species part of the 2010 assessment are included. Data as of January 2010.

20 Overall Progress with Recovery of Threatened Species

Finally, the 13 stage model of the species recovery process presented in Fig. 1 was applied to the 29 species, subject of species action plan development and review at EU level since 2008. The allocation of a given species to a particular stage is arbitrary and for illustration only, but the decision was taken based on the species status, contents of the action plan and the conclusions in each species account.

Table 6 Overview of the progress with recovery of the 29 species subject of action plan work at EU level since 2008. The underlined species action plans are still recent and no information on their implementation is available yet, only information included in their action plan was used.

Number Stage Code Species of species Monitoring M 0 Diagnosis (research) D1 semi-collared flycatcher 1 D2 European roller 1 D3 Dupont's lark 1 Solution testing (research delivery) T1 Balearic shearwater 1 Egyptian vulture, marbled teal, red breasted T2 goose 3 T3 Bonelli's eagle, little bustard 2 bearded vulture, aquatic warbler, red footed Deployment of solution R1 falcon, eastern imperial eagle 4 R2 blue chaffinch, red kite 2 cinereous vulture, Dalmatian pelican, lesser kestrel, lesser spotted eagle, Zino's petrel, Spanish imperial eagle, Azores bullfinch, R3 great bustard 8 dark tailed laurel pigeon, white tailed laurel Sustainable management S1 pigeon 2 Audouin's gull, Eleonora's falcon, Fea's S2 petrel, Madeira laurel pigeon 4 S3 0

The collection of quantitative information about the current population size and trend of the species during the drafting, revision and review of action plans from the compilers and from current literature made it possible to compare the population trends of the species before and after the implementation of the plans (fig. 10). It shows the positive impact of species action plans for the selected species. Eight species have clearly improved their population trend (from declining or stable to increasing) and one has continued to recover. The decline of four species has been halted, while five other remained stable or levelled off. Two species have clearly not benefitted from their SAPs (little bustard and Balearic shearwater) as their populations continue to decline or at least do not show recovery. The reasons behind these results are discussed in the individual species accounts, but can be summarized as insufficient integration into the wider land and marine-management policies. For nine other species, this assessment shows no clear results, as their action plans were only recently approved or they show unclear trends.

Azores bullfinch, EN Blue chaffinch, NT Cinereous vulture, NT Trends uncertain (stable or inccreasing) Zino's petrel, EN Dalmatian pelican, VU Dark tailed Laurel Pigeon, NT Eastern imperial eagle, VU Bearded vulture, LC White tailed Laurel Pigeon, EN Increasing Spanish imperial eagle, VU Lesser kestrel, VU Trends uncertain (stable or decreasing) Semi-collared Flycatcher, NT Aquatic warbler, VU Eleonora's falcon, LC Audouin's gull, NT Red breasted goose, EN Marbled teal, VU Fea's petrel, NT Bonelli's eagle, LC Lesser spotted eagle, LC Great bustard, VU Madeira laurel pigeon, NT Stable Red footed Falcon, NT Red kite, NT Current trends (2010) Balearic shearwater, CR Little bustard, VU European roller, NT Dupont's lark, NT Decreasing Egyptian vulture, EN

Decreasing Stable Increasing Trends at the time of SAP development * Species in grey font have very recent SAP and implementation has just begun

Figure 11 Comparison of the population trends change, as an indicator of the action plan impact

Conclusions

The results of the review of the action plans present an overall positive picture, especially when the progress of their implementation is compared to the actual changes in population trends of the analysed species (Fig. 10). However, the following conclusions could be derived from this process:

Action plans worked well when: • Species is rare and localised, which makes it easier to manage with classic conservation tools (e.g. protected areas designation and management, nest guarding, restocking). • Direct threats to the species were eliminated through better enforcement. • Targeted funds were available and sustained (e.g. LIFE) • There was direct interest of key stakeholders to contribute to the implementation of measures. • Problems and threats were well diagnosed and their mechanisms understood. • Good data exists or is gathered through the implementation to support management actions. • Coordination and technical support for implementation and monitoring was taken by a dedicated organisation or a working group. • Acute threat that was in the basis of the decline could be eliminated relatively easy (e.g. electrocution) • Species could benefit from positive environmental trends (e.g. wetland restoration and improvement of water quality and fish stocks).

They failed when: • Species was dispersed within a large heterogeneous habitat (e.g. agricultural mosaics). • Classic conservation tools are ineffective or of limited extent (e.g. insufficient habitat included in protected areas) • Key stakeholders had no interest to contribute (e.g. low uptake of agri-environmental measures). • Financial incentives caused additional pressures for the species habitat (e.g. subsidies for irrigation, crop conversion, etc.) • Threats are diffuse, difficult to manage, too complex (e.g. illegal poison use, agricultural intensification) • Poor data to guide management and provide feedback (e.g. no monitoring schemes in place) • No clear responsibility or push for implementation (e.g. noone is responsible for the plan at national or international level) • Plans are of poor quality, not supported by the stakeholders and organisations. • No clear link to funds for implementation (eg not a priority for LIFE funding). • They were most needed – to prevent structural pressures to biodiversity from other policies with impact on land-use (e.g agriculture, fisheries, energy).

To deliver better results in the future species action plans should: • Aggregate key actions by sector and by country to extract policy relevant priorities for action that could be integrated into sectoral plans. • Be used as guidance for improving the implementation of the Birds Directive. • Prioritize and guide the targeting of EU funds (in all relevant funds)

23 • Provide “biodiversity proofing” of EU spending and policies • Guide further policy development (e.g. new legislation on IAS, sector guidelines) • Be used to define conservation objectives and actions in national biodiversity plans and budgets.

Species action plans should work better if there were commitment for their implementation from the side of all relevant stakeholders. First, there should be an organisation responsible for coordinating their implementation and ensuring that these stakeholders are taken on board during the implementation.

The EC will need to look further how to stimulate the implementation of action plans. For example, by using them as a standard of good practice for species and habitat conservation measures and as tools supporting the diagnosis of conservation problems. As recent experience suggests, implementation could be encouraged by a mix of positive incentives (e.g. funding through LIFE) and negative measures (e.g. enforcement cases similar to C-418/04 against Ireland).

Member States could use the action plans in a similar way when developing their national plans for biodiversity and for key policies and sectors such as agriculture and rural development, forestry, energy, infrastructure development and fisheries. Those Member States that have adopted the development of national or lower level action plans for species recovery (e.g. France, Spain, Italy and others) should ensure that these plans are compatible with and contribbute to the implementation of the international species action plans.

Table 7 Distribution of responses to the questionnaire received for this review

Country Lesser spotted eagle Lesser spotted Eleonora's falcon Bearded vulture Bonelli's eagle Balearic shearwater Little bustard Zino's petrel Fea's petrel Dalmatian pelican Cinereous vulture Eastern imperial eagle Lesser kestrel Audouin's gull Madeira laurel pigeon Dark-tailed laurel pigeon White-tailed laurel pigeon Blue chaffinch 1. ALBANIA P P P P P P 2. ARMENIA C C C C 3. AZERBAIJAN C C C C C 4. BELARUS C 5. BOSNIA/HERZEGOV C C INA 6. BULGARIA C C C C C C C 7. CROATIA C C C C C C 8. CYPRUS C C C C C 9. CZECH REPUBLIC C C 10. ESTONIA C 11. FRANCE CP C C pa CP CP CP 12. GEORGIA C C C pa 13. GERMANY C C 14. GIBRALTAR C 15. GREECE C C C C C C C C C C 16. HUNGARY C C C 17. ITALY C C C C C C C 18. LATVIA C 19. LITHUANIA C 20. MACEDONIA, FYRO C C C C C 21. MALTA C 22. MOLDOVA 23. MONTENEGRO C C C C 24. POLAND C C 25. PORTUGAL C C C C C C C C C 26. ROMANIA C C C C 27. RUSSIA X X X X X 28. SERBIA C C C C 29. SLOVAKIA C C C 30. SLOVENIA C C 31. SPAIN C C C C C C C C C C C 32. SWITZERLAND C 33. TURKEY C C C C C C C C C C 34. UKRAINE C C C C C C 35. UNITED KINGDOM pa

Contacted, no response P Request declined X Confirmation received, no response CP No contact available Partial response received pa Complete response received C

25 Figure 12 Analysis of the overlap of IBAs with protected areas (SPAs in the EU) for 17 species, analysed in 2010 (see Table 1).

Table 8 Current list of species action plans for birds from Annex I of the Birds Directive commissioned by the European Commission and their endorsement, implementation reviews and latest revision

Endorsed by Global EU Threat Year Subspecies threat SPEC Category Status 1st Latest No. Species Year of reviews or population status (BirdLife 2004) (BirdLife public revision EC Bern (2010) 2005) Bonn ation AEWA 1. Pterodroma feae NT SPEC 1 VU 1996 2001, 2004, * * Fea's Petrel 2010 2. Pterodroma madeira EN SPEC 1 (CR) 1996 2001, 2004, * * Zino's Petrel 2010 3. Puffinus mauretanicus CR SPEC 1 CR 2000 2010 2010 * * Balearic Shearwater 4. Phalacrocorax aristotelis P. a. Non-SPECE (S) 2000 * * European Shag desmarestii 5. Phalacrocorax pygmeus SPEC 1 S 1996 2001, 2004, * * * Pygmy Cormorant 2007 6. Pelecanus crispus VU SPEC 1 R 1996 2001, 2004, * * * Dalmatian Pelican 2007, 2010 7. Botaurus stellaris B. s. stellaris SPEC 3 H 1996 * Great Bittern only 8. Anser erythropus VU SPEC 1 EN 1996 2001, 2004, 200811 * * * * Lesser White-fronted Goose 2007 9. Branta ruficollis EN SPEC 1 VU 1996 2004, 2007, 201012 * * * Red-breasted Goose 2009 10. Marmaronetta angustirostris W Med VU SPEC 1 (VU) 1996 2004, 2007, 2008 * * * Marbled Teal population 2008 11. Aythya nyroca NT SPEC 1 (VU) 1996 2007 200611 * * * * Ferruginous Duck 12. Polysticta stelleri VU SPEC 3W L 1999 * * * Steller's Eider 13. Oxyura leucocephala EN SPEC 1 VU 1996 2004, 2007 200611 * * * * White-headed Duck

11 Latest revision of the plan was commissioned by AEWA and approved by the European Commission 12 The latest revision of the plan was jointly commissioned by the European Commission and AEWA 27 Endorsed by Global EU Threat Year Subspecies threat SPEC Category Status 1st Latest No. Species Year of reviews or population status (BirdLife 2004) (BirdLife public revision EC Bern (2010) 2005) Bonn ation AEWA 14. Milvus milvus Red Kite NT SPEC 2 D * 2010 15. Gypaetus barbatus SPEC 3 (VU) 1999 2010 * * Bearded Vulture 16. Neophron percnopterus EN SPEC 3 EN 2008 * Egyptian Vulture 17. Aegypius monachus NT SPEC 1 R 1996 2001, 2004, * * * Cinereous Vulture 2010 18. Accipiter gentilis A. g. Non-SPEC S 1996 * * Northern Goshawk arrigonii 19. Accipiter nisus A. n. granti Non-SPEC S 1996 * * Eurasian Sparrowhawk only 20. Aquila pomarina SPEC 2 (D) 1999 2010 * * Lesser Spotted Eagle 21. Aquila clanga VU SPEC 1 EN 1999 * * * Greater Spotted Eagle 22. Aquila heliaca VU SPEC 1 R 1996 2004, 2010 * * * Eastern Imperial Eagle 23. Aquila adalberti VU SPEC 1 (EN) 1996 2001, 2004, 2008 * * * Spanish Imperial Eagle 2008 24. Aquila fasciata SPEC 3 EN 1999 2010 * * Bonelli's Eagle 25. Falco naumanni VU SPEC 1 H 1996 2001, 2004, 2010 * * * Lesser Kestrel 2010 26. Falco vespertinus NT SPEC 3 (VU) 2009 * Red-footed Falcon 27. Falco eleonorae SPEC 2 D 2000 2010 * * Eleonora's Falcon 28. Falco biarmicus SPEC 3 VU 2000 * * Lanner Falcon 29. Falco cherrug EN SPEC 1 EN 200613 * * Saker Falcon

13 The SAP was commissioned by the Bern Convention and adopted by the EC Ornis Committee 28 Endorsed by Global EU Threat Year Subspecies threat SPEC Category Status 1st Latest No. Species Year of reviews or population status (BirdLife 2004) (BirdLife public revision EC Bern (2010) 2005) Bonn ation AEWA 30. Falco rusticolus Gyrfalcon SPEC 3 (R) * * 2000 31. Alectoris graeca A. g. SPEC 2 (D) 2000 Rock Partridge saxatilis + A. * * g. whitakeri 32. Perdix perdix P .p. italica SPEC 3 VU 2000 Grey Partridge + P. p. * * hispaniensis 33. Crex crex NT SPEC 1 H 1996 2001, 2004, 2006 * * * * Corncrake 2007 34. Porphyrio porphyrio SPEC 3 L 2000 * * Purple Swamphen 35. Fulica cristata SPEC 3 CR 2000 * * Red-knobbed Coot 36. Tetrax tetrax NT SPEC 1 VU 1999 2006, 2010 2010 * * Little Bustard 37. Chlamydotis undulata north-west VU SPEC 1 (VU) 1996 2004, 2006, 2010 Houbara Bustard African * * 2008 population 38. Otis tarda VU SPEC 1 VU 1996 2004, 2006, 2010 * * * Great Bustard 2009 39. Cursorius cursor SPEC 3 (EN) 2000 * * Cream-coloured Courser 40. Gallinago media NT SPEC 1 D 2004 2007 * * * Great Snipe 41. Numenius tenuirostris CR SPEC 1 NE 1996 2004, 2007 * * * Slender-billed Curlew 42. Sterna dougalli East Atlantic LC SPEC 3 R 1999 * Roseate tern population 43. Larus audouinii NT SPEC 1 L 1996 2004, 2007, * * * Audouin's Gull 2010 44. Columba trocaz NT SPEC 1 (R) 1996 2001, 2004, * * Madeira Laurel Pigeon 2010 45. Columba bollii NT SPEC 1 (R) * * 1996 2001, 2004, 29 Endorsed by Global EU Threat Year Subspecies threat SPEC Category Status 1st Latest No. Species Year of reviews or population status (BirdLife 2004) (BirdLife public revision EC Bern (2010) 2005) Bonn ation AEWA Dark-tailed Laurel Pigeon 2010 46. Columba junoniae EN SPEC 1 EN 1996 2001, 2004, * * White-tailed Laurel Pigeon 2010 47. Coracias garrulus NT SPEC 2 VU 2008 * European Roller 48. Dendrocopos major D. m. Non-SPEC S 2000 Great Spotted Woodpecker canariensis + * * D. m. thanneri 49. Chersophilus duponti NT SPEC 3 (H) 2008 * Dupont's Lark 50. Acrocephalus paludicola VU SPEC 1 (VU) 1996 2004, 2008 2008 * * Aquatic Warbler 51. Ficedula semitorquata NT SPEC 2 D 2010 * Semi-collared Flycatcher 52. Fringilla teydea NT SPEC 1 R 1996 2001, 2004, * * Blue Chaffinch 2010 53. Loxia scotica DD SPEC 1 DD 2000 * * Scottish Crossbill 54. Pyrrhula murina CR SPEC 1 (EN) 1996 2001, 2004, 2010 * * Azores Bullfinch 2009

30 ANNEX

SPECIES ACCOUNTS

Assessed in 2010 Audouin’s Gull Larus audouinii...... 32 Balearic Shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus ...... 45 Blue chaffinch Fringilla teydea...... 60 Bonelli’s eagle Aquila fasciata ...... 70 Cinereous vulture Aegypius monachus ...... 85 Dalmatian pelican Pelecanus crispus ...... 94 Dark-tailed laurel pigeon Columba bollii ...... 104 Eastern Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca ...... 114 Eleonora’s falcon Falco eleonorae...... 125 Fea’s Petrel Pterodroma feae...... 137 Bearded Vulture Gypaetus barbatus...... 144 Lesser spotted eagle Aquila pomarina...... 176 Little bustard Tetrax tetrax ...... 187 Madeira laurel pigeon Columba trocaz...... 200 White-tailed laurel pigeon Columba junoniae...... 207 Zino’s Petrel Pterodroma madeira ...... 217

Assessed in 2008 Marbled Teal Marmaronetta angustirostris ...... 223 Aquatic Warbler Acrocephalus paludicola...... 230 Spanish Imperial Eagle Aquila adalberti...... 237

Assessed in 2009 Red-breasted Goose Branta ruficollis...... 247 Azores bullfinch Pyrrhula murina...... 256

These species accounts were compiled on the basis of the information collected through questionnaires as described in Table 7. The contributors are acknowledged in each account. The references used are listed at the end of each account. If no reference is provided then the information used is as provided by the contributors in the questonnaire, as personal commentary.

31 Audouin’s Gull Larus audouinii

Background The International Action Plan (Lambertini, 1996) for Audouin’s gull was developed and adopted in 1996, approved by the Ornis Committee and endorsed by the Bern and Bonn Conventions. The action plan has not been revised. Its implementation has been reviewed twice – in 2000 (Gallo-Orsi, 2001) and 2004 (Nagy & Crockford, 2004). Its geographical scope covers Algeria, Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Senegal, Spain, Tunisia and Turkey. This review covers only the relevant European range of the species, including Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Spain and Turkey. Spain is considered the most significant country for the conservation of Audouin’s gull in Europe, where the species breeds in the Ebro delta (Catalonia) and the Chafarinas Islands. No information has been provided by Spain nationally, or by the Chafarinas Islands, however, regional information has been provided by Catalonia, which holds 65% of the global population14.

General overview Progress in the overall implementation of the action plan is good but further work is still needed (overall IS=2.1). The SAP has been most successfully implemented in Catalonia, where the species population is fluctuating, but newly established colonies have recently been discovered.

4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 API 1.5 1.5 Average IS Average 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0

1 1 1.1 . 1.1 3.1 3.1 . 1. 1.2 1.2.2 1.3.1 2. 2.2.1 2. 3.1.1 3.2.1 3. 4.1 Action

Figure ii Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each Action listed in the Audouin’s gull species action plan. Colours represent Priority Score.

14 Oro and Ruxton (2001).

32 Status review Audouin’s gull breeds in Algeria, Cyprus, Croatia, France, Greece, Italy, Morocco, Spain (Ebro Delta and the Chafarinas Islands), Tunisia and Turkey, with the Ebro Delta (Catalonia) holding over 65% of the total breeding population. With almost 20,000 breeding pairs, Spain supports around 90% of the world’s Audouin’s gull population (Gutiérrez & Guinart, 2008). The species winters on the coast of North and West Africa. The most recent national breeding population estimate from Spain is from 2007, however, population trend data from 2000-2010 are available for Catalonia (holding the majority of the global population) and shows the population to be fluctuating and hence this is the global population trend for the species.

Table 9 Population estimate and trend by country Population at Population at Current the time of the Breeding Country Year the 2004 Year population Year Reference 1996 SAP trend review (pairs) (pairs) (pairs) 1998- 2007- 12% Cyprus 10-20 1993 15-30 15-28 15 2002 2010 Increasing Croatia − - 65-70 2002 20-30 - - - 1998- France 90 1993 56-92 Fluctuating 16 2001 84 2009 1995- 30-40% Greece 200-300 1993 750-900 350-500 2010 17 2000 Decreasing 1999- Italy 550-650 1993 510-982 1019 2008 Increasing 18 2000 Spain 14,000 1993 16,957 2000 19,517 2007 Fluctuating19 20 2000- Turkey 50 1993 50-100 2001 60-90 Unknown - 2005

Objective(s) 1. In the short term to maintain the current population throughout the species’ range. 2. In the medium to long term, to conserve suitable habitats in order to promote the expansion of the species' range and numbers particularly in smaller colonies.

Evaluation The short term target of the action plan has been met since the global population trend is fluctuating but not decreasing and the current population estimate (21,045-21,238) is higher than at the time of writing the action plan (14,900-15,110 pairs) and at the time of the 2004 review (18,338-19,061). The medium to long term target has also been met since the species has expanded its range and several new colonies have been found: in

15 Militadou M. 2009. − Indicates no data available. 16 Recorbet & Culioli 2009. 17 Hellenic Ornithological Society / BirdLife Greece, 2010. 18 N. Baccetti personal communication 19 Data from 2000 is available for Catalonia and shows that the population fluctuates between 9768 and 15396 pairs. 20 Gutiérrez & Guinart, 2008

33 2005 in Torrevieja lagoon, Alicante21 (where 31 pairs nested for the first time in 2005 and increased to 298 pairs in 2006); and in 2010 in Llobregat Delta22(140 pairs), Aiguamolls de l'Empordà Natural Park23 (6 pairs), and Tarragona harbour24 (1 pair). Although the population is decreasing in Greece, in all other countries it is fluctuating, stable or increasing and so overall the numbers in smaller colonies are increasing.

Conservation and Legal Status The Global IUCN Red List Category of Audouin’s gull is Near Threatened with criteria A3b nearly met because the species may undergo a moderately rapid population decline in future if current fishery practices change and as such it is precautionary treated as Near Threatened (BirdLife International 2010). It was listed as Lower Risk/Conservation Dependent in 1994; and Lower Risk/Near Threatened in 2000 when such categories existed. The species is listed as Localised (SPEC 1) due to ≥90% of the population breeding at ≤10 sites in the European IUCN Red List (BirdLife International, 2004), and is listed in Annex I of the EU Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC, ‘Birds Directive’), in Appendix III of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention), Appendix I and II on the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS or Bonn Convention) and Annex II of AEWA. Turkey is the only range country that is not a contracting party to the AEWA. The AEWA has been signed by Greece but not ratified. MARPOL, Barcelona Convention and Biosafety Protocol have all been signed by Greece but are poorly enforced and there are no SPAMIs designated. A National CBD strategy is being developed in Greece and is expected to be completed in summer 2010.

21 Sáez & Arroyo 2005, (www.naturalicante.com/noticias/Noti-jun-2005/noticias-junio-05.htm). 22 In 2010 140 pairs breed (92 chicks ringed) in Llobregat Delta. In 2009 c.14 pairs (of which 5 successfully bred) in Llobregat Delta: http://birdspain.blogspot.com/2009/06/primer-caso-de-nidificacion- de-la.html 23 In 2010 6 pairs nest but breeding is unsuccessful in Aiguamolls de l'Empordà Natural Park (also see J.M.Aledo in litt. for 2009 record). 24 In 2010 1 pair (unsuccessful breeding) in Tarragona harbour.

Overview of past and current threats Table 10 Table of importance of Audouin’s gull threats by country25. The current level of importance of threats listed in 1996 SAP and newly identified threats are listed for each country. The original importance level of the threats as listed in the 1996 SAP are included in brackets.

Threats identified in 1996 Threats identified in 2010 Country Habitat alterations at breeding sites (high) Changes in fishing practices (high) Yellow- with Competition gulllegged & other species high) (locally Egg collection & human persecution (low) (low) disturbance Human Depletion of food resources (unknown, high) potentially Chemical pollutionoil & (unknown) spills Disturbance of colonies by anglers Predation of nests and chicks & fragmentation Colony reduction in size Low temperatures &showers spring during late unusual dates Low/ Critical/ Cyprus Low Medium N/A Critical Low Not Critical High relevant Medium France Medium Medium High Low Medium Medium Low (locally high) Greece Medium Medium High Low Medium High Medium Medium Medium

Italy Medium High High Medium Medium High Medium

Spain - Possibly Medium High High Low Medium High Low High Catalonia High Turkey Low Medium High Medium High Medium Medium

Assessment of the implementation

National and regional species action plans National action plans for the species are in place only in France (the plan is up-to-date, financed by the national Government and implemented), Italy (the plan is from 2001 and has been very partially implemented, mainly through some LIFE projects in Tuscany), in Spain action plans have been adopted by 3 autonomous regions (Catalonia, Valencia and the Balearic Islands) thus covering the main distribution areas of the species. In Catalonia26 for example, the plan is financed and implemented.

25 No response on threats facing Audouin’s gull were received from Spain. 26 DECRET 259/2004, de 13 d'abril, pel qual es declara espècie en perill d'extinció la gavina corsa i s'aproven els plans de recuperació de diverses espècies (http://mediambient.gencat.net/cat/el_departament/actuacions_i_serveis/legislacio/natura/protecio_animals/ DECRET_259_2004.jsp)

35 National working groups coordinate the activities in France, Greece, Italy, and Catalonia (the Spanish working group is not operative at least in the last years. Only informal contacts are kept).

Species conservation Overall, the management of breeding colonies has received a low level of work; however, Catalonia and France have made significant progress. In Catalonia, the only management issues were regarding the management of alien species and ensuring the confidentiality of unprotected colony locations. The problems in keeping the location of unprotected colonies confidential were due to media pressure and lack of secrecy by local managers or media. However, following these cases, awareness-raising materials, including information on punishments for violation of the law, was widespread across all protected and coastal administration areas in Catalonia with good results. One of the newly discovered colonies in Catalonia experienced failed breeding in 2010 due to predation pressure; however, management actions are now being carried out to control alien species threatening the colony. Monitoring and control of alien predators is carried in the main Ebro delta colony. Another of the newly discovered colonies is just outside an existing SPA and so fishing (angling) in this area was banned in 2010 to reduce disturbance.

In Greece, fines for violations of protection laws are relatively low and are not enforced. Wardening of major colonies is not carried out by local authorities or Management Bodies, and so some disturbance occurs by locals and tourists visiting the islets in spring. Rat predation has been recorded in some colonies and rat eradication is planned on specific islets (in 2010-11 through the LIFE project). Through the 1997-1999 LIFE projects, goats were removed from one site prior to the species’ breeding season and in another, a wall was constructed in order to keep out goats (and thus dogs). Colonies are kept confidential in most cases although in most areas local people know where colonies are located. Since the breeding colony in Cyprus is restricted to the Kleides islets at the far eastern side of the island, and the north of the island is under Turkish occupation, it is not possible for Cyprus to implement the majority of species and habitat conservation measures.

Site conservation The key sites for the species enjoy high protected area coverage in most range countries. There are 119 IBAs designated for the species in Europe, of which 113 are in the EU. The 101 SPAs in the EU designated for the species include >90% of the European breeding population. The most important colonies in Ebro Delta, Catalonia, are included in protected areas. In 2006, the Catalan Government designated new SPAs for birds, proposed new sites of Community importance (SCI) and modified previously designated sites. As a result, Catalan sites forming part of the Natura 2000 network now cover a total of 1,046,132 ha, of which 963,035 are terrestrial (29.8% of Catalan territory) and 83,104 marine27. These designated SPAs and marine protected

27http://mediambient.gencat.net/eng//el_medi/espais_naturals/xarxa_natura_2000/xarxa_natura_2000_catal unya.jsp

36 areas include 100% of the previously known regional population, however, the largest newly established colony (in Llobregat delta) is located just c.50m outside of the current protected area (SPA Llobregat delta). Work is now being carried out to include this new breeding site within protected areas, however it is already covered by basic legislation and the official species recovery plan. Several national marine protected areas have also been designated in Italy, as well as marine SPAs. Chronic lack of funding is a serious problem for some of these areas. In Greece, 61% of area of breeding islets are identified as IBAs and 86% of these designated as SPAs. Three SPAs with a marine component include species colonies, two of which were designated in April 2010. Special Environmental Studies have been developed for many breeding sites in Greece, however, Management Bodies occur only in one breeding site for which a Management Plan is prepared and enforced. Despite the only breeding colony in Cyprus being included in an IBA, the colony has no legal protection. Despite two new SPAs being designated with a marine component area in Cyprus, none of these include the feeding areas of the Audouin's Gull.

Habitat conservation Integrated Coastal Zone Management In Catalonia, significant progress has been made in implementing coastal strategies and ensuring the fishing ban on trawlers at Tarragona province does not coincide with the species’ breeding season (as the species benefits from fish waste dumped from boats fishing nearby). From 2010 onwards the ban will not coincide with breeding season of Ebro delta. A 'Special Planning Strategy for the Coastal Zone and Islands' in Greece was presented for public consultation in August 2009 but has not yet been voted for in parliament, and so is yet to be implemented. Fishing moratoria do not occur in the same manner and frequency in Greece compared to western Mediterranean and previous observation have shown that Audouin’s gull does not depend on trawler bycatch for food, so the development of fishing moratoria that are compatible with the subsistence of the major breeding colonies is not a relevant action in Greece. However, as part of the 2009-2012 LIFE project28 in Greece, ongoing work is being carried out to assess accidental trapping of the species and to implement specific activities, involving promotion of the modification of fishing gear and of existing regional and national fisheries regulations and practices, in collaboration with fishermen communities. EIAs are not deemed necessary in Greece in the case of small scale land use changes (e.g. agriculture and stock-breeding) and minor constructions. In France, breeding colonies tend to move from site to site, but remain mostly in protected areas (nature reserves). In Italy and Turkey, very little progress has been made to ensure coastal policies are compatible with the conservation of the species, with only extremely limited marine areas covered by fishing bans in Italy.

28 LIFE project code: LIFE07 NAT/GR/000285

37 Prevention of oil spills and chemical pollution at sea There has been moderate implementation of protecting the species and its habitat from chemical pollution of the sea and oil spills, with the majority of work being carried out by Catalonia where a civil protection plan to prevent marine contamination is enforced and in operation. Heavy fines are imposed in France for the cleaning of oil tankers outside designated areas. In Greece, agricultural runoff and release of chemicals close to colonies is not monitored but is suspected to be low since colonies are located on small uninhabited islets, near islands. Egg contents have been analysed (LIFE project 97-99).

Wintering sites and migration routes Where relevant, the protection of wintering sites with more than 200 individuals of the species has been well implemented. However, the avoidance of over-fishing and monitoring of fishing activities near major wintering sites has received virtually no work except for the moderate amount carried out in Catalonia. In Greece, knowledge of the location of wintering sites in the country is poor, leading to low progress in protecting wintering sites and migration routes. Most available information originates from re- sightings of ringed birds (14 recoveries from over 520 ringed birds), mostly from Northern Africa. This action is not relevant in Cyprus and France.

Monitoring and Research Overall, monitoring of the population has been the most highly implemented action, with monitoring programmes in place in all the European range countries, except Turkey, at a national level and in protected areas. These programmes focus on monitoring the population size and breeding success through annual counts at colonies. Colour ringing and wintering monitoring of the most important colonies is conducted during the breeding season, involving locating feeding and roosting areas (involving direct systematic observation of birds at sea, telemetry, distribution of pelagic fish populations, oceanographic and sea productivity parameters), and aims to conclude in a marine IBAs inventory for the species. Research in France is mostly carried out on the breeding population and data collected are only partial.

In Catalonia, monitoring and, where necessary, control of predators is carried out every year in the main Ebro delta colony. In Greece, Yellow-legged Gull population monitoring takes place in some breeding sites. As part of the 2009-2012 LIFE project, actions to control invasive species (rats) will be implemented in the most suitable 5 sites and the assessment and pilot treatment of Yellow-legged Gull predation on Audouin’s gull will be implemented at a specific site. The project also involves actions to assess the extent, characteristics and geographical hotspots of accidental trapping by fisheries of the species in Greece. Human disturbance on the breeding islets in Cyprus is documented during census work (in May 2010 desertion of the main nesting islet was found due to documented disturbance by fishermen). Fishing activities in the suspected Northern and NE Cyprus

38 marine feeding areas are not documented (as the area is occupied by Turkish Troops). During the breeding census no predation by Yellow-legged gulls of Audouin’s gull nests was.

There is an agreed protocol of low disturbance and census methodology in Greece enforced by HOS/BirdLife Greece during annual censuses. In Catalonia there is also a protocol on low disturbance agreed between protected areas and wildlife service with the help of University researchers but no 'official' set of rules published elsewhere. Actions are based on common knowledge on the protection of the species and previous management experiences. Any work dealing with the species needs an official permit detailing actions to be carried out, timing etc.

Public awareness and stakeholder involvement Actions to provide information and raise awareness of the plight of Audouin’s gull have received a high level of implementation by Greece and Catalonia, and to a lesser extent, France and Italy, despite being only a medium priority action. Implementation in Cyprus and Turkey was very low. Through the 2009-2012 LIFE project in Greece, eight actions are being implemented as part of an extensive and well-focused public awareness campaign, focusing various target groups, for the conservation of the species and the promotion of the marine protected areas concept in Greece. The campaign involves environmental education activities, special publications, information kiosks and mobile exhibitions, media work, and extensive use of the internet media. A special t-shirt on the Audouin's gull has been developed and produced in Catalonia, as well as leaflets produced, and toys in collaboration with the Valencia government. The annual ringing scheme at Ebro Delta involves the local people to encourage appreciation and understanding of the species. The Catalonia regional recovery plan is published in three languages (Catalan, Spanish, and English). The majority of conservation/communication actions in France are linked to site management (including nature reserves) and are coordinated in the national action plan.

Community financial support Five LIFE projects29 that benefit Audouin’s gull have been implemented in Greece (1), Italy (1) and Spain (3), during the period 2004-2010, with a total budget of more than 5 million Euros, of which the total European Union contribution was more than 3.5 million Euros. In addition, 3 projects receiving over 500,000 Euros of national government or international donor funding have been carried out to implement a national action plan in France, increase knowledge on the distribution, movements and ecology of seabirds in Greece, and warden, control and monitor pests at the Ebro delta colony, Catalonia.

29 LIFE project codes: LIFE07 NAT/GR/000285; LIFE04 NAT/IT/000172; LIFE02 NAT/E/008608; LIFE03 NAT/E/000061; LIFE02 NAT/E/008612

39 Conclusions The progress in the implementation of the action plan is fairly good (Average IS=2.1), but further work is still needed. Catalonia, holding the largest proportion of the population, has made significantly good progress, with the action receiving the least implementation (although still a lot of work has been carried out) being the protection of the species and its habitat from oil spills and chemical pollution of the sea. Overall, the actions that have received the least work are the ensuring of the compatibility of policies with the conservation of the species, the protection of the species from oil spills and chemical pollution at sea, and the undertaking of appropriate management at breeding colonies. National implementation scores (NIS) are highest in Catalonia, France and Greece, and lowest in Cyprus, Italy and Turkey. Further measures/work still needed especially in the field of: • Development of incentives in agreement with IMO and shipping insurance brokers for oil tanker companies avoiding sensitive marine ecosystems. • Monitoring of the release of chemicals in feeding waters. • Monitoring of the use of agricultural chemicals near colonies. • Developing and implementing management plans for each designated site. • Ensuring fishing moratoria are compatible with the subsistence of the major breeding colonies. • Ensuring national policies promote sustainable development (eco-tourism) in inhabited islands. • Meeting(s) held to exchange information, debate problems, update the action plan and coordinate fieldwork organised every 2–3 years, and proceedings published.

Contributors Michael Miltiadou (BirdLife Cyprus); Bernard Deceuninck (LPO - BirdLife France); Danae Portolou (Hellenic Ornithological Society/BirdLife Greece); Claudio Celada (LIPU Birdlife Italy); Ricard Gutiérrez (Wildlife Service. Government of Catalonia); Ortaç Onmuş (Ege University Natural History Museum Research and Application Center); Gordan Lukac (Paklenica National Park)

40 Appendix 1 Table 11 Implementation of the action plan in the European range states30. PS = Priority Score; Ave. IS = Average Implementation Score; API = Action Priority Index; National IS = National Implementation Score. ES- Ave. ActionMeasure PS CY FR GR IT TR API C IS 1.1.1 Policies (including fishing and shipping) compatible with the conservation of the species 3 1 2 2 1 3.3 1 1.7 2.3 a. Fishing moratoria are compatible with the subsistence of the major breeding colonies. 3 0 0 0 1 3 1 1.7 2.3 b. National Coastal Strategy, taking in to account the conservation of the species and of its habitat, 2 0 2 2 1 4 1 2.0 1.3 developed. c. National Coastal Strategy implemented. 2 1 2 0 1 3 1 1.6 1.6 1.2.1 Establish legal protection for the species and its habitat 3 1.6 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.5 1 2.6 1.4 a. National policies promote sustainable development (eco-tourism) in inhabited islands. 3 0 2 2 2 0 1 1.8 2.3 b. National policies grant full protection to deserted islands. 3 1 3 3 3 4 1 2.5 1.5 c. All islands where the species occurs or occurred recently are declared SAC. Outside the EU similar 3 1 0 4 4 0 1 2.5 1.5 protection is granted. d. All islands where the species occurs or occurred recently are declared SPA. Outside the EU similar 3 1 4 3 4 3 1 2.7 1.3 protection is granted. e. The species is fully protected. 3 4 4 4 4 4 1 3.5 0.5 f. All breeding and wintering sites are protected by national law. 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 2.3 1.7 1.2.2 To protect the species and its habitat from chemical pollution of the sea and oil spills 3 1.6 2 1.3 1.2 2.7 1.2 1.7 2.3 a. National and international legislation on chemical pollution is enforced. 3 4 2 2 1 2 2 2.2 1.8 b. Use of agricultural chemicals near colonies is monitored. 3 1 1 0 1 3 1 1.4 2.6 c. Release of chemicals in the feeding waters is monitored. 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1.3 2.7 d. Incentives are developed in agreement with IMO and shipping insurance brokers for oil tanker 3 1 2 1 1 0 1 1.2 2.8 companies avoiding sensitive marine ecosystems. e. Heavy fines are imposed for the cleaning of oil tankers outside designated areas. 3 1 4 1 2 0 1 1.8 2.2 Preparation of national species action plans and involvement of international conventions and 1.3.1 3 1.5 3.6 2.1 2.8 3.6 1 2.4 1.6 funding a. National action plan developed. 3 1 4 1 4 4 1 2.5 1.5 b. National action plan implemented. 3 1 4 1 1 4 1 2.0 2.0 c. AEWA signed and ratified. 2 1 4 1 4 4 1 2.5 1.0 d. Barcelona Convention signed and ratified. 2 3 4 4 4 4 1 3.3 0.4 e. All colonies are MedSPA 2 1 4 1 1 2 1 1.7 1.6

30 CY=Cyprus; FR=France; GR=Greece; IT=Italy; ES-C =Catalonia; TR=Turkey.

41 f. Biodiversity Convention signed and ratified. 2 3 4 4 4 4 1 3.3 0.4 g. National strategy under the CBD promote conservation and sustainable management of the coastal and 2 1 3 3 1 0 1 1.8 1.5 island ecosystem. h. Bilateral agreement between government for establishing and manage protected areas and for research in 3 1 2 2 3 3 1 2.0 2.0 place. 2.1.1 Ensure adequate protection of breeding sites and remove major threats to breeding habitat 3 1 2.6 2 1.6 3.8 1 2.0 2.0 a. All IBAs where the species breed declared protected areas. 3 1 4 3 3 4 1 2.7 1.3 b. Where colonies are highly mobile, temporary protection schemes implemented. 3 0 3 2 1 4 1 2.2 1.8 c. Management plan for each designated site developed and implemented. 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 1.5 2.5 d. Where protection status has not been completed, planning instrument take into consideration the 3 1 3 1 1 4 1 1.8 2.2 presence of breeding colonies. e. All proposed land uses changes threatening occupied or traditional breeding sites are subject to 3 1 1 3 2 4 1 2.0 2.0 environmental impact assessment. 2.2.1 Undertake appropriate management at breeding colonies 2 1 2.4 1.7 1.3 3 1 1.7 1.5 a. Human access to colonies both from land and sea is prevented. 3 1 3 1 1 4 1 1.8 2.2 b. When competition with and predation by Yellow-legged Gull is proved to be a problem, their population 2 1 3 2 1 4 1 2.0 1.3 is controlled. c. Causes of Yellow-legged Gull population increase understood. 2 1 2 3 2 4 1 2.2 1.2 d. When rats are seriously threatening a colony, they are controlled by appropriate means. 2 1 2 3 2 2 1 1.8 1.4 e. Foxes, feral cat and dogs are removed from colonies. 2 1 0 1 1 2 1 1.2 1.9 f. Location of unprotected colonies is kept confidential. 2 0 0 1 1 2 1 1.3 1.8 g. Wardening in place to avoid egg-collection. 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1.5 0.8 2.3.1 Protect Audouin's Gull and its habitat in the winter quarters and along the migration route 2 0 0 1 2 3 1.5 1.9 1.4 a. All wintering sites with more than 200 individuals of the species are protected. 2 0 0 1 3 4 2 2.5 1.0 b. Fishing activities in the vicinity of the major wintering site are monitored and over-fishing avoided. 2 0 0 1 1 2 1 1.3 1.8 3.1.1 Set up and implement a monitoring programme 3 4 3 3. 7 1.8 3.5 1.2 2.9 1.1 a. Population monitoring ongoing. 3 4 4 4 3 4 2 3.5 0.5 b. Working groups meet every 2-3 years. 3 0 0 4 2 2 1 2.3 1.8 c. Detailed population surveys carried out in eastern and southern Mediterranean. 3 0 3 3 2 4 1 2.6 1.4 d. World population census carried out. 3 0 3 3 1 4 1 2.4 1.6 e. Co-ordinated colour ringing scheme at selected colonies, covering the whole range of the species, 2 0 2 4 1 4 1 2.4 1.1 ongoing. f. Protocol on low disturbance monitoring agreed. 2 4 3 4 2 3 1 2.8 0.8 Promote research which is of direct application to the conservation and management of Audouin's 3.2.1 2 1.4 2.3 2.5 1.5 3.1 1.1 2.0 1.3 Gull a. Most important passage and wintering sites identified. 3 1 4 2 1 4 2 2.3 1.7

42 b. Knowledge of the species' winter ecology improved. 2.5 1 1 2 2 2 1 1.5 2.1 c. Factors regulating breeding success and survival determined. 2 1 3 3 2 4 1 2.3 1.1 d. Predictive population model developed. 3 1 0 2 1 4 1 1.8 2.2 e. Mechanism for breeding site selection understood. 2 1 2 2 2 3 1 1.8 1.4 f. Breeding success at different habitats compared. 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 2.0 1.3 g. Diet in different parts of the range determined. 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 1.5 1.7 h. Protocol on low disturbance research agreed. 2 4 2 4 1 3 1 2.5 1.0 3.3.1 Assess the major threats to the Audouin's gull and their effects 2 1.2 2.2 3 1.3 3.1 1 2.0 1.4 a. Levels of chemical pollution determined. 2 1 0 3 1 2 1 1.6 1.6 b. Effect of fishing evaluated. 3 1 0 3 1 3 1 1.8 2.2 c. Habitat requirements understood. 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 2.0 1.3 d. Effect of human disturbance assessed. 2 2 3 3 1 3 1 2.2 1.2 e. The impact of the Yellow legged Gull on the Audouin's Gull evaluated. 2 1 3 3 2 4 1 2.3 1.1 f. Impact of terrestrial predators determined. 2 0 2 3 1 4 1 2.2 1.2 g. Fishing activities monitored. 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 1.7 2.3 Provide information and increase awareness of AG, the need for its conservation and to promote the 4.1.1 2 1 1.7 3.7 1.6 3.4 1 2.1 1.3 AG as a flagship species a. Awareness among politicians and decision-makers increased. 2 1 3 4 1 4 1 2.3 1.1 b. Awareness amongst general public increased. 2 1 2 4 2 4 1 2.3 1.1 c. Tourists and fishermen involved in preventing disturbance. 3 1 0 3 2 3 1 2.0 2.0 d. Educational material prepared and distributed. 2 1 1 4 2 4 1 2.2 1.2 e. Media used to increase awareness. 2 1 1 4 1 4 1 2.0 1.3 f. Audouin's Gull used as flagship for the protection of Mediterranean coastal habitats and islands. 2 1 1 4 2 4 1 2.2 1.2 g. A meeting to exchange information, debate problems, update the action plan and coordinate fieldwork 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 1.5 2.5 organised every 2–3 years, and proceedings published. National IS and Average IS 1.6 2.6 2.4 1.8 3.3 1.1 2.1

References

BirdLife International, 2004. Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 12)

BirdLife International 2010. Larus audouinii. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. . Downloaded on 18 August 2010.

Dimalexis, T., Fric, J. and V. Saravia Mullin (2007) Survey and Conservation of Seabirds in Greece Annual Project Report. Hellenic Ornithological Society.

Gutiérrez, R and Guinart, E. 2008. The Ebro Delta Audouin’s Gull colony and vagrancy potential to northwest Europe. British Birds 101. 442–447.

Lambertini, M. 1996. International Action Plan for Audouin's Gull (Larus audouinii). BirdLife International report to the European Commission, unpublished. (Document available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/action_plans/docs/larus_a udouinii.pdf).

Militadou M. 2009. Populations of Breeding Coastal Birds of Cyprus, including 2009 survey of Kleides Islands. Cyprus BirdLife Magazine. Autumn 2009. Nicosia.

Miltiadou M. 2007. Breeding Census of Audouin's Gull Larus audouinii colony at Kleides Islands. Cyprus BirdLife Magazine. Summer 2007. Nicosia.

Miltiadou M. 2010. Kleides Islands Coastal Bird Breeding Census 2010. Cyprus BirdLife Magazine. Summer 2010. Nicosia.

Pérez, I.; Mínguez, E.; Sarzo, B.; Villuendas, E.; Martínez, A.; Oro, D.; Carda, J. & Jiménez, J. 2009. Lessons from the management of Audouin’s Gull Larus audouinii in Eastern Spain (1999-2008): recommended guidelines. Consellería de Medio Ambiente, Agua, Urbanismo y Vivienda. Generalitat Valenciana. Valencia.

Recorbet, B. & Culioli, J.-M. 2009. Goéland d'Audouin Larus audouinii p 152 In de seynes, A. & Coordinateurs espèces. Les Oiseaux nicheurs rares et menacés en France en 2009. Ornithos 17-3: 137-168.

Sáez, A., & Arroyo, S. 2005. La Gaviota de Audouin cria en el PN de Torrevieja-La Mata. Noticias Naturalicante Junio 2005. Retrieved from www.naturalicante.com/noticias/Noti-jun-2005/noticias-junio-05.htm

44 Balearic Shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus

Background The Species Action Plan for the Balearic Shearwater in Europe (Aguilar 1999) was adopted in 1999 by the Ornis Committee and endorsed by the Bern Convention. This review evaluates the implementation of the Species Action Plan from 2000 to 2010 in the European range states of the species. It covers the entire breeding population of the species on the Balearic Islands, Spain, the only country where the species breeds, as well as non-breeding populations in Portugal, UK and France. Replies to the evaluation questionnaire were received from national and regional (in the case of Spain) experts from all range states.

General overview Progress in the overall implementation of the action plan is good but further work is still needed (overall IS=2.2). The SAP has been most successfully implemented in France, but has received the least work in the UK.

4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 API

Average IS 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Action

Figure iii Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action listed in the Balearic shearwater species action plan. Colours represent Priority Score.

Status review The breeding population of the Balearic shearwater was last estimated at 3,193 breeding pairs, in 2009 (CMA-Govern de les Illes Balears & Skua, unpublished data - 2010; see Table 1). However, absolute figures and their use to infer population trends should be taken with caution, as breeding sites are most often inaccessible, and therefore their census relies on indirect methods that are subject to strong biases and inaccuracy.

Table 12 Population estimate and trend by country Breeding Migrating population at Current and/or Breeding Country the time of Year population Year Year Reference wintering trend the 1999 SAP (pairs) numbers (pairs) 1960- 1,000 - 6,000 France 0 1997 0 2000-2009 Stable 2010 ind. 1,100 - 4,300 Portugal 0 1997 0 0 2004-2008 - ind. 1991- 20,000 - Fluctuati Spain 3,300 pairs 1997 3193 pairs 2003-2009 31 2010 >30,000 ind. ng 145 - 5,200 UK 0 1997 0 2007-2009 - ind.

Objective(s) In the short term, to warrant the viability of the Balearic shearwater populations. In the medium to long term, to restore their numbers and distribution to former status and to increase the knowledge about the species’ biology.

Evaluation It is unknown whether the short term target set in the action plan has been met as the way this target is formulated it is not easily quantifiable with the available population data.

The unique existing population viability analysis (PVA) was conducted by Oro et al. (2004). Taking the demographic information available from two predator-free colonies of Mallorca, and assuming a breeding population of 2000 breeding pairs, these authors estimated a declining trend for the species (λ=0.952), with a 7.4% rate of decline, that would result in a mean extinction time of 40.4 years (i.e. less than 3 generations, 54 years). The main parameter explaining this trend was adult survival (estimated at 0.78), whereas breeding productivity would need to improve over normal values for a Procellariiform to reach a value of λ≥0 (Louzao et al. 2006a).

As stated above, these data have to be taken with caution given the low number of study sites (Tavecchia et al. 2007). However, demographic information came from predator- free colonies (or with only rats, in one of them), and should be taken as conservative. The lack of predators also suggests that the source of mortality for the birds breeding in these colonies should come from the sea, likely fishing bycatch (Oro et al. 2004, Arcos et al. 2008).

It is important to conduct new PVAs taking into account the new information on population figures (both for the breeding population and for the global population out of surveys at sea). Accurate monitoring of a handful of representative sites is also necessary

31 Conselleria de Medi Ambient, 2005

46 to update demographic parameters and to make the estimates more representative of the whole population.

The medium to long term targets have not been met as species numbers and distribution have not been restored to former status. It is assumed that ‘former status’ refers to a population size and distribution that would result in the species being reclassified on the IUCN Red List from ‘Critically Endangered’ to ‘Near Threatened’. The species was upgraded from ‘Near Threatened’ to ‘Critically Endangered’ in 2000, and so population size and distribution estimates from before 2000 should be used as the target. It should be noted, however, that there have been discrepancies in breeding and non-breeding population estimates. The knowledge about the species’ biology is still incomplete [in order to understand its implications on the population trend] although some progress has been made.

Conservation and Legal Status The Global IUCN Red List Category of the Balearic shearwater is Critically Endangered under criteria A4b,c,d,e based on its tiny effective breeding range (<100 km2, restricted to the Balearic Islands) and a small population which is undergoing an extremely rapid population decline (-7.4% per year), that could lead to its extinction in less than 3 generations (BirdLife International 2009).

The species is listed as Critically Endangered (SPEC 1) under criteria A4b,c,e;B2a+b(ii,iii,iv,v) in the European IUCN Red List (BirdLife International, 2004), and is listed in Annex I of the EU Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC, ‘Birds Directive’), Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention), Annex II of the Mediterranean SPA-BD and OSPAR. The species is also candidate to ACAP. The species is legally protected across all of its range. The new taxonomic status of the species is included in reviews of international conventions.

Overview of past and current threats The main threats for the Balearic shearwater are those that directly affect adult survival, both in the breeding grounds and at sea. Predation by carnivores (breeding colonies) and fishing bycatch (at sea) have been identified as the two main threats. Acute pollution (e.g. oil spills) also poses a serious potential threat, as the highly gregarious behaviour of this shearwater at sea could result in mass mortality in the case of overlap with an event of acute pollution (e.g. oil spill). Other threats affecting breeding performance/ adult survival are reduced food availability (through overexploitation/reduction of fish stocks), predation by rats, breeding habitat degradation and background chemical pollution. Inland harvesting for food used to be an important threat influencing both survival and productivity, but is no longer considered relevant. Table 3 reviews the past and current threats to the Balearic shearwater.

47 Table 13 Table of importance of Balearic shearwater threats by country. The current level of importance of threats listed in 1999 SAP and newly identified threats are listed for each country. The original importance level of the threats as listed in the 1999 SAP is included in brackets. Blank boxes indicate no response.

Threats identified in 1999 Newly identified threats in 2010 Competition with other other with Competition species (unknown) Predation and kleptoparasitism by Yellow- (unknown) Gull legged habitat nesting of Lack (unknown) Windfarms Toxic algae in feeding areas pollution light Artificial Predation by Peregrine Falcons Longer summer in search displacements of food Country of foodLack resources (high) of of protection Lack (high) breeding colonies Predation by other introduced mammals (high) high) (Potentially spills Oil human for Illegal exploitation consumption (low/locally high) Predation by rats (low*/medium) (low) disturbances Human (low) catches Accidental Pollution (unknown) France High N/A N/A Medium Low N/A Low High Low Low Low Portugal High High High High High Medium Spain High High High High Low Low Low Crit/High Medium Low N/A Low Unknown (national) Spain - Critical High High High Low High Low Medium Low N/A Low Medium Low Medium Catalonia Spain - Low Low Critical Low Low Crit/High Low High Low N/A Low N/A Local Balearics UK High Critical Critical Medium Low Medium Low High Low Low Low Low Local

48 Assessment of the implementation

National and regional species action plans Only Spain has a national species action plan which was adopted in July 2005. However, more work needs to be carried out to ensure its effective implementation. The species will be included in the Catalan Catalogue of Endangered Species under the category 'Extinction Endangered'. The legal regulation is at its final stages prior to the official publication and will mean the need of the establishment of a regional level recovery plan of the species covering all the aspects mentioned in the European SAP plus more local regulations. There are no species action plans in Portugal or the UK.

Species conservation A recovery plan for the species is in place in the Balearic Islands32. The preparation and implementation of management plans at protected sites is a high priority action, relevant only in Spain and Portugal, which has received little implementation. On the Balearic Islands, all areas with colonies are protected from tourist development, but adjacent areas can still be developed and so disturbance remains a problem. There has been some progress in preparing and implementing management plans at protected sites in the Balearic Islands, however, there are still gaps in the plans’ coverage and further work is needed to restore coastal habitats and small islands, reduce predation (through eradication campaigns) at breeding sites, and (to a lesser extent) prevent disturbance.

The eradication of alien species to prevent predation has been fairly well implemented in Spain, however more work is needed, particularly on Menorca and Formentera where predation by carnivores (cat, genet and marten) poses a serious threat. A lesser threat is posed by predation from rats, and so far eradication efforts at Balearic shearwater colonies have proven unsuccessful. Rodent eradication in the Balearic Islands in the short term has been very positive for vegetation and invertebrate restoration, but again there has been no positive response in Balearic Shearwater colonies. Currently there is no common strategy in place for dealing with alien invasive species and work is carried out using a site by site approach only. There is also no monitoring system in place for assessing the effectiveness of eradication efforts, and very little information is published on the recovery of the ecosystem.

Prevention of human disturbance is a medium priority action, only relevant in Spain, and has received barely any work. Balearic shearwater colonies are difficult to access and so are relatively protected from human disturbance by virtue of this, so targeted wardening of colonies has not been carried out at all. The increasing of breeding numbers and breeding sites by artificial nests, adequate management of existing nests, and fledgling translocation and is a low to medium priority, only relevant in the Balearic Islands, and has thus received very little work.

32 http://boib.caib.es/pdf/2004097/mp5.pdf

In addition to management plans at terrestrial sites, the development and implementation of management plans for marine sites is pending and should be urgently addressed.

Site conservation The designation of Balearic shearwater breeding colonies and key sites as protected areas is a high priority action and overall, this has been well implemented - 21 SPAs in the EU cover between 90-100% of the potential breeding population, also largely protected under national law (50-90%). All breeding sites are currently protected as (terrestrial) SPAs, with the unique exception of the colony of Punta Prima in Formentera, where new information has revealed that the main colony (50 pp.) lays just outside the SPA (and IBA) (a priority action in the SAP and under the Barcelona Convention). The management plans for these SPAs are still pending, and some colonies receive little conservation attention.

Regarding measures to protect the marine environment, the designation of sites at sea is far from sufficient (BirdLife International 2010). Portugal and Spain have recently concluded their marine Important Bird Area (IBA) inventories (Ramírez et al. 2009, Arcos et al. 2009 respectively), identifying 22 (>36,000 km2) and 3 (almost 4,000 km2) marine IBAs respectively for the Balearic shearwater. Portugal has no marine SPAs for this species yet. Within Spain, a few small sites have already been designated as marine SPAs by some Regional Governments (with 0-10% of the population found in marine IBAs or marine SPAs). The Spanish Government has adopted the marine IBA inventory as the model for the designation of marine SPAs, and has already initiated the designation process, starting by those sites relevant for the Balearic shearwater during the breeding season (16 sites in the Mediterranean). Within Catalonia, the network of marine IBAs is sufficiently developed to cover nearly 100% of the non-breeding population33. In the UK, the species is sparsely distributed during the winter and so only 0-10% of the national population occurs in marine IBAs and marine SPAs. Finally, France declared an ambitious network of marine SPAs in 2008, while huge marine IBAs were also proposed, with up to 55,000 km2 claimed for the Balearic shearwater (Deceuninck & Micol 2008, BirdLife International 2010). This has resulted in 50-90% of the French population occurring in both terrestrial and marine IBAs and SPAs, covering most of the known main staging areas in French coastal waters. Neither marine SPAs nor other forms of legal protection have yet been designated elsewhere (BirdLife International 2010).

33 Catalonia has ensured the protection of 83.104 ha of sea areas within the Natura 2000 network33: The main Catalan islands are also protected as Natural Parks (Cap de Creus and Medes islands -Montgrí-Baix Ter).

Table 14 Coverage of the key national populations with protected areas. % of % of national % of national % of national % of national national population population population population Country population included in included in included in included in included in protected Marine SPAs Marine IBAs IBAs areas protected areas France 50-90% 50-90% 50-90% 50-90% 50-90% Portugal N/A N/A N/A 1100 - 4300 N/A Spain 50-90% 50-90% 10-50% 0-10% 0-10% Spain - 90-100% 90-100% 50-90% 100 50-90% Catalonia Spain – Balearic 100% 100% 46% N/A N/A Islands UK 0-10% 0-10% 0-10% 0-10% 0-10%

Habitat conservation Development of national coastal strategies National coastal strategy development has been well implemented in the Balearic Islands, Catalonia and France, particularly regarding the protection of important coastal habitats such as islets and cliffs.

Prevention of oil spills and chemical pollution at sea With the exception of France and Spain (particularly Catalonia), the prevention of oil spills and chemical pollution at sea has received little work, despite being a high priority, and so is an area for which further work is needed. In the Balearic Islands, coastal contamination is not closely monitored and the effects of contaminants on seabirds are unknown. In addition, the Balearic Government does not regulate maritime traffic (only coastal traffic). Oil pollution can be a local problem in some areas (Bay of Palma), whereas in others the relatively low traffic and milder sea conditions appear to minimise the risk of pollution. In the last ten years, there have been two incidences of grounded ferries on islands near colonies (Eivissa), although the threat was minimized due to the time of the year (winter) and the small amount of fuel dispersed. The location of Balearic shearwater colonies should be taken in consideration in the design of a general prevention strategy to avoid oil spills.

51 In Catalonia, a civil protection plan to avoid accidental contamination of sea waters34 has been implemented. In Portugal, work has been carried out by NGOs to develop an action plan for avoiding oil spills, but nothing has been implemented yet.

Fisheries policy Following the adoption of the European Community Plan of Action for reducing incidental catch of seabirds in fisheries targeted meetings have been organized with Portuguese politicians and the national Fisheries Commission to discuss the urgent need to adopt a national Plan of Action for seabirds and for reducing bycatch. There is no specific way to ensure the protection of the Balearic shearwater from becoming bycatch in Spain, although similar steps as in Portugal have been taken. Overall, little work has been carried out to ensure EU fishery policies include considerations on seabirds, despite being a high priority for the species. This action is therefore a high priority for the future and should be urgently addressed.

Monitoring and Research Overall, despite being a medium priority action, monitoring of the Balearic shearwater has been very well implemented, particularly in Spain and Portugal. National survey/ monitoring programmes for the species exist in Spain, Portugal and the UK, and a long- running monitoring programmes exists in France. National monitoring programmes are conducted on breeding colonies (undertaken by the Balearic Government and through a 1998-2001 LIFE project35), and non-breeding birds (at-sea counts, coastal surveys and wintering counts). There are also monitoring programmes for the species in place in protected areas in Spain (including the Balearic Islands and Catalonia) and France (mostly in N. Brittany). A key local initiative of Fundacion Migres monitors the migration of the Balearic shearwater through the Straits of Gibraltar.

The conducting of research on the feeding ecology of the species over its whole range is deemed a high priority, however, less work has been carried out on this than on species monitoring. This action is considered not relevant in France and the UK. The majority of feeding ecology research has been carried out by Spain through the conducting of coastal and boat-based surveys, tracking, studies on interactions with fisheries, dietary assessment through isotopes and more.

Studies with direct application to the conservation and management of the species are of a medium priority have been implemented at a fairly low level. Research was conducted in Spain and Portugal (in 2004-2008) to identify the best sites for the Balearic shearwater

34 http://www.gencat.cat/interior/emergencies/plans/aigues/pla/camcat.pdf 35 LIFE project: LIFE B-4/3200/97/246

52 at sea (to become marine IBAs), accounting for activity around colonies (seaward extensions), foraging (areas of concentration at sea) and migration (migration corridors). Further work is now being carried out by Spain and Portugal to assess threats at sea and the development of appropriate management plans in marine IBAs. A Spanish LIFE project36 in 1998-2001 updated information on the species, included work on surveys, colony monitoring, assessment of threats, conservation and policy action, and raising awareness, at the breeding grounds and wider marine environment (Ruiz & Martí 2004). In Catalonia there is an ongoing project on quantifying the amount of potential predators to these species in coastal islets. Finally, the InterReg Project FAME began in 2010, lead by the RSPB with the involvement of the BirdLife partners of Ireland, UK, France, Spain and Portugal. One limitation to monitoring and research of the species is the need to limit human disturbance.

Information exchange The promotion of information exchange is a high priority that has received moderate implementation, mainly through the establishment of national Balearic shearwater project/ working groups in Spain, Portugal (including SPEA, the Portuguese Society for WildLife and University of Minho), France and the UK (records collated by SeaWatch SW and supported by RSPB and BTO). However, there are still issues with the implementation and effectiveness of these working groups as the Spanish group has been inactive since 2005 and the French partner (LPO) has limited experience with the Balearic Shearwater. The sharing of information between scientific, conservation officers and decision makers regarding the taxonomic status of the species has received a high level of implementation and requires no future work.

Public awareness and stakeholder involvement The providing of information and increasing awareness of the species, its habitats and coastal biodiversity is a high priority action that has received moderate implementation overall, with the majority of work having been carried out in Spain and to a lesser extent, Portugal. In Catalonia, environmental education actions have targeted increasing knowledge of the species and through the design of a t-shirt explaining the existence of Shearwaters and Storm-petrels in Catalonia. In Portugal, work has been carried out since 2008 (under the Species Guardians programme) producing awareness-raising materials about seabirds and bycatch, and promoting meetings with fishermen to gather information on impacts of fisheries on the species. In addition, SPEA has also carried out birdwatching activities, for the general public and volunteers, to encourage appreciation and knowledge of the species.

36 LIFE project: LIFE97 NAT/E/004147

53 Awareness raising materials on the species and the impact of fisheries (bycatch) have also been produced and disseminated in Portugal.

Community financial support Five LIFE37 projects were implemented in Portugal (1) and Spain (3) during the period of 2000 – 2010 which benefitted the Balearic shearwater. The total budget was more than 20 million Euros, of which the European Union contribution was more than 11 million Euros. Details for all these projects can be obtained from the LIFE project database at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm

The species has also benefited from some other Community funding for projects including the Future of the Atlantic Marine Environment (FAME) project which is an EU funded project running from 2010-2013 in Spain and Portugal. In addition, there are smaller scale projects such as the Species Guardians Balearic shearwater project in Portugal, several research projects in Spain investigating effects of fisheries (DISCBIRD – EU funded), species demography and population dynamics, and conservation research on the species at the Cabrera National Park. Finally, in Catalonia the national government funds monitoring of the Balearic shearwater and recovery of injured sea birds.

Conclusions Progress in the overall implementation of the action plan is rather good but more work is still needed (Average IS= 2.2). The most progress in implementing actions (where relevant) has been made in France and in the Balearic Islands and Catalonia. A scores table of the implementation of each action (including a break-down of all actions into measurable targets) for each country is provided in Appendix 1. Based on the gaps further implementation of the following actions is needed: • Development and implementation of EU fishery policies that account for the impacts of fisheries on Balearic shearwater populations and other seabirds, as well as implementation of and considerate fishing practices. • Conducting of research on the population dynamics of the species and the impact of multi-predator presence in colonies. • Promoting information exchange. • Preparation and implementation of effective species management plans at all protected sites. • Preventing oil spills and chemical pollutants at sea.

Taking into account the current prioritisation of old and new threats, priority work should be carried out on measures that stop the or reverse the population decline of the Balearic shearwater, and that maintain or improve the good environmental status of the current breeding colonies and main marine hotspots. This is to be achieved by implementing targeted actions that improve adult survival rate, maintaining or increasing breeding productivity, conserving of breeding and marine habitat, and filling of knowledge gaps. It is

37 LIFE project codes: LIFE04/NAT/PT/000213; LIFE97/NAT/E/004147; LIFE B-4/3200/97/246; LIFE04/NAT/ES/000049; LIFE07/NAT/E/00732

54 also essential to be able to accurately quantify whether or not species action plan targets are met and so the setting up of a monitoring scheme that allows accurate assessment of the population trend of the species is also a priority future action.

Contributors: Pierre Yésou (National Bureau for hunting and wildlife); Joana Andrade (SPEA/ BirdLife Portugal); Miguel McMinn Grive (Skua Gabinete de Estudios Ambientals SLP); Jose Manuel Arcos (SEO/BirdLife Spain); Maite Louzao (Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ); Ricard Gutiérrez (Wildlife Service, Government of Catalonia); Ivan Ramos Torrens (Servei Protecció Espècies, Balearic Islands); Leigh Lock (RSPB); Dr Russell B Wynn (SeaWatch SW); Kate Tanner (RSPB); Boris Barov (BirdLife International); Mia Derhé (BirdLife International).

55 Appendix 1 Table 15 Implementation of the action plan in different countries38. PS = Priority Score; Ave. IS = Average Implementation Score; API = Action Priority Index; National IS = National Implementation Score. Action Measure PS FR PT ES ES-BI ES-C GB Av. IS API 1.1 To develop national coastal strategies 2 2.5 1 2 2.8 2.5 1.5 2.1 1.3 a. Coastal strategies implemented, including integrated planning and 2 2 1 2 2.5 2 2 1.9 1.4 sustainable development and utilisation. b. Important coastal habitats including islets and cliffs safeguarded. 2 3 0 2 3 3 1 2.7 0.9 1.2 Prevent oil spills and chemical pollution of the sea 3 3.7 1 1.5 2 3 1 1.9 2.1 a. Adequate policies for prevention of oil pollution implemented in 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 2.0 2.0 main areas of concentration. b. National and international legislation on chemical pollution and industrial treatment enforced and action undertaken to avoid 3 4 1 1 2 3 1 1.8 2.3 chemical/oil release from offshore and land-based sources. c. Incentives established for oil tanker companies who agree to avoid 3 0 1 1 2 0 1 1.3 2.7 sensitive marine areas. d. Heavy fines imposed for cleaning of oil tankers outside specially 3 4 1 2 2 0 1 1.7 2.3 designated areas. 1.3 To ensure the protection of the breeding habitat 3 4 0 2 2.5 0 0 2.3 1.8 Adequate management of all breeding areas in place. 3 4 0 2 2.5 0 0 2.3 1.8 1.4 EU fishery policies should include considerations on seabirds, 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 1.3 2.8 taking into account the impact on its populations EU fishery policies include considerations on seabirds, accounting for 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 1.3 2.8 the impact on its populations. 1.5 To involve international conventions in the conservation of the 3 4 1 2 3.2 2.5 0 2.2 1.8 Balearic Shearwater and its habitat a. All breeding colonies of BS and areas where the species congregates 3 4 0 2 3 2 0 2.3 1.7 in the Mediterranean are protected under the Barcelona Convention. b. National Biodiversity Convention strategies promote conservation 3 4 1 2 3 3 0 2.3 1.8 and sustainable management of coastal and island ecosystems.

38 FR = France; PT = Portugal; ES= Spain (National); ES-BI = Spain – Balearic Islands; ES-C = Spain – Catalonia; UK = United Kingdom.

56 c. National action plan for the species is drafted and implemented 3 0 1 2 3.5 0 0 2.2 1.8 (according to Recommendation No.† of the Bern Convention). 1.6 The new taxonomic status of the species must be included in future 3 4 4 2 3.5 4 0 3.4 0.6 reviews of international conventions The new taxonomic status of the BS included in reviews of 3 4 4 2 3.5 4 0 3.4 0.6 international conventions. 2.1 To ensure adequate protection of breeding sites. All the IBAs and protected areas where Balearic Shearwater occurs should include 3 3.7 2.5 2 2.6 2 0 2.3 1.7 specific measures for its effective conservation. a. All BS breeding colonies designated as protected areas. 3 4 0 3 3.5 0 0 3.3 0.8 b. All IBAs identified for the BS are designated as Special Protected 3 3 3 2 3.5 4 0 3.1 0.9 Areas (SPAs).. c. Management plans prepared and implemented at all protected sites, 3 0 2 2 2 1 0 1.8 2.3 covering the needs of the species.. d. Wardening and physical barriers are ensured in colonies where 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1.5 1.7 required to prevent human disturbance (e.g. Pitiusas).. e. Eradication campaigns in place against rats, feral cats and other alien 2 4 0 2 2 1 0 1.7 1.6 species where necessary to prevent predation.. 2.2 Increase breeding numbers and breeding sites 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 1.3 1.8 a. Artificial nests or adequate management of existing nests in place to 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2.0 provide suitable habitat for new breeders. b. Artificial “social stimulation”, artificial nests and fledgling 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 translocation implemented to establish new colonies. c. Considerate fishing practices which account for BS conservation 3 0 2 1 1 0 0 1.3 2.7 implemented. 3.1 To continue the monitoring program. To continue with the existing monitoring program (survey and census) to know the current 2 1 4 2.5 3.5 3 2 3.3 0.5 distribution, numbers and status of breeding and non-breeding birds. Existing monitoring program (survey and census) continued and current distribution, numbers and status of breeding and non-breeding2 1 4 2.5 3.5 3 2 3.3 0.5 birds determined. 3.2 To undertake research on feeding ecology over the whole species 3 0 1 2.5 2.5 3 0 2.3 1.8

57 range a. Most important prey items and feeding sites identified. 3 0 1 3 2 3 0 2.3 1.8 b. Fishery landings of the main prey species in all feeding grounds 3 0 1 2 3 3 0 2.3 1.8 monitored. 3.3 To promote studies with direct application to the conservation and 2 0 1.5 1.6 2 1 1 1.5 1.7 management of the species a. Population dynamics of the BS understood and a predictive 3 0 1 2 2 1 1 1.5 2.5 population model developed. c. Effects of human disturbance on breeding success evaluated and a 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 1.3 protocol for low-disturbance monitoring and research developed. d. Impact of species interacting at breeding sites assessed. 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 0.7 e. Effect of multi-predator presence in colonies studied and impact on 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 1.5 2.5 breeding populations understood. f. Effect of fishery practices on species mortality investigated. 2 0 2 1 2 1 1 1.5 1.7 4.1 To provide information and increase awareness on the species and 3 1 2 2 2.4 2.8 0 2.3 1.7 its habitats value. a. Awareness increased among the public, especially in Pitiusas islands. 3 0 2 2 2.5 2 0 2.1 1.9 b. Awareness of the species increased among politicians and decision- 3 1 2 2 2 3 0 2.3 1.8 makers (local authorities, landscape planners, fishery officers, etc). c. Information and educational materials provided to the public, 2 0 2 2 3 3 0 2.5 1.0 especially in Pitiusas. d. Information on the species, its threats, and the need for protection 2 1 2 2 2 3 0 2.3 1.2 made available through media resources. 4.2 Promote information exchange 3 0 2 1 2.5 1 1 1.6 2.4 Meetings regularly held to exchange information on the BS and related 3 0 2 1 2.5 1 1 1.6 2.4 species with proceedings published and disseminated. 4.3 Enforce awareness on islands and rocky coasts of bio-diversity 3 0 0 3 2 3 2 2.7 1.3 Public awareness raised about rocky coasts and inhabited islets as 3 0 0 3 2 3 2 2.7 1.3 being important areas for birds and other taxa. 4.4 To make aware the new taxonomic status 1 4 4 2 3 4 0 3.3 0.3 Information about new taxonomic status shared between scientific, 1 4 4 2 3 4 0 3.3 0.3 conservation officers and decision makers. National & Average IS 3.0 1.9 1.9 2.3 2.5 1.3 2.2

58 References

Aguilar, J.S. 1999. Species Action Plan for the Balearic Shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus in Europe. BirdLife International report to the European Commission, unpublished. (Document available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/action_plans/docs/puffinu s_puffinus_mauretanicus.pdf).

Arcos, J.M., J. Bécares, B. Rodríguez y A. Ruiz. 2009. Áreas Importantes para la Conservación de las Aves marinas en España. LIFE04NAT/ES/000049-Sociedad Española de Ornitología (SEO/BirdLife). Madrid.

BirdLife International 2009. Puffinus mauretanicus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. . Downloaded on 04 August 2010

BirdLife International 2004. Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. BirdLife Int. Series Nº12. Cambridge: BirdLife International.

BirdLife International (2010). Marine IBAs in the European Union. BirdLife International, Brussels, Belgium. Version 1.1: June 2010. http://www.birdlife.org/eu/pdfs/Marine_IBA_EU_2010.pdf

Conselleria de Medi Ambient, 2005. Census of breeding population of Puffinus mauretanicus. Skua SL-Conselleria de Medi Ambient. Unpublished report.

Deceuninck, B. and Micol, T. 2008. Identification des sites prioritaires pour les oiseaux marins et les oiseaux d’eaux. Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux.

Ramírez, I., P. Geraldes, A. Merinho, P. Amorim & V. Paiva. 2009. Áreas Marinhas Importantes para as Aves em Portugal. Projecto LIFE04NAT/PT/000213 – Sociedade Portuguesa Para o Estudo das Aves. Lisboa.

Ruiz, A. and Martí, R. 2004. La Pardela Balear. SEO/BirdLife-Conselleria de Medi Ambient del Govern de les Illes Balears, Madrid, Spain.

59 Blue chaffinch Fringilla teydea

Background The blue chaffinch Action Plan was adopted in 1996 (Gonzalez, 1996) by the Ornis Committee and endorsed by the Bern Convention. The implementation of the action plan was reviewed in 2001 (Gallo-Orsi, 2001) and 2004 (Nagy & Crockford, 2004). This review evaluates the implementation of the species Action Plan from 2004 to 2010, in Tenerife and Gran Canaria in the Canary Islands archipelago, Spain, therefore covering the entire range of the species.

General overview Progress in the overall implementation of the action plan is good but further work is still needed (overall IS=2.4). The SAP has been most successfully implemented on Gran Canaria, where the population is fluctuating. The two subspecies face different conservation problems and represent separate management units.

4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 API

Average IS Average 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.1.1 1.2.1 2.1.1 2.2.1 3.1.1 3.2.1 4.1.1 Action

Figure iv Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action listed in the blue chaffinch species action plan. Colours represent Priority Score.

Status review The size of the total population is around 1,000-2,500 pairs, but this data is of poor quality and numbers are only suspected. The population size of 185-260 in Gran Canaria is a good quality estimate, obtained through extrapolation of linear transects in control area (however the surveys carried out did not include the summit habitat) by Carrascal (2010). The population has evidently increased in the last 20 years, based on information from Lorenzo et al. (2007) and Martín (1987), however there has been no detailed census conducted that covers both the Tenerife population since then.

60 The distribution of the blue chaffinch is linked to Pinus canariensis forest and has different distributions on the two islands. It is estimated that the distribution of the species has increased by up to 32% in Tenerife and so is fairly widespread and common on the island (based on information from Martín, 1987 and Lorenzo et al., 2007) . In Gran Canaria, the species is highly restricted to the Integral Natural Reserve of Inagua (using non-pine areas as corridors), however it has recently been found to occur at the summit of the island which is outside of its previously known range (Lorenzo et al, 2007; P. Calabuig, pers. comm..).

Table 16 Population estimate and trend by country Population Population Country/ Current as of date Year at 2004 Year Year Population Reference Area population of SAP review trend Spain – Gran 185-260 ind 1991 - - 129-358 ind 2010 Fluctuating 39 Canaria Spain - 1,000-2,500 1997- - - - - Increasing 40 Tenerife pairs 2003 1,000-1,500 1,000-2,500 1,000-2,500 1997- Spain - Total 1994 2003 Increasing 40 pairs pairs40 pairs 2003

Objective(s) In the short term to conserve the blue chaffinch range and populations in the Canary Islands at no less than the level at the time of writing the action plan and in the medium to long term to increase the Gran Canaria population to the level where it is no longer classified as endangered.

Evaluation The short term target of the action plan has been met because the range of both the Gran Canaria and Tenerife (Lorenzo et al, 2007) blue chaffinch has increased since the level of the 1996 SAP, and the population of the Gran Canaria blue chaffinch remains stable at around the level of the 1996 SAP, with the population of the Tenerife blue chaffinch suspected to have increased (Lorenzo et al., 2007). The medium to long term target has not yet been met as the breeding population of the Gran Canaria blue chaffinch is <250 mature individuals (criteria for downlisting the subspecies to Vulnerable [IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1]). This highlights the differing conservation statuses of the two subspecies which probably deserve separate attention.

Conservation and Legal Status The Global IUCN Red List Category of the blue chaffinch is Near Threatened with criteria B1a+b(ii,iii,v); B2a+b(ii,iii,v); C2a(ii) nearly met because it has an extremely small range which is declining, and a moderately small population which has declined in the past ten years. However, the range is not yet severely fragmented or restricted to few

39 Carrascal, 2010. Estimate obtained through fixed line transect counts covering 73% of the reserve. Actual figure 232 individuals, but 95% Confidence Intervals included. 40 BirdLife, 2004. Refers to no actual figures, only represents the estimated size of the population.

61 locations. The species is listed as Rare (SPEC 1) under criteria <10,000 pairs in the European IUCN Red List (BirdLife International, 2004), and is listed in Annex I of the EU Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC, ‘Birds Directive’) and in Appendix III of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention). Regional conservation law has recently been changed, downlisting the Tenerife population from “Vulnerable” to a category of non-threat (so-called "Special Protection"), while that of the Gran Canaria population is maintained as "Endangered." The national law is being updated and prevails over regional law. The current national listing is “Endangered” (Gran Canaria) and “Vulnerable” (Tenerife). A draft submitted for public information reveals that the blue chaffinch national listing will remain unchanged. The Red Book of Birds in Spain evaluated the two populations separately, that of Gran Canaria as "Critically Endangered" and Tenerife as "Vulnerable" (Madroño et al., 2004).

Overview of past and current threats Forest fires are the highest threat to the species and its habitat. However, pine forests (Pinus canariensis) are very resilient to fire and if some unaffected areas of forest remain, the species will persist there. However, while pine forest quickly recovers from the fire, the forest understory does not. These plants are slow to recover, and are important in the diet of the blue chafffinch. Fresh water fountains are being abandoned, which causes a high threat from lack of water in the summer. Due to the higher availability of habitat in Tenerife, it is only a medium threat. However, in the most xeric areas of the island where the species occurs, it is important to reconstruct, adapt or repair water sources. These actions have been taken with the small Gran Canaria population and have been very successful. In Gran Canaria, blood samples are being taken to see if inbreeding is a threat, and it is currently believed to be a high threat. Pine forests are popular for tourists and locals, and the island governments are implementing some management and closing of some of the areas. On Gran Canaria recreational disturbance is not a threat but the construction of roads is (for a rally that occurs annually on the island). By contrast, in Tenerife, recreational disturbance is a high threat, especially on weekends when many people go to the pine forests. Rat density in pine forests is lower than in laurel forests, so rats tend to only affect the birds at recreational areas, as do feral cats. As such, the threat of predation is of medium to low importance. Forest habitat is being restored and so the threat from fragmentation is now medium to low. Some fragmentation does still occur, however, due to the low quality of habitat patches. The recovery of pine forest is a primary cause for the wider distribution of the species’ population on Tenerife in the last decades. However, the limited extent of habitat in Gran Canaria is the major cause of the state of its small population. Recovery and improvement of pine forest in Gran Canaria is essential to facilitate the recovery of the species population. Illegal capture for captive breeding is still very hard to quantify. There area records of these birds being kept abroad, but there has been no proper study on the impact and the threat level is considered to be low.

Assessment of the implementation

National and regional species action plans The recovery plan41 is the same at national and regional levels. The plan was completed in May 2005. To date, a new recovery plan for the Gran Canaria blue chaffinch has not been approved.

Species conservation Diversion of recreational activities Access is restricted and monitored in Ojeda, Inagua and Pajonales pinewoods in Gran Canaria, but more work on this is still needed. In Tenerife, little work has been carried out to monitor access to the species’ habitat. Tracks and recreational areas in Tenerife are closed during the hottest days of summer to prevent fires, and this reduction in disturbance during these times likely benefits the species.

Predator control In Tenerife, alien species control is being implemented, but at low levels and only in recreational areas. A study in 2004 on recreational areas in Tenerife showed a high abundance of rats, feral cats and feral dogs (Lorenzo & González, 2004). In Gran Canaria feral cats were controlled between 1996 and present. At local important areas for the species, removal of natural predators (such as sparrowhawk) is recommended but only in cases where it is fully justified and there are no alternative options. Further implementation of control plans is needed.

Captive breeding In Gran Canaria there has been a new captive breeding scheme implemented since 2005, with the first chicks to be released in 2010. A full breeding protocol is now in place and results from the first pilot cases will determine the duration of this programme.

Prevention of illegal hunting/trade Illegal trade has been recorded occasionally, but little information is available. It seems to be a problem mostly related to the Tenerife population. Very little work has been carried out to eradicate illegal trapping/trade or to collaborate with other European countries to reduce the trade on either island.

Drinking points Although not listed as a recommended action in the SAP, drinking sites, especially in Gran Canaria, are a very important limiting factor for the expansion of the species. There are now more drinking sites available, also related to the expansion of the species, but there is not a regional scheme as to preserve them. Effective maintenance of drinking

41 BOC Decree 57/2005. Available at: http://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/boc/2005/087/001.html

63 sites is needed, or alternatively, measures to prevent drinking site drainage by commercial use of natural fountains. This measure is also needed in the more xeric pine forests of Tenerife.

Site conservation At both islands, most of the distribution areas for the species have already been protected according to regional or national law. Most of the distribution range is also classified as Natura 2000 sites and Canary’s Regional Protected Sites Network and around 50-90% of the population is included in IBAs (7 sites), SPAs (5 sites) and areas protected under national law. Land ownership remains an issue, as management of privately owned lands could represent a threat but there is political will to buy most of the land and minimize this problem. Management plans for these sites have been drafted but not approved (these include site management, forest management, recreational sites management rules etc), it is urgent for them to be approved and implemented. However, this is relative since most of the plans of protected areas at regional level have been approved, but to date no SPAs have been approved.

Habitat conservation Prevention of fires Forest fires pose a serious threat to the species and so the implementation of fire prevention measures is of critical importance. In 2007 there was a major forest fire on Gran Canaria, destroying 95% of the Integral Natural Reserve of Inagua and reducing the population to 124 individuals (Seoane and Carrascal 2008). Another fire, in Tenerife, destroyed areas of the most pristine pine forests. It is clear that an event of this kind can seriously impact blue chaffinch populations in a very short time period. Prevention campaigns are being implemented particularly during the summer. These campaigns are well resourced by the island authorities but, specifically in Gran Canaria, where the chaffinch population is smaller, fire management measures implemented to prevent fire expansion could actually cause a degradation of the breeding habitat for the species. There is a significant amount of human and technical resources dedicated to prevention of fires in pine forest in Tenerife in the summer.

Habitat restoration Forestry management is pending approval by Regional authorities and Island Governments are now implementing management schemes, but without regional guidelines. The restoration of pine-tree forest is being implemented and there are clear and positive effects of this work. In Tenerife, Monterey pines (Pinus radiata) are being replaced by Canary island pines (Pinus canariensis). In Gran Canaria there is no such plan, because there are records of the blue chaffinch using these trees for nesting (P. Calabuig, pers. comm.). However, past

64 replanting of pine forest in Gran Canaria (in 1960s-80s) has led to an increase in the suitable habitat for the species as the two main pine tree forests are now connected.

Monitoring and Research There are no species monitoring programmes in place in Tenerife (except for monitoring of the Canary pine forests studying the bird community as a whole) and so regular monitoring of the population, at least every 4 years, is one of the top priorities for this species. However, regional authorities are not identifying this as a priority and so this needs much more attention. In Gran Canaria there are already monitoring schemes in place (conducted by the Cabildo de Gran Canaria and the Canary Islands Government), and it is recommended to continue this plan, including the newly identified habitat area at the summit of the island. A national project/working group exists in Gran Canaria, formed by the Cabildo de Gran Canaria and Canary Islands Government, which organizes at least one annual meeting (SEO/BirdLife is invited to participate).

Public awareness and stakeholder involvement In Tenerife there have been almost no public awareness campaigns to promote this species. It is highly recommended to carry out new campaigns dealing with the species and its habitat, to avoid human disturbance at recreational sites. In Gran Canaria, awareness of the species has increased at a steady rate, however, there is still much more to do and continuation of these campaigns is recommended.

Community financial support One LIFE project42 has been implemented since 2004 which benefits the blue chaffinch. The project focused on restoration of pine forest damaged by fire on Gran Canaria running from 2009-2012 with a total budget of more than 1.1 million Euros, of which the total European Union contribution was 580,000 Euros. The species has also benefited from two additional projects. One project on Gran Canaria, funded by the regional and island governments (total budget1,457,980 Euros) focussed on the recovery plan for the blue chaffinch (2005-2010), the other is a University of Madrid research project.

Conclusions Progress in the overall implementation of the action plan is fairly high but further work is still needed (Average IS=2.4). The most progress in implementing actions has been in Establish effective habitat and species protection for the blue chaffinch. A scores table of the implementation of each action (including a break-down of all actions into measurable targets) is provided in Appendix 1.

42 LIFE project code: LIFE07NAT/E/000759

65 There are still major gaps and further implementation of the following actions is needed:

• Approval of the national ‘Ley del Patrimonio Natural y de la Biodiversidad’. This law includes the publication of a Species Action Plan for the species that could list all the major conservation actions needed.

• Approval of the Regional forestry management plan.

• Establishment of an alien species control plan.

• Establishment of a full monitoring and research scheme for the species.

• Establishment of a regional awareness-raising campaign.

• Improvement of the wardening scheme. In the case of Gran Canaria, specific attention must be given to the newer expansion areas for the species (such as Cumbre & Pinar de Tamadaba)

• Improvement of the corridor sites interconnecting the already known 3 occupied areas on Gran Canaria.

Contributors: Pascual Calabuig (Cabildo de Gran Canaria); Patricia Marrero (IPNA- CSIC); Cristina González (SEO/ BirdLife); Iván Ramírez (BirdLife International); Juan Antonio Lorenzo (SEO/BirdLife); Mia Derhé (BirdLife International).

Appendix 1 Table 17 Implementation of the action plan in the Canary Islands43. PS = Priority Score; API = Action Priority Index; National IS = National Implementation Score. ES- ES- Ave. Action Measure PS API GC T IS 1.1.1 Establish effective protection for the blue chaffinch 3 3 3.3 3.3 0.8 a. Management plan prepared under national legislation. 3 1 1 1.0 3.0 b. The revised National Endangered Species List lists the species in the 3 4 4 4.0 0.0 appropriate category. c. The regional wildlife law protects the species outside protected areas. 3 4 4 4.0 0.0 d. The species is listed in CITES. 3 3 4 3.5 0.5 1.2.1 Establish effective habitat protection for the blue chaffinch 3 4 3 3.5 0.5 The species' habitat is fully protected under the Canary Islands 3 4 3 3.5 0.5 Countryside law. 2.1.1 Protect the species from threats and disturbance 2.5 2.6 1.6 2.1 1.6 a. Illegal trapping and trade eradicated. 3 2 1 1.5 2.5 b. Collaboration with Italy, Germany and Belgium effective in reducing 3 1 1 1.0 3.0 the trade. c. Fire prevention programme developed and running. 4 4 3 3.5 0.7 d. Suitable means to fight fires available. 4 3 3 3.0 1.3 e. Recreation and leisure areas provided in sites that do not require 1 0 1 1.0 1.0 integral habitat protection. f. Access restriction to Ojeda, Inagua and Pajanale pinewoods enforced 2 3 0 3.0 0.7 and monitored. g. Monitoring access to woods ongoing. 2 2 1 1.5 1.7 h. Feral cat population controlled. 1 3 1 2.0 0.7 2.2.1 Initiate a habitat recovery programme consisting of an intense 4 2 3 2.5 2.0 reafforestation campaign Habitat recovery programme carried out. 4 2 3 2.5 2.0 3.1.1 Continue to monitor the population 3 3 1 2.0 2.0 A full census of the population conducted followed by regular 3 3 1 2.0 2.0 monitoring. 3.2.1 Conduct research on the biology, ecology, habitat preferences and 3 3 1 2.0 2.0 breeding of the blue chaffinch a. Detailed studies on the biology and ecology of the species carried out 2 0 1 1.0 2.0 in Tenerife. b. Studies on limiting factors in Gran Canaria continued. 3.5 3 0 3.0 1.2 c. Studies on habitat selection completed in Gran Canaria. 3 3 0 3.0 1.0 d. Captive breeding programme implemented. 1 3 0 3.0 0.3 4.1.1 Increase awareness and education of the need to conserve the BC 2 2 1 1.5 1.7 and its habitat Public awareness and education campaign carried out. 2 2 1 1.5 1.7 National IS and Average IS 2.8 2.1 2.4

43 ES-GC = Spain-Gran Canaria; ES-T = Spain- Tenerife.

References

BirdLife International, 2004. Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 12)

BirdLife International 2008. Fringilla teydea. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. . Downloaded on 11 August 2010.

Carrascal 2010 Cambio demográfico del pinzón azul entre 2008 y 2010 [incomplete]

Gallo-Orsi, U. ed. (2001) Saving Europe’s most threatened birds: progress in implementing European Species Action Plans. Wageningen, The Netherlands: BirdLife International.

Gonzalez, C. 1996 Action Plan for the blue chaffinch (Fringilla teydea). BirdLife International report to the European Commission, unpublished. (Document available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/action_plans/docs/fringilla _teydea.pdf).

IUCN. 2001. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1 (Document available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/categories-and-criteria/2001- categories-criteria)

Lorenzo, J. A. 2007 (Ed.). Atlas de las aves nidificantes en el archipiélago canario (1997-2003). Dirección General de Conservación de la Naturaleza-SEO/BirdLife. Madrid. 520 pp.

Lorenzo, J. A. & C. González. 2004. Proyecto de control y seguimiento de las poblaciones de fauna vertebrada exótica asociada a los equipamientos de uso público de los Espacios Naturales Protegidos forestales de la isla de Tenerife”. SEO/BirdLife/Cabildo Insular de Tenerife. Memoria final. 30 pp.

Madroño, C. González Y J. A. Atienza. 2004. Libro Rojo de las Aves de España. Dirección General para la Biodiversidad-SEO/BirdLife. Madrid.

Martín, A. 1987. Atlas de las aves nidificantes en la isla de Tenerife. Instituto de Estudios Canarios. Tenerife. Monografía XXXII. 275 pp

Nagy, S & Crockford, N (2004) Implementation in the European Union of species action plans for 23 of Europe’s most threatened birds, BirdLife International, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

68 http://www.mma.es/portal/secciones/biodiversidad/especies_amenazadas/catalogo_especi es/vertebrados_aves/pdf/ver340a.pdf (Tenerife listing) http://www.mma.es/portal/secciones/biodiversidad/especies_amenazadas/catalogo_especi es/vertebrados_aves/pdf/ver340b.pdf (Gran Canaria listing) www.grancanaria.com www.tenerife.es www.seo.org www.gobiernodecanarias.org

69 Bonelli’s eagle Aquila fasciata44

Background The Bonelli’s Eagle Action Plan was developed in 1997, adopted in 1999 (Arroyo & Ferreiro, 1999) by the Ornis Committee and endorsed by the Bern Convention. This is the first review of the implementation of the action plan. Its geographical scope covers Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Turkey. No information has been provided by Albania, however this country hold only a very small population.

General overview The SAP has been moderately well implemented by the range countries (overall IS=1.8), most successfully in Cyprus, France and Portugal where actions have been well implemented and have been reported to have contributed to the increase in the population size. The most work has been carried out on developing national recovery plans (due to work carried out by France, Castilla y Leon (Spain), and Cyprus), conducting research on the biology, ecology and habitat requirements of the species, and designating SPAs and protected areas for the species. The actions reported to have the most positive impact on the species’ populations are those that prevent mortality (due to direct persecution) and improve habitat. However, these actions have received only a moderate amount of work, despite being high priorities.

4.0 4.0

3.5 3.5

3.0 3.0

2.5 2.5 I 2.0 2.0 AP

Average IS 1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0 1.1.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.3.1 2.4.1 3.1.1 3.2.1 3.3.1 4.1.1 Action

Figure v Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each Action listed in the Bonelli’s eagle species action plan. Colours represent Priority Score.

44 The taxonomic name of the species at the time of adoption of the action plan was Hieraaetus fasciatus

70 Status review Europe holds a relatively small proportion of the global population, estimated at around 1,032-1,223 breeding pairs45 (Table 1). Spain holds about 65% of the European population (Del Moral, 2006), the rest having an irregular distribution in the Mediterranean. Overall, the European population trend of the Bonelli’s eagle is at least stable and possibly increasing. However, the species has gone extinct in Croatia recently. Although the current population in Turkey appears to have decreased, this is due to previous estimates being based on poor or incomplete quantitative data, and the current estimate being more accurate.

Table 18 Breeding population estimate and trend by country Population at the time Population Current Breeding Country of the 1999 Year in 2004 Year population Year Reference trend SAP (pairs)46 (pairs) (pairs) 1995- Albania 0-2 1963 2-10 - - - - 2000 2001- Bulgaria 1-5 1991 1-3 2-4 2007 Unknown 47 2003 2008- Extinct as a Croatia 5-10 1994 1-5 2002 0 2010 breeder 1994- 2000- Cyprus 10-15 1994 20-40 33-42 2% Increasing 48 2002 2010 France 29 1997 23 2003 30 2010 2% Increasing 49 1998- Greece 85-105 1997 85-105 1997 100-140 Stable 50 2008 1990- Italy 12-15 1997 13-18 2003 18-24 Fluctuating 51 2008 23% Portugal 83-96 1997 85-100 2002 116-120 2010 52 Increasing 1998- Spain53 627-695 1997 650-713 733-788 2005 Fluctuating 54 2002 Turkey 10-100 1994 30-40 2001 5-15 2006 Stable

45 From data obtained through this review. 46 BirdLife International, 2004. 47 Yankov, 2007. Demerdzhiev & Iankov, in press. 48 Kassinis & Miltiadou, 2010. 49 Plan national d'action de l'Aigle de Bonelli. Synthèse et bilan de la reproduction en France en 2010 50 Bourdakis & Xirouchakis, in press. 51 Di Vittorio & Sarà, 2001;Di Vittorio et al., 2000 ; Di Vittorio, 2007. 52 Hernández, in press. 53 Recent regional estimates are also available for Spain. Andalusia: 334-348 pairs (Consejería de Medio Ambiente, 2009), breeding trend stable. Castilla y León: 15-19 pairs (2002-2010), breeding trend 53% decreasing. 54 Del Moral, 2006.

71 Objective(s)

1. In the short term, to maintain the existing populations of Bonelli's eagle in Europe.

2. In the medium to long term, to increase the population size of the Bonelli's eagle and to encourage recolonization of the former range.

Evaluation Although the overall population numbers have been stable or increasing, the short term target has not been met fully as the species has gone extinct in one more country (Croatia) since the adoption of the SAP. The medium to long term objective of increasing the population size has been only partially met, as the population is increasing (Cyprus, France and Portugal) or stable, but recolonization of the former range has not happened.. The European range has contracted since the breeding population in Croatia has gone extinct and hasn’t yet been recolonised. Local populations have declined between 1970 and 1990 (Hagemeijer & Blair, 1997) and overall the population hasn’t yet recovered to a state were these areas have been recolonised.

Conservation and Legal Status The Global IUCN Red List Category of the Bonelli’s eagle is Least Concern because it has a very large range. The species was listed as Lower Risk/ Least Concern in 2000 when such category existed. The species is listed as Endangered (SPEC 3) under criteria C1 in the European IUCN Red List (BirdLife International, 2004), and is listed in Annex I of the EU Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC, ‘Birds Directive’), in Appendix III of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) and in Appendix II in the CMS and the Appendix II in CITES.

Overview of past and current threats Table 19 Table of importance of Bonelli’s eagle threats. The current level of importance of threats listed in 1999 SAP and newly identified threats in 2010 are listed. The original importance level of the threats as listed in the 1999 SAP are included in brackets. Threats identified in 1999 Threats identified in 2010 lines lines (high) (high) Country (critical) (critical) (medium) (medium) Wind farms Wind farms Interspecific Electrocution dogs near nests dogs near nests Shortage of food competition (low) competition (low) training of hunting Stolen for falconry falconry for Stolen Habitat destruction Habitat Human disturbance Collision with power power with Collision Persecution (critical) (critical) Persecution Med/ Potentially Bulgaria Medium Medium Medium High Medium High high Critical/ Critical/ Croatia High Critical Medium Low Critical High High Med/ Cyprus Low Low Low Medium N/A Medium High

France High Critical High Medium Medium Low Low Low

Greece High High Medium Low High

Italy Critical Low High High High Low Medium Low Medium High

Med/ Portugal Medium Medium Medium Medium Low High Med/ Med/ Spain Medium Critical High Medium Medium High Low

Turkey Low Medium High N/A Medium N/A

Assessment of the implementation

National and regional species action plans Only France has developed a national action plan for the species. However, there is a regional action plan for the Bonelli´s Eagle conservation in Castilla y León, Spain, since 200655. This plan is being implemented and is financed by the Regional Government and other external supporters. In France, 2 plans have been implemented for the species, one from 1999-2003 and another from 2005-2009. All recovery plans in Cyprus were developed and implemented before Cyprus entered the EU and so there is an old recovery plan (from 1995) in place in Cyprus, but it is not drafted along the lines of an action plan. National working groups coordinate the activities in France and Spain (Spanish Ministry of Environment).

55 Decreto 83/2006, de 23 de noviembre, por el que se aprueba el plan de conservación del águila perdicera en Castilla y León

Species conservation Species conservation measures (where relevant) were implemented poorly by Greece, Italy and Turkey, whereas significant progress was made by Spain, Portugal, Cyprus and France. The banning of hunting in game reserves where birds of prey are killed, trapped or poisoned received very little work by all countries.

Persecution The prevention of mortality due to direct persecution is a priority action which has been well implemented in Cyprus and France, leading to a reported improvement in the population due to this action in these countries. In Cyprus, the population of Bonelli's Eagles decreased during the early 1980's to 1990's due to human persecution, primarily by hunters and farmers involved in vermin control programs (including poison campaign). Actions have been carried out in Cyprus by the Game Fund wardens to prevent poisoning and shooting of the birds. In France, there is a high level of wardening to prevent persecution of the species, however, this is done on a voluntary basis as none of the wardens are paid. As part of the regional action plan in Andalusia, Spain, actions have been implemented to encourage a positive attitude of various groups (especially hunting) to the Bonelli's eagle. There are no relevant actions against persecution of the species in Portugal besides awareness raising (aimed at improving hunter's attitudes towards the eagles) and routine wardening in protected areas and SPAs.

Electrocution In Andalusia, work has been carried out to correct power lines to prevent electrocution in dispersal areas, under the regional action plan. Under the LIFE project (LIFE02 NAT/E/008598) in Castilla y Leon, Important advances were achieved in dealing with dangerous electrical lines, in particular by close collaboration with the electric company. In Portugal, nature conservation authorities together with NGOs have contributed significantly to leading the public electricity company EDP to correct many dangerous electricity lines and pylons. The LIFE project (LIFE06 NAT/P/000194) in Portugal has contributed significantly to reducing and avoiding significant impact of new powerlines and improving visibility of existing ones in high density breeding areas. The public electricity company REN, responsible for the very high tension powerlines is a co-funding entity of the project and has a technical collaboration agreement with the LIFE beneficiary (CEAI). Although EIAs are carried out in Cyprus, in practice, no concrete policy or guidelines to avoid collisions with powerlines or electrocution exist. Insulation of some dangerous pylons has been started in Bulgaria as well as a ban on building of powerlines hazardous for birds included in the designation orders of several SPAs. In France, electrocution has been identified as the main threat for the population and a program of powerline correction has been initiated but it only focuses on SPA perimeters and problem areas, despite requests for powerline correction in all important eagle areas.

Protection of breeding areas against disturbance The protection of breeding territories and nest sites has received moderate implementation, with the most progress made by Portugal, Spain and Cyprus.

74 The restriction of disturbance, forestry and recreational activities around nest sites is gradually being implemented in Portugal, under direct responsibility of managers/ nature conservation authorities, with technical advice and control of NGOs, forestry and nature conservation officers. However, no legal regulations exist concerning these matters. Different measures have been taken in two long term projects developed in Castilla y León (LIFE project LIFE02NAT/E/8598 and project "Developing Actions of the Bonelli´s Eagle Action Plan in Castilla y León") to reduce disturbance to the species, predominantly forming agreements with hunters and land owners In Cyprus, the Forestry Department closes any forest tracts adjacent to nesting trees during the breeding season, maintaining a 1km protective zone around the nests. Any forestry activity close to the nesting tree is prevented. However, there have been some cases of forestry personnel creating fire-breakers alongside nesting trees. If nests are found to be close to hunting grounds the Game Fund will usually close these areas. The majority of work carried out in France to prevent disturbance to breeding sites has been in the form of awareness raising materials to inform land-users, hunters, etc about the threat affecting Bonelli's eagle in France.

Site conservation There 102 are IBAs designated for the species in Europe, of which 99 in the EU. The 179 SPAs in the EU designated for the species includes less than 50% of the European breeding population. All the territories used by Bonelli´s eagles for breeding in Catalonia are included in SPAs and the most important areas have conservation management actions defined in the Regional Action Plan. The designated SPAs in Portugal are in the most important dispersal areas but do not cover all relevant parts of those areas, and do not cover all high density areas. Also, the limits of some of the SPAs in dense subpopulations do not follow the natural limits of the breeding range and so exclude many breeding territories. In Cyprus, the most important breeding/feeding habitat for the species is protected through the establishment of SPAs in which are included about 80% of the breeding population. In Paphos Forest SPA, Cyprus, the Game Fund has initiated a management plan that will lead to the preparation of Action Plans for Key forest species including the Bonelli's Eagle (to be ready in 2010-2011). Although SPAs include around 60-70% of the national population in Greece, there is no management plan accounting for the Bonelli's eagle, and so no relevant actions are applied.

Habitat conservation Some work has been carried out on maintaining and improving the species’ habitat, but more work is needed, particularly in preventing large-scale land use changes in main breeding and dispersal areas (with the exception of Portugal) and the establishment of game preserves or implementation of special game management regulations in breeding and dispersal areas (with the exception of Cyprus). Bonelli's eagle is one of the main species considered in environmental assessments of infrastructures in Portugal and has motivated the abandonment/changes in layout of smaller infrastructures (eg windfarms and powerlines). Traditional practices have largely

75 been maintained in breeding and dispersal areas in Portugal, due to economic and social reasons, as well as due to agri-environmental schemes. Large scale land-use changes have in part been prevented by the designation of SPAs, national regulations and regional/municipal land management planning. The majority of the species’ population in Portugal are within game estates and so this contributes to prey enhancement through internal game estate regulation and game habitat improvement. In Cyprus, Paphos Forest SPA includes about 64% of the total breeding pairs of the species and it is a Permanent Game Reserve Area (no hunting allowed). Although an agri-environment program has been discussed by the relevant government departments in Cyprus, nothing concrete has yet been done.

As part of the regional action plan in Andalusia, Spain, actions have been implemented to establish collaboration agreements with private landowners to encourage the maintenance of optimal habitat in areas important to the species. Agri-environmental measures encouraging preservation of pastures and keeping mosaic landscape have been proposed to be included in the National Rural development Program in Bulgaria.

Other specific conservation measures Additional conservation measures have been taken in the two long term projects developed in Castilla y León including improvement of prey (rabbit) habitat and restoration of pigeon houses (dovecotes). In Andalusia, a relocation project was implemented to reinforce neighbouring populations. One of the actions taken in Cyprus by the Game Fund wardens since 1993 was to provide additional prey to breeding pairs with captive bred chukar (from Jan-Feb). This had beneficial results with good productivity. Captive breeding has been abandoned in France as genetic analysis showed that the population was stable. Two breeding programs exist but with currently low success. The French national action plan does not include any actions for captive breeding in the close future even if a breeding program should be maintained in order to evaluate the potential of reproduction in captivity. Captive breeding is not deemed necessary by the range countries.

Monitoring and Research Monitoring programmes exist in most countries at a national level and in protected areas in Spain, South Portugal (~70% of the national population), Cyprus and France. The majority of work has focussed on monitoring the breeding population and conducting national annual censuses (Spain: every 5 years nationally; variable frequencies regionally).

76 In addition, regular monitoring of the species is carried out in Northeast Portugal and was previously carried out in the central East until recently. Monitoring of a small percentage of Bonelli's Eagle population in Greece takes part mainly through the monitoring of IBAs and other projects of HOS and Natural History Museum of Crete. In Bulgaria, sites where the species has been recorded for the past five years are monitored during the Egyptian Vulture breeding monitoring.

Under the LIFE project in Castilla y Leon, existing monitoring equipment was improved and relevant training was delivered to all staff involved in species conservation. Adult birds were marked to determine movement and distribution of the species along with a GPS tracking campaign (radio-tracking of young individuals was not feasible). In Andalusia, marking and radio-tracking of adults and chicks, identification/monitoring of main threats and determination of the probability of lead poisoning resulting from ingestion of lead shot was carried out. The results of these studies and methods used were disseminated. Several research projects have been carried in South and Northeast Portugal. The Southern subpopulations have been studied continuously since the early 1990s and significant data have been collected and analysed. Studies investigating the species’ reproductive biology/habitat selection, diet and dispersal (including radio-tracking since 2002) are carried out by the Game Fund Research Unit in Cyprus. A telemetry program was launched in France in 2009 to identify areas used by the species throughout the year. Genetic analyses are continually conducted following ringing campaigns (all chicks ringed since 1990) and the population dynamics of the species are being studied.

Public awareness and stakeholder involvement Awareness raising measures have received the most implementation in Cyprus, France, Spain and Portugal. Targeted programmes have been carried out in Cyprus to raise awareness with hunters through the Game Fund, involving the production of posters and talks to hunting clubs and schools, along with a compulsory course for new hunters in order to obtain their hunting license which includes protected species conservation and identification. In France, information is freely available on the Bonelli’s eagle and the national action plan in the form of publications, a website (http://www.aigledebonelli.fr/) conferences, etc. Under the Andalusian regional action plan efforts have been made to encourage a positive attitude of various groups (especially hunting) to the Bonelli's eagle, and the 2009-2012 Spanish LIFE project (LIFE07/NAT/E/000742) is yielding informative documents which are freely available online56. The Southern Portuguese LIFE project (LIFE06 NAT/P/000194) has developed a wide variety of awareness activities at different levels. Other NGOs have also contributed to raising public awareness in other areas, especially in the Northeast. Officers of some Natural Parks have also contributed to public awareness during routine work, but no official campaign exists.

56 http://www.priorimancha.es/documentoslife.html

77 As part of the LIFE Nature project (LIFE04NAT/GR/101), a publication has been produced to inform people of the natural history and conservation management of the island of Tilos.

Community financial support Twelve LIFE projects57 that benefit the Bonelli’s eagle have been implemented in Bulgaria (1), France (1), Greece (1), Portugal (1) and Spain (8) since 2000, with a total budget of more than 15.5 million Euros, of which the EU contribution is more than 8 million Euros. In addition, over 3 million Euros of other funding has been invested in research and monitoring and management actions (particularly for the modification of powerlines in Spain).

Conclusions The progress in the implementation of the action plan is moderate (Average IS=1.8) with the country holding the largest proportion of the population (Spain) making good progress in the conducting of research on the biology and conservation of the species and establishment of international cooperation, but very little progress on the development and implementation of a national recovery plan- an area of high priority which should be the focus of future work. Overall the designation of breeding areas as SPAs or protected areas has been well implemented, but still needs further work, particularly focussing on the development and implementation of management plans in these areas. National implementation scores (NIS) are highest in Portugal and Cyprus, average in France and Spain, and lowest in Bulgaria, Italy, Greece, Croatia and Turkey.

Further measures/work still needed especially in the field of: • Modification or removal of electricity pylons that cause electrocution of birds. • Strict implementation of legal sanctions for those caught killing/persecuting the birds and wardens specialising in raptor conservation employed. • Designation of the most important dispersal areas as SPAs, new reserves or similar protected areas. • Effective management plans in place in SPAs. • Development and implementation of national species recovery plans in all range countries. • Implementation of a co-ordinated European programme to monitor population status and trends. • Promotion and implementation of awareness raising campaigns by regional and national administrations.

57 LIFE project codes: LIFE 07/NAT/BG/000068; LIFE 05/NAT/F000139; LIFE 04/NAT/GR/101; LIFE06 NAT/P/000194; LIFE 02/NAT/E/8598; LIFE07/NAT/E/000742; LIFE97 NAT/E/004188; LIFE00 NAT/E/007327; LIFE98 NAT/E/005308; LIFE99 NAT/E/006419; LIFE97 NAT/E/004161; LIFE06 NAT/E/000213.

78 Contributors Dimitar Demerdzhiev (BSPB/BirdLife Bulgaria); Ivan Budinski (Association for biological research - BIOM); Michael Miltiadou (BirdLife Cyprus); Olivier Scher (Conservatoire des Espacxes naturels du Languedoc-Roussillon); Cecile Ponchon (CEEP, France); Bourdakis Stratis (HOS/ BirdLife Greece); Thanos Kastritis (HOS/ BirdLife Greece); Massimiliano Di Vittorio (University of Palermo); Luís Palma (CEAI, Portugal); Marcos Moleon (Regional Environmental Ministry of Andalusia); Francisco Javier Ezquerra Boticario (Regional Government of Castilla y León); Francisco Guil Celada (Tragsega Spain); Pascual López-López (University of Valencia, Spain); Barbaros Demirci (Turkey)

79 Appendix 1 Table 20 Implementation of the action plan in the European range states58. PS = Priority Score; Ave. IS = Average Implementation Score; API = Action Priority Index; National IS = National Implementation Score.

Ave. Action Measure PS BG HR CY FR GR IT PT ES TR API IS 1.1.1 Promote national and international policies to ensure the 2.5 1.5 1.5 1 0 1.25 1.5 2.5 2 1 1.7 1.9 conservation of the Bonelli's Eagle and its habitat a. Agricultural policies that encourage the maintenance of 2 2 1 1 2 1.5 1 3 1.5 1 1.6 1.6 traditional mixed farming practices adopted. b. New legislation and regulations to avoid the installation of powerlines and poles that risk electrocution of birds of prey 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2.5 1 1.9 2.1 enacted. 2.1.1 Prevent mortality due to direct persecution 3 1.33 1 3.25 2.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.25 1.8 2.2 a. Legal sanctions for offenders strictly implemented. 4 2 0 4 2 2 1 1 2 1 2.0 2.7 b. Numbers of forestry/nature wardens and funding increased. 3 0 1 4 3 1 1 1 1.5 2 2.0 2.1 c. Wardens specialised in raptor conservation employed. 3 0 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 1.6 2.4 d. Hunting banned in game preserves where birds of prey are 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1.3 1.8 killed, trapped or poisoned. e. Educational programmes for hunters and forestry/nature 2 1 0 3 3 1.5 2 2 1.5 1 2.0 1.3 wardens undertaken. 2.1.2 Prevent mortality due to electrocution 3.5 1.5 1.5 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 1.9 2.5 a. Electricity pylons that cause the electrocution of birds are 4 2 1 1 2 1 0 3 2 1 1.9 2.8 removed or modified. b. Construction of new powerlines in high density breeding and 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 1.9 2.1 dispersal areas prevented. 2.2.1 Protection of breeding territories and nest sites 3 1.2 0 2.2 2 1.5 1 2.6 2.2 1 2.0 2.1 a. Road/ track building and installation of new quarries, dams and 3 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1.7 2.3 built developments near the breeding areas prevented. b. High density breeding areas designated as SPAs and new reserves (or similar protected areas) designated on areas with low 4 2 0 4 3 3 1 3 3 1 2.7 1.7 numbers of pairs.

58 BG = Bulgaria; HR = Croatia; CY=Cyprus; FR=France; GR=Greece; IT=Italy; PT = Portugal; ES = Spain; TR=Turkey.

80 Ave. Action Measure PS BG HR CY FR GR IT PT ES TR API IS c. Human activity prevented within 1 km of nests. 3 1 0 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 1.8 2.2 d. Forestry operations or similar activities prohibited within 2 km 3 1 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 1 2.1 1.9 of nests during the breeding period. e. Recreational activities that disturb the species regulated in the 3 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1.6 2.4 breeding areas (climbing, angling, aerial and mountain sports). 2.2.2 Protection of the dispersal areas 3 2 2 4 1 1 1 3 2 1 2.0 2.0 The most important dispersal areas are designated as SPAs, new 3 2 2 4 1 1 1 3 2 1 2.0 2.0 reserves or similar protected areas. 2.2.3 Management and habitat improvement 3 1.25 1 2.2 2 1.2 1.33 2.75 1.4 1.4 1.7 2.3 a. Traditional agriculture practices in the most important breeding 3 2 1 1 3 1.5 2 3 2 1 2.0 2.0 and dispersal areas maintained. b. Large-scale changes in land use prevented in main breeding and 3 1 0 2 2 1 1 3 1.5 1 1.7 2.4 dispersal areas. c. Prey populations (rabbits, pigeons) enhanced by habitat 3 1 0 3 1 1.5 0 3 1.5 2 2.0 2.0 improvement and regulation of hunting activities. d. Game preserves established or special game management 3 1 0 4 1 1 0 2 1 2 1.7 2.3 regulations implement in breeding and dispersal areas. e. Favourable breeding sites that were previously abandoned 2 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 1 1 1.4 1.7 preserved or recreated. 2.3.1 Develop national recovery plans in EU member states 3 2 0 3 4 1 0 1.5 1 0 2.1 1.9 a. National recovery plans developed in EU member states. 3 2 0 3 4 1 0 2 1 0 2.3 1.8 b. National recovery plans implemented in EU member states. 3 2 0 3 4 1 0 1 1 0 2.0 2.0 2.4.1 Establish international co-operation to provide funds, equipment and expert advice to undertake basic surveys and 2 1.5 1 1 1 1.25 1.5 2 2.5 0 1.7 1.6 initiate conservation measures a. International co-operation in place between range states. 2 2 0 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 1.7 1.6 b. Funds, equipment and expert advice provided to appropriate countries to undertake basic surveys and initiate conservation 2 1 1 1 1 1.5 1 3 3 0 1.8 1.5 measures. 3.1.1 Develop and implement a co-ordinated European programme 3 1 0 2.5 1 1.5 2 2 1.25 1 1.7 2.3 to monitor population status and trends a. Co-ordinated European programme to monitor population status 3 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1.1 2.9 and trends implemented. b. Annual censuses conducted in countries with reduced 3 1 0 4 1 2 2 3 1.5 1 2.3 1.8

81 Ave. Action Measure PS BG HR CY FR GR IT PT ES TR API IS populations, and census conducted every five years in countries with healthy populations. 3.2.1 Conduct research on the biology, ecology and habitat 3 1.25 1 3 2.25 1.5 1.75 3 2.75 1 2.1 1.9 requirements of the species a. Dispersal areas identified and surveyed. 3 2 1 4 2 1 1 4 3 1 2.3 1.7 b. Studies conducted on the biology of the species. 3 1 0 3 3 2 2 3 3 0 2.6 1.4 c. Species habitat requirements and the factors influencing 3 1 0 3 2 2 2 3 3 0 2.4 1.6 population trends fully understood. d. Dispersive strategies and factors influencing populations in the 2 1 0 2 2 1 2 2 2 0 1.9 1.4 main dispersal areas fully understood. 3.3.1 Implement an internationally planned and coordinated programme of captive breeding in countries with small 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1.4 1.7 populations of Bonelli´s Eagle International programme of genetic research, creation of a pool of breeding pairs, etc co-ordinated to improve success of captive 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1.4 1.7 breeding programmes. 4.1.1 Raise public awareness and support for protection of the 3 1 1 2.5 2.5 1.5 1 2 2 1 1.7 2.3 Bonelli's Eagle and its habitat a. Awareness/educational campaign addressed to both the general public and conservation administration bodies developed and 3 1 1 3 3 1.5 1 3 2 1 2.0 2.0 implemented. b. Regional and national administrations promote and implement 3 1 1 2 2 1.5 1 1 2 1 1.5 2.5 these campaigns with support from NGOs. National IS and Average IS 1.39 1.26 2.37 1.98 1.27 1.31 2.34 1.81 1.07 1.8

References

Arroyo, B., & Ferreiro, E. 1999. European Union Species Action Plan for Bonelli’s Eagle (Hieraaetus fasciatus). BirdLife International report to the European Commission, unpublished. (Document available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/action_plans/docs/hieraaet us_fasciatus.pdf).

Bourdakis S. & Xirouchakis, S. (in press) The Bonelli's eagle (Hieraaetus fasciatus) in Greece. In Hernandez, V.J. (Ed.) The Bonelli's eagle. Ecology, behaviour and conservation. Madrid: Tundra Ediciones.

Consejería de Medio Ambiente, 2009. Programa de Emergencias, Control Epidemiológico y Seguimiento de Fauna Silvestre de Andalucía. Seguimiento de Aves Terrestres. Reproducción 2009. EGMASA-Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Junta de Andalucía. Granada. 58 pp.

Del Moral, JC. 2006. EL águila perdicera en España. Población en 2005 y método de censo. Monografía SEO; SEO/BirdLife Madrid. Spain. (in Spanish with English summary)

Demerdzhiev, D., P. Iankov. Current Status, Distribution, Trends, and Conservation Status of the Bonelli's Eagle in Bulgaria. (in press)

Di Vittorio M., 2007. Biologia e conservazione di cinque specie di uccelli rapaci in Sicilia. Ph. D. Thesis, Dipartimento di Biologia Animale, Università degli Studi di Palermo.

Di Vittorio M., 2010. Suitable habitats of the Bonelli's Eagle Aquila fasciata in Sicily ". Colloque International sur la Conservation de l'Aigle de Bonelli, to Agropolis, Montpellier "28-29 January 2010.

Di Vittorio M. and M. Sarà, 2001. Raptors on Sicily. Report 2000. Abstract book of 4th Eurasian Congress on raptors, pp. 56.

Di Vittorio M., Seminara S. & Campobello D., 2000. Aquila di Bonelli, Hieraaetus fasciatus, Status e biologia riproduttiva in Sicilia. Riv. Ital. Orn., Milano, 70 (2): 129- 137.

Hagemeijer EJM, Blair MJ (1997) The EBBC atlas of European breeding birds: their distribution and abundance. Poyser, London

Hernández, V. J., Ed., In Press. The Bonelli's Eagle. Ecology, behaviour and conservation. Tundra Producciones, Valencia, Spain (to be published in 2010)

Kassinis, N.& Miltiadou, M. (2010) Bonelli's Eagle Status and Conservation in Cyprus. In "The Bonelli's Eagle Ecology and Conservation" Editor: Fernandez V. J. Tundra Publishing, Spain. (2010). In press.

Plan national d'action de l'Aigle de Bonelli. Synthèse et bilan de la reproduction en France. 2010. Conservatoire des Espaces naturels du Languedoc-Roussillon.

Yankov, P. (ed.) 2007. Atlas of Breeding Birds in Bulgaria. Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds, Conservation Series, Book 10. Sofia, BSPB, p. 170-171

Cinereous vulture Aegypius monachus

Background The European Action Plan (Heredia, 1996) was developed in 1993 and adopted in 1996 by the European Union and the Bern Convention. The action plan has not been revised. It implementation has been reviewed twice – in 2000 (Gallo-Orsi, 2001) and 2004 (Nagy & Crockford, 2004). Its geographical scope covers Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Georgia, Greece, Italy, FYR of Macedonia, Portugal, Russia (Europe only), Spain, Turkey and Ukraine.

General overview The SAP has been implemented well in the countries with significant populations (AIS=2.2) and the species has been increasing since the adoption of the plan. Some of the key threats have been addressed with legal measures and with designation of protected areas, but mainly through active conservation actions on the ground. In the same time, poisoning remains a critical threat to address. Restoring the population to previous levels and recolonisation of countries where it is extinct is unlikely due to the permanent loss of suitable habitat. Due to the low ecological plasticity and potential of the species it will remain dependent on conservation measures.

4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 API 1.5 1.5 Average IS Average 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0

1 2 1 1. 1. 1.3 2.1 3.1 4. 1.1 1.2 1. 1. 1. 1. 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2. 2. 3. 3. 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.2.1 4.1.1 4.2.1 Action

Figure vi Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each Action listed in the Cinereous vulture species action plan. Colours represent Priority Score.

Status review The European population of this species is small (<10%) but increasing on average 10- 20% for each of the last two decades in contrast to the Asiatic population. The latter is believed to continue its slow decline. The species therefore qualifies as Near Threatened globally (BirdLife 2008), and Rare in Europe (BirdLife 2004).

Table 21 Breeding population estimates by country

Population Current Population Breeding Country Year in previous Year population Year Reference in SAP trend review (pairs)

Albania ------2001- 2002- 40-100% Armenia 15-25 1996 8-15 7-10 59 2002 2009 Increasing 1996- 2004- Azerbaijan 100-100 1996 (10-30) 30-100 Fluctuating 60 2000 2010 Bulgaria 0-1 1996 0 2004 0-1 2010 Fluctuating 61 Croatia 0 1996 0 2004 0 2010 Unknown France 0 1996 8-10 2002 22 breeding 2010 Increasing 62 1994- 1998- 5-10% Georgia 10-20 1996 20-30 20-30 63 2003 2005 Decreasing 24-31 nests 2000- Greece 20-21 1996 21 2002 20-28 Fluctuating 64 2010 incubating Italy 0 1996 0 2004 0 2010 Stable Macedonia 0 1996 0-4 2000 0 2009 Decreasing 65 2003 2002- Portugal 0 1996 0-5 0-3 - Unknown 66 2003 2004 1994- Russia 30-50 1996 30-7067 no data - - - 2002 1,845-2,440 Spain 1,050-1,150 1996 1,358 2001 2006 Increasing 68 pairs 50-200 2001- Turkey 100-500 1996 300-400 2001 Unknown 69 pairs 2010 1990- 2002- 18-80% Ukraine 4-6 1996 2-3 2-20 pairs 70 2000 2009 Increasing

59 www.aspbirds.org 60 Results of field research, non-published 61 Stoynov et al., 2008; Hristov et al., in press; Nankinov et al. 2004. 62 P. Orabi, P. Lecuyer, S. Henriquet, C. Tessier. Pers comm; Nadal, 2009. 63 L. Gavashelishvili. 2005. Plus unpublished data 64 Monitoring plan of WWF Greece in collaboration with the local office of Evros Prefecture in Dadia 65 Velevski, M., Lisicanec, E., unpublished data 66 Equipa Atlas 2008. 67 Data from “Birds in Europe 2” is from Galushin (2004). Belik 2004 gives slightly higher figure 60-100 bp. 68 De La Puente et al., 2007. 69 Yamac, 2004. Bird Research Society, 2004. 70 Annual Information reports (2002-2007) on implementation of the FZS Project in the Crimea. Appak et al, 2007; Kostin, 2009.

Objective(s) 1. In the short term, to maintain and enhance the existing Cinereous Vulture populations in Europe. 2. In the long term, to encourage the recolonisation of the former range.

Evaluation The short term target of the plan has been achieved, as the European breeding population has increased overall from 1,330-1,874 in 1993-6 to 1,995-2,852 in 2000-2010, being stable (in most countries) or increasing (Spain, France), except in Armenia and Russia and Turkey (data quality is low in the latter two) where it is decreasing. The long term objective, to recolonize former range however has not been achieved, as there are still only small scale examples (e.g. successful reintroduction in France, slight increase in occupied area in Ukraine) of this process.

Conservation and Legal Status In 2010 the global IUCN Red List Category is Near threatened (C1) as at the time of adoption of the plan, because the species has a moderately small population which appears to be suffering an ongoing decline in its Asiatic strongholds, despite the fact that in parts of Europe numbers are now increasing (BirdLife International, 2008). In Europe, the species does not meet regional IUCN Red List criteria, and its European Threat Status is Rare (BirdLife International, 2004). The species is listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive and in Appendix II of the Bern convention. The species is legally protected in all range states covered by the plan.

Overview of past and current threats Historically the most important threats were related to the decline of herbivores. In the 20th century they were loss of nest sites due to forestry and disturbance; reduction of animal carcasses in the wild due to modernisation of agriculture. Persecution and especially poisoning played a critical role leading to extinction in some countries. The illegal use of poisons is the most important threat to the species at present, followed by mortality at windfarms, food shortage and increasingly forest fires.

Assessment of the implementation

National and regional species action plans Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, France, Spain, Turkey and Ukraine have adopted national action plans. In 2001 the Balkan Vulture Action Plan, a joint NGO initiative supported by Governments started coordinated implementation of conservation actions in SE Europe.

Species conservation Vultures in general are legally protected in all countries from killing, destruction of the nests and disturbance. Deliberate killing is not an important threat. However, disturbance is much more difficult to prevent especially in protected areas with no active wardening, some progress has been achieved (AIS 2.1).

Reintroductions A successful reintroduction programme has been carried out between 1992 and 1999 in the Cevennes in France (approx. 75-90 individuals in Causses; 18 individuals in the Baronnies; and 7 individuals in Verdon) as well as locally in Andalusia and Casilla La Mancha. Restocking of the Mallorcan population has been implemented continuously for 20 years.

Anti-poisoning Several poisoning cases have been analysed - Programa Antídoto Portugal www.antidoto-portugal.org/C. Breeding attempts have been monitored (ICNB, NGO's). Awareness-raising campaigns in schools for poisoned baits have been implemented by WWF Greece in 2006. There is also a media release for every confirmed poisoning event by WWF Greece. A national Strategy against the illegal use of poisoned baits in the Natural Environment has been adopted in Spain, as well as Regional ones. A LIFE project has begun in Spain: Programme “Antidoto” for poison control (involving Ecologistas en Acción, WWF- Adena, SEO/BirdLife, Grefa, Fapas y Fundación para la Conservación y Protección del Buitre Negro). In countries with pastoralism, key measures are needed to reduce the conflict between shepherds and predators and to control the risk of illegal poisoning. Some steps have been taken mainly by NGOs, which is not sufficient.

Site conservation Protected areas only are not effectively conserving the species as habitats as it require broader landscape measures to cover its foraging ranges. There are 57 IBAs designated for the species in the countries covered by this plan (53 in the EU). In the EU 78 SPA have been designated EU (65 of them in Spain) covering over 90% of the breeding territories. However, no management plans are developed yet for these SPAs in BG and ES. The coverage with protected areas in the non-EU countries is lower, on 50-90% of the breeding territories and further implementation of this action is needed in AR, AZ and TR.

Habitat conservation The species breeding habitats are currently protected from forestry operations through general restrictions to cut trees with nests (ES) and management plans in protected areas (FR and GR). But the actual integration of its needs in forest policies remains weak (AIS 1.5). Specific guidelines for foresters have been promoted in Spain by the Ministry of Environment in Madrid. In ES, PT and GR measures against forest fires are taken systematically. Concerning the foraging habitats the rate is lower (AIS 1.4), with highest implementation has been achieved in FR (2.5), with some progress in ES and BG (2.0). A major setback was the adoption of EU sanitary regulations on the disposal of animal by-products which

created further difficulties with food availability. Fortunately, these restrictions were recently relaxed at EU level and adjustment of the national legislation has to follow. There are no specific policies to maintain mountain pastoralism in Turkey and the Caucasus and livestock declines in some areas are already known to affect the species except in Azerbaijan where livestock numbers have grown.

Monitoring and Research National monitoring programmes exist in practically all countries with breeding populations (or at protected areas level in GR and PT) as a result the distribution and numbers are relatively well studied (AIS 3.2). Some progress has been made with studying the mortality factors (AIS 2.1) and other ecological studies (AIS 2.3). Ringing of juveniles, marking (AR, ES, GR), satellite telemetry studies (AR, GR) and radio tracking (GR, BG). Extensive new literature has been published on various ecological aspects of the species in Spain.

Public awareness and stakeholder involvement The main focus of public awareness raising activities have been the poisoning threat with some results achieved in ES and GR, but further work is required overall (AIS 1.6). The general awareness about the ecological role of vultures and their conservation is more advanced (AIS 2.3)

Community financial support Ten LIFE projects71 have been implemented in Bulgaria (1), Greece (1), Portugal(1) and Spain (7) since 2004 with a total budget of over 26 Million Euros, of which the total European Union contribution was more than 14 million Euros. These projects have resulted in a population increase in Greece and Spain. LIFE projects have been instrumental in setting up monitoring schemes and building conservation capacity on the ground in Greece and Portugal. Smaller scale projects, some of which also with EC funding, have been numerous, especially in the frame of the Balkan Vultures Action Plan.

Conclusions The progress in the implementation of the action plan is good (AIS=2.2) and very good in Greece and France (>3.0) and Spain (2.6).

71 LIFE08 NAT/BG/000278; LIFE97 NAT/F/004120; LIFE02NAT/GR/8497; LIFE08NATP000227; LIFE00 NAT/E/000050; LIFE00 NAt/E/007340; LIFE09 NAT/ES/000533; LIFE07 NAT/E/000762; LIFE08 NAT/E/000062; LIFE00 NAT/E/007348; LIFE07 NAT/E/000742.

4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 AR AZ BG CR FR MK GE GR IT PT ES TR UA AIS

Figure vii progress in the implementation of the action plan per country

Further measures/work still needed especially in the field of: • Preventing poisoning. • Prevention of collisions with powerlines and improved siting of windfarms • Maintaining livestock grazing and mountain pastoralism. • Ongoing protection and management of the colonies • Landscape level measures to maintain habitat quality and ecological conditions. • Local reintroduction and reinforcement of populations.

Contributors Mamikon Ghasabyan (ASPB - AR), Elchin Sultanov (AOS - AZ), Ivaylo Angelov (BG), Ivan Budinski (CR), Bernard Deceuninck (LPO - BirdLife France), Pascal Orabi (LPO - BirdLife France); Metodija Velevski (MK), Ramaz Gokhelashvili (GE), Alexander Gavashelishvili (GE), Theodora Skartsi (GR), Claudio Celada (IT), Rui Fazenda Lourenço (PT), Javier de la Puente (ES), Ana Iñigo (SEO - ES), Alvaro Camiña (ES), Emilio Costillo Borrego (ES), Elif Yamac (TR), Maria Osipova (UA).

Appendix 1

Table 22 Implementation of the action plan in the European range states72. PS = Priority Score; Ave. IS = Average Implementation Score; API = Action Priority Index; National IS = National Implementation Score. Action Targets PS AR AZ BG HR FR GE GR IT MK PT ES TR UA AIS API 1.1.1 Forestry policy is based on principle of sustainability and ensures long-term 3 1.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 survival of all native forests and takes into consideration the presence of the species. 1.1.2 Agricultural policies are sympathetic to wildlife and are compatible with the 2 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.7 conservation of the Cinereous vulture 1.1.3 International cooperation from wealthier countries and organisations to strengthen 4 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.7 institutions and support NGOs 1.2.1 The Cinereous Vulture and its habitat receive maximum legal coverage in national 3 3.5 1.7 2.7 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.8 2.7 2.3 3.0 3.3 2.3 2.5 2.7 1.3 legislation 2.1.1 Protected area status conveyed to all existing breeding colonies and isolated nests 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.5 2.1.2 Prevention of damaging or disturbing developments and activities near nest-sites 3 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.1 1.9 2.1.3 Protection of breeding colonies and nests from forestry operations 3 2.5 3.5 1.7 2.0 0.0 1.3 3.7 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.3 1.0 3.0 2.2 1.8 2.2.1 Encourage a continuing livestock economy 2 1.0 4.0 3.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.1 1.3 2.2.2 Encourage repopulation of native wild ungulates 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.3 0.9 2.2.3 Provide supplementary food at specific sites 1 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.1 0.6 2.3.1 Prevent the use of toxic chemicals for predator control 4 1.0 2.5 3.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.5 2.5 1.9 2.4.1 Restore cinereous vulture populations to previous range areas 1 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.6 0.8 3.1.1 Regular national monitoring schemes in place in all range states 2 3.5 2.0 3.0 0.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.5 3.5 3.2 0.5 3.1.2 Surveys to establish the status of Cinereous Vultures 2 3.5 1.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 2.5 3.0 3.2 0.6 3.1.3 Monitor causes of mortality 2 3.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.1 1.3 3.1.4 Monitor results of reintroduction efforts 1 2.7 1.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 4.0 1.7 0.0 2.4 0.5 3.2.1 Undertake studies on the ecological requirements of the cinereous vulture 2 3.7 2.0 3.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.7 2.3 3.0 2.8 0.8 4.1.1 Inform the public and increase awareness of the ecological role played by the CV 1 2.5 1.5 2.5 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 3.0 2.0 1.5 2.3 0.6 and need to protect CV and its habitat 4.2.1 Undertake national and international anti-poisoning awareness campaigns, 4 1.0 0.0 1.7 1.0 0.0 1.3 2.3 1.0 1.7 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.5 1.6 3.2 preferably led by Government National IS and Average IS 2.16 1.68 2.26 1.64 2.5 1.8 3.06 1.22 1.98 2.28 2.6 1.64 2.19 2.1

72 AR = Armenia; AZ = Azerbaijan; BG = Bulgaria; HR = Croatia; FR=France; GE = Georgia; GR=Greece; IT=Italy; MK = Macedonia FYRO; PT = Portugal; ES = Spain; TR=Turkey; UA = Ukraine. 91

References

Appak B., Beskaravajny M., Kostin S., Osipova M., Tsvelykh A. Current state of the carrion-eating birds populations in the Crimea. // IV International scientific and practical conference "Nature Reserves of the Crimea - 2007". - Part 2 zoology. - Simpheropol, 2007. - pp.13-20. (In Russian)

Belik, V., Galushin, V. and Bogomolov, D. (2002) Results of the Imperial Eagle (Aquila heliaca) Project in Russia during 1996 and 1997. Aquila 107-108: 177-181.

Bird Research Society, 2004. National Action Plan for Cinereous Vulture, Ankara, Turkey

BirdLife International, 2004. Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 12)

BirdLife International 2008. Aegypius monachus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. . Downloaded on 17 August 2010.

De La Puente, J.; Moreno-Opo, R. and Del Moral, J. C. 2007. El buitre negro en España. Censo nacional (2006). SEO/BirdLife. Madrid.

Equipa Atlas 2008. Atlas da Aves Nidificantes de Portugal. ICNB. Lisboa

Galushin, V. 2001. Population sizes and trends of European birds in Russia: birds of prey. Newsletter of the World Working Group on Birds of Prey and Owls 29/32:6-7.

Gavashelishvili, L. 2005. Vultures of Georgia and the Caucasus. GCCW and Buneba Print. Publishing. Tbilisi. 96 pp.

Hristov, H., Demerdzhiev D., Stoychev, St. (in print) . Status of the Black Vulture in Bulgaria and BSPB/Birdlife conservation activities. International Symposium on the Black vulture. 21 – 23 October. Cordoba, Spain.

Kostin S., Bagrikova N. State of the nesting colonies of vultures in the Crimea in 2007- 2009 // V International scientific and practical conference "Nature Reserves of the Crimea - 2009". - Simpheropol, 2009. - pp.298 - 302. (In Russian)

Monitoring plan of WWF Greece in collaboration with the local office of Evros Prefecture in Dadia

Nadal, R. 2009. Vautour moine (Aegypius monachus) p 148 In De Seynes & Coordinateurs espèces. Les Oiseaux nicheurs rares et menacés en france en 2009. Ornithos 17: 137-168.

Nankinov, D. at al. Breeding totals of ornithofauna in Bulgaria.2004. Green Balkans, Plovdiv, 32.

Stoynov, E., Kurtev, M., Demerdjiev, D., Iankov, P., Hristov, H. 2008. Black Vulture Aegypius monachus. In: Iankov, P. (ed.) Atlas of the breeding birds in Bulgaria. Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds. Conservation series, book 10. Sofia, BSPB, 136-137.

Yamac E. 2004. Investigation about the Cinereous Vulture (Aegypius monachus L.) Population Biology in Turkmenbaba Mountain. PhD Thesis. Anadolu University, Eskişehir, Turkey.

Dalmatian pelican Pelecanus crispus

Background The European Action Plan (Crivelli, 1996) was developed in 1994 and adopted in 1996. The action plan has not been revised. Its implementation has been reviewed twice – in 2000 (Gallo-Orsi, 2001) and 2004 (Nagy & Crockford, 2004). Its geographical scope covers Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia FYR, Montenegro73, Greece, Romania, Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine which covers c.30% of the species' world breeding population and 25–30% of its wintering population.

General overview The SAP has been rather well implemented (overall IS=2.3), most successfully in Greece and Romania, where the species has shown a remarkable recovery. The increase in Europe is a result of strict enforcement of legal protection of the species. Improving the protection and effective management of the key sites is still high priority, including monitoring and prevention of threats. The sustainable use of wetlands, international cooperation and information sharing have been less successful. Developing and maintaining capacity of the conservation managers dealing with the species is still required.

4.0 4.0

3.5 3.5

3.0 3.0

2.5 2.5

2.0 2.0 API

Average IS 1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.1.4 1.1.5 2.1.1 2.2.1 3.1.1 3.2.1 4.1.1 Action

Figure viii Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action listed in the Dalmatian pelican species action plan. Colours represent Priority Score.

73 Originally “Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia)” but the species only occurred in Montenegro (breeding) and Macedonia (non-breeding).

Status review The species has several practically isolated sub-populations: 4,350-4,800 individuals in Black Sea and Eastern Mediterranean; 6,000-9,000 individuals in SE Asia and S Asia (both estimates from Crivelli et al. (2000), updated by unpublished information supplied by Wetlands International Specialist Groups to Wetlands International (2006); 50 individuals in E. Asia (Mix and Braunlich 2000, Simba Chan in litt. 2005).

Table 23 Breeding population estimates and trend by country Populati Populati on at the Current on at time of populati Country Year the 2004 Year Year Population References the 1996 on review trend SAP (pairs) (pairs) (pairs) 1992- 2005- Albania 40-70 1990s 19 27 Decreasing 74 2002 2007 1997- 1990- Bulgaria 70-90 1990s 49-128 14-150 Increasing 75 2002 2009 1995- 1150- 53-73% Greece 190-260 1994 500-550 2008 76 1997 1300 Increasing Monteneg 2000- 10-20 - - - 5-14 Stable 77 ro 2010 1990- 20-35% Romania 70-150 1990s 400-550 312-330 2009 78 2002 Increasing 1990- Russia 400-550 1980s 350-450 450-710 2006 unknown 79 2000 2000- Turkey 100-150 1990s 220-250 2001 220-270 Fluctuating 2010 1990- 1994- Ukraine 6-14 1990s 3-14 2-14 unknown 80 2000 2009

Objective(s) 1. In the short term, to prevent any further declines below 1994 levels in the population size and distribution of the Dalmatian Pelican. 2. 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.

74 Anni (Koci) Kallfa; Taulant Bino, 2010. 75 National Action Plan for Dalmatian Pelican, Bulgarian Ministry of Environment and Waters (in preparation). 76 Handrinos & Kastritis, 2009; Catsadorakis, 2009. 77 Saveljić & Rubinić, 2008; Mediterranean Action Plan. 78 Romanian Ornithological Society; LIFE 05 NAT/RO/000169. 79 Russian Red Databook (2006), compilation of regional references. 80 Red data book of Ukraine (2009) and USPB data.

Evaluation The short term target of the plan has been achieved, as the breeding population has increased from 886-1,204 in 1994 to 2,180-2,815 in 2010, which despite of annual fluctuations, nearly doubled on average. Although the SE European sub-population has shown a recent increase, the remaining population is suspected to have decreased rapidly over the last three generations, in line with levels of disturbance, wetland alteration and destruction, water pollution, collision with overhead power-lines, over-exploitation of fish stocks and, in Mongolia, hunting by herders. Therefore its global threat category remains unchanged.

Conservation and Legal Status In 2010 the global IUCN Red List Category is Vulnerable (A2c,e; A3c,e; A4c,e) (BirdLife International, 2008) as at the time of adoption of the plan. It was Low Risk/conservation dependent in 2000-2004 when such category existed. In Europe, the species does not meet regional IUCN Red List criteria, and its European Threat Status (2004) is Rare (BirdLife International, 2004). 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. The species is legally protected in all range states covered by the plan.

Overview of past and current threats Historically the most important threats were linked to the loss of wetlands which were drained for agriculture or their water regimes were drastically modified. Despite of the site protection measures undertaken this type of threats is still common, especially in relation to increased eutrophication, hydrological alterations (leading to erosion of the colonies and flooding) and habitat loss (house development). Disturbance by human activities at the breeding and wintering sites (e.g. recreational boats, fishing) are the next most important threat, while occasional cases of illegal shooting are still reported. A novel threat of potentially high impact is the growing number of windfarms along the main flyways and close to important wetlands.

Assessment of the implementation

National and regional species action plans Only Romania, Montenegro and Ukraine have national action plans, one is in preparation in Bulgaria. National working groups coordinate the activities in Bulgaria, Greece, Romania and Turkey.

Species conservation Dalmatian pelicans have been subject of targeted conservation measures in almost all countries covered by the plan. Significant role to stimulate such actions has been the action plan itself, supported by Tour du Valat station. Specific actions to prevent local threats were carried out in the breeding colonies in Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro and

Romania, including predator control measures (fencing, artificial platforms), wardening, and limiting the disturbance caused by researchers and museum collectors. The provision of floating rafts for breeding has been a successful measure to limit land based disturbance and prevent flooding and colony erosion, especially in large lakes.

Site conservation There are 107 IBAs designated for the species in the action plan range, and 53 in the EU. The 63 designated SPAs in the EU include 100% of the breeding and over 90% of the migratory and wintering population, almost all of these sites are also designated under the Ramsar convention. The most important colonies in Greece, Romania and Bulgaria are included in protected areas (reserves, national parks) with management plans. No management plans have been developed for the large majority of the SPAs.

Habitat conservation The species requires large undisturbed lakes for breeding and feeding, with limited access of terrestrial predators and lack of disturbance (floating island of reedbeds or sand banks).Abundant fish is a key resource. Wetlands in the range of the species have been lost on a large scale and the remaining ones offer very limited opportunities for large number of colonies. That is why despite of the increasing number, the distribution of the breeding colonies remains limited to a few suitable locations. Wetland restoration and management projects have recently been implemented in the Lower Danube (e.g. restoration of the Belene marsh, habitat management in the Danube Delta BR) and the main lakes and lagoons where the species breeds in Greece (Mikri Prespa, Kerkini Lake, Amvrakikos). The decline of the population in Albania is thought to be caused by continuous euthrophication of the Karavasta lagoon, human disturbance and interventions by fishermen. The sustainable management of fisheries in the coastal lakes where the species roosts and winters is still an important action that requires implementation.

Other specific conservation measures The restoration and maintenance of nest platforms has been urgently required in some of the key colonies, and has largely been implemented. The species, due to its large body size, is especially vulnerable to collision with powerlines. The risks of collision with power lines are still an issue of concern in all countries, but especially where large concentrations occur during the non-breeding season and on flyways. Despite of some work done in Greece to mark the most dangerous stretches of lines, a lot more work is needed to implement this action in the entire range. Collisions are reported from Bulgaria (near the Burgas lakes). There is growing number of windfarms in some key locations for the species which require monitoring and better prevention.

Monitoring and Research Monitoring programmes exist in most countries at a national level and in protected areas. They focus on monitoring the productivity and threats to the colonies. Colour ringing takes place in BG (blue), RO (green) and GR (yellow). Permanent monitoring of the

species is carried out in Montenegro. Satellite telemetry has been tried in Romania to establish the areas used by Dalmatian pelicans outside the breeding season and to evaluate the mortality of adults in fisheries outside breeding sites. Since 1984 the Tour du Valat ecological station has been carrying out ecological research and supporting the conservation of the species. At present the priorities are: (1) To continue scientific investigations only on the Dalmatian pelican in Amvrakikos and Kerkini in Greece and (2) to continue basic monitoring in a few other key countries (Bulgaria, Turkey). Less research has been done in the rest of the range and on broader ecological factors such as water basin management, fisheries and impact of pollution and other threats.

Public awareness and stakeholder involvement Targeted awareness raising programmes have been carried out in Greece and Romania (LIFE projects) aiming to reduce the potential conflicts between the pelicans and fishermen and to limit disturbance by tourists. However the overall technical capacity of the relevant protected area staff to implement habitat conservation and management is considered low and further actions to strengthen it are required. The species is generally well known to the public and apart from local fishermen, it is positively appreciated by the people. Managing the potential conflict with fisheries is an ongoing priority action that requires more attention.

Community financial support Three LIFE projects81 have been implemented, in Bulgaria, Greece and Romania, since 2004 with total budget of more than 4.2 million Euros, of which the total European Union contribution was more than 2.9 million Euros. In addition over 240 000 Euros of national funding has been invested in research and monitoring and management actions. However, over 90% of these funds have been spent in the EU with almost no funding reported in Ukraine, Russia and Albania and only small scale projects in Montenegro and Turkey.

Conclusions The progress in the implementation of the action plan is very good (Average IS=2.3) especially regarding the direct protection measures. Greece has shown most success in implementing the plan, which resulted in remarkable growth of the breeding population. National implementation scores are highest in Greece and Romania (NIS), average in Bulgaria, Turkey and Montenegro and lowest in Ukraine.

Further measures/work still needed especially in the field of: • Ongoing protection and management of the colonies • Habitat restoration and management • Large scale water basin management (water quality and regimes) • Reducing conflict with fisheries • Reducing eutrophication and habitat degradation • Extending the conservation actions to Albania, Ukraine, Turkey, Russia.

81 LIFE08 NAT/BG/000277; LIFE2002NAT/GR/8494; LIFE 05 NAT/RO/000169.

• Prevention of conflicts and shooting • Prevention of collisions with powerlines and improved siting of windfarms

Contributors Anton Kovachev (BG), Giorgos Catsadorakis (GR), Metodija Velevski (MK), Darko Saveljic (MNE), Sebastian Bugariu, Ciprian Fantana (RO), Marko Tucakov (SER), Ortaç Onmuş (TR), Dr. Ivan Rusev (UA).

Appendix 1 Table 24 Implementation of the action plan in the European range states82. PS = Priority Score; Ave. IS = Average Implementation Score; API = Action Priority Index; National IS = National Implementation Score. Ave. Action Measure PS BG GR MK MNE RO TR UA API IS To encourage the legal protection during breeding and wintering of Dalmatian Pelicans and key sites for the 4 3.5 4 3 3 3.5 3 1.5 3.1 1.2 1.1.1 species in all range states a. The species is fully protected. 4 4 4 3 2 4 3 2 3.1 1.1 b. Key sites (breeding, feeding and wintering) fully 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 1 3.0 1.3 protected. Establish a total ban on catching chicks or adults for 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 0 3.8 0.2 1.1.2 zoos or tourist purposes Catching of chicks and adults is completely banned. 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 0 3.8 0.2 1.1.3 Promote sustainable development in wetlands 4 2 2.33 1.33 1.5 1.67 1.33 1.67 1.7 3.1 a. Wetlands habitat protected from development, pollution, 4 2 3 2 2 2 1 2 2.0 2.7 changes in hydrological regime. b. Tourism and fishing policies include wetland 4 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1.6 3.2 conservation. c. Local communities involved in the conservation and 4 2 2 1 0 1 2 1 1.5 3.3 management of wetlands. Establish and enhance international cooperation and 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 1 2.3 1.1 1.1.4 information exchange International co-operation for the conservation of trans- 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 1 2.3 1.1 border wetlands in place. 1.1.5 National action plans implemented in all range states 2 1.67 1.33 1 2.33 3 0 1.5 1.8 1.5 a. National body for the compilation of an action plan 2 2 2 1 2 4 0 2 2.2 1.2 established. b. National action plan developed. 2 2 1 1 4 4 0 1 2.2 1.2

82 BG = Bulgaria; GR=Greece; MK = Macedonia FYRO; MNE = Montenegro; RO = Romania; TR=Turkey; UA = Ukraine 100

Ave. Action Measure PS BG GR MK MNE RO TR UA API IS c. National action plan implemented. 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1.0 2.0 2.1.1 Establish effective site protection for the species 4 3.33 3 2.5 1.67 3 1.5 1 2.3 2.3 a. All breeding, key feeding areas and wintering sites 4 3 4 4 2 3 2 1 2.7 1.7 desiganted as protected areas in all range states. b. High penalties inflicted for harming the species. 4 4 2 1 2 3 1 0 2.2 2.4 c. All colonies declared non-intrusion zones and wardens 4 3 3 0 1 3 0 1 2.2 2.4 appointed. 2.2.1 Establish effective site management 3 2 2.43 1 2.5 2.17 3 2 2.2 1.8 a. Burning or cutting of reeds in spring within the breeding 4 1 4 0 3 1 4 4 2.8 1.6 areas prohibited. b. Habitat restoration, if needed, in key sites implemented. 4 2 3 0 2 2 0 0 2.3 2.3 c. Hydrological regime properly managed at key sites. 4 2 2 0 0 3 0 0 2.3 2.2 d. Dangerous powerlines buried or made visible to the birds 3 1 2 1 3 2 0 0 1.8 2.2 in order to avoid collisions. e. Artificial structures to facilitate breeding or roosting are 1 4 3 0 4 3 0 1 3.0 0.3 provided in protected areas, where needed. f. Dumping of residues, chemical pollution and 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1.7 0.8 eutrophication prohibited at key sites. g. Sites that have suffered from pollution restored. 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1.3 0.9 Regularly monitor the population, the threats and 3 1.67 3.11 1.75 1.67 3.22 1.86 1.25 2.1 1.9 3.1.1 habitat requirements a. Annual monitoring of breeding numbers carried out by 4 3 4 0 3 4 3 2 3.2 1.1 trained people. b. Wintering birds counted annually at roosting sites. 4 3 4 1 4 3 4 0 3.2 1.1 c. Water levels monitored at key sites. 4 1 3 4 1 4 0 0 2.6 1.9 d. Water quality monitored at key sites. 4 1 3 2 1 4 1 0 2.0 2.7 e. Ecological changes monitored at key sites. 4 2 3 2 1 3 1 1 1.9 2.9 f. Effectiveness of conservation measures and management 3 1 3 2 1 3 1 0 1.8 2.2 monitored.

101

Ave. Action Measure PS BG GR MK MNE RO TR UA API IS g. Conservation measures and management modified 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 0 1.5 2.5 according to their effectiveness. h. Fishery catches monitored at key sites. 2 1 3 1 1 2 0 1 1.5 1.7 i. Dispersal of pelicans understood and monitored. 2 2 3 1 2 3 2 1 2.0 1.3 Undertake studies on the ecological requirements of the 2 1 3.25 1.5 1.75 1.5 1.33 2.5 1.8 1.4 3.2.1 species, the threats it faces and its habitat a. Studies on hydrology, possibly at catchment level, carried 3 0 3 2 1 1 1 0 1.6 2.4 out. b. Existing or potential conflicts between people and 1 1 4 2 2 2 1 3 2.1 0.6 pelicans identified. c. Impact of pelicans on fish population and commercial 1 1 3 1 3 1 0 2 1.8 0.7 fisheries evaluated. d. Research undertaken on mortality causes. 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 0 1.7 0.8 Inform the public and increase awareness of the need to protect DP and its habitat, and adequately train those 2.5 1 3 1 2.5 3 0 1 1.9 1.7 4.1.1 involved in the conservation of the species. a. Public awareness campaign targeting local communities, 3 1 4 1 3 3 0 1 2.2 1.8 hunters, fishermen and local authorities carried out. b. Training courses on wetland issues carried out. 2 0 2 1 2 3 0 0 2.0 1.3 National & Average IS 2.43 3.04 2.07 2.28 2.86 2.33 1.47 2.3

102

References Anni (Koci) Kallfa; Taulant Bino (2010) Reproduction Biology of Dalmatian Pelican (Pelecanus Crispus) in the Divjaka-Karavasta National Park

BirdLife International 2008. Pelecanus crispus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.3. . Downloaded on 17 September 2010.

BirdLife International, 2004. Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 12)

Catsadorakis, G. (2009) Species account for Dalmatian Pelican. In: Legakis, A. and P. Maragou (eds.) The Greek Red Data Book of Threatened Fauna. Hellenic Zoological Society, Athens.

Handrinos, G. and Th. Kastritis (2009) Birds In: Legakis, A. and P. Maragou (eds.) The Greek Red Data Book of Threatened Fauna. Hellenic Zoological Society, Athens.

National Action Plan for Dalmatian Pelican, Bulgarian Ministry of Environment and Waters (in preparation).

Red Data Book of Ukraine. Animal world /edited I.A. Akimov - Kyiv.: Globalconsulting, 2009. - P.445.

Red Data Book of the Russian Federation (2006). Moscow (accessed online)

Saveljić, D., Rubinić, B (2008): Pelicans in Montenegro: Their regional link with Amvrakikos Gulf/ Mikri Prespa Lake (Greece) and Karavasta Lagoon / Narta Lagoon (Albania). Report prepared for the United Nations Environment Programme. Podgorica.

103

Dark-tailed laurel pigeon Columba bollii

Background The dark-tailed laurel pigeon Action Plan was adopted in 1996 (Gonzalez, 1996) by the Ornis Committee and endorsed by the Bern Convention. The implementation of the action plan was reviewed in 2001 (Gallo-Orsi, 2001) and 2004 (Nagy & Crockford, 2004). This review evaluates the implementation of the species Action Plan from 2004 to 2010, in the Canary Islands archipelago, Spain, therefore covering the entire range of the species.

General overview Progress in the overall implementation of the action plan is moderate and further work is still needed (overall IS=1.8).

4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5

3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 API 1.5 1.5 Average IS 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0

.1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .2.1 .5.1 .3.1 1.1 1.2.1 1.3.1 1.4 2.1.1 2 2.3 2.4.1 2 3.1 3.2.1 3 3.4 3.5.1 4.1 4.2.1 4.3.1 Action

Figure ix Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action listed in the dark-tailed laurel pigeon species action plan. Colours represent Priority Score.

Status review The size and trend of the species’ population is still poorly known as there has never been a proper census of the species. The most recent estimate is the same as the 2004 estimate (BirdLife, 2004) and was obtained through the 1997-2000 LIFE project83. During surveys, it is difficult to distinguish between the white-tailed and dark-tailed laurel pigeon, particularly when in flight. Therefore the most recent population estimates are relative abundances and are of poor quality. Since then there has been no major population studies or censuses, except for estimates of relative abundance identified for

83 LIFE project code: LIFE96 NAT/E/003095

104

the best areas for this species in each of the four islands where it is present (Martín et al., 2001) The population is believed to have been recovering over the last 20 years, since the species now has a larger area of occupation but there is no quantitative data on the population increase. The distribution of the dark-tailed laurel pigeon is closely linked to the distribution of laurel forests (Martín et al., 2001; Lorenzo et al, 2007).

Table 25 Population estimate and trend by country Population Population Current at the time at the time Country Year Year population Year Population Reference of the 1996 of the 2004 (pairs) trend SAP SAP 2,500- Spain 1,150- 1985- 1997- 9,999 Unknown - Unknown - (Canaries) 1,700 ind 1993 2000 pairs84

Objective(s) In the short term to conserve the dark-tailed laurel pigeon population at no less than its 1993 level and in the medium term to promote the expansion of its range.

Evaluation The short term target has been met as the breeding population has been >1,700 individuals since 1997 (population size 2,500 – 10,000 individuals, 2000). However, this estimate is not recent, is of poor quality and the increase in numbers may reflect increased sampling effort rather than an actual population increase. It is difficult to say whether the medium term target has been met as the species’ range has not been quantified. However, it is assumed that this target refers to the regeneration of the species’ habitat (laurel forest), which is continuing. Populations have been studied more thoroughly and this is reflected in the identification of new areas, however, it is clear that potential habitat (laurel forest) has genuinely increased.

Conservation and Legal Status The Global IUCN Red List Category of the dark-tailed laurel pigeon is Near Threatened with criteria B1a+b(iii); C2a(i) nearly met because has a very small range and a small population that has declined rapidly in the past. However, numbers have been increasing in recent decades and it is therefore classified as Near Threatened. The species is listed as Rare (SPEC 1) under criteria <10,000 pairs in the European IUCN Red List (BirdLife International, 2004), and is listed in Annex I of the EU Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC, ‘Birds Directive’) and in Appendix III of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention).

84 Refers to no actual figures, only represents the estimated size of the population, taken from the 1997- 2000 LIFE project census.

105

Regional conservation law has recently changed, downlisting the species from “Sensible a la alteración del habitat” (‘sensitive to habitat alteration’) to “Vulnerable”. The national law is being updated and prevails over regional law, and for now, the species is nationally listed as “Sensible a la alteración del habitat”. A draft submitted for public information reveals that the species will be downlisted (“Listado de especies silvestres en régimen de protección especial”), which, if approved, would give precedence to regional law, and so the species would be ultimately considered as “Vulnerable”. The Red Book of Birds in Spain evaluated this pigeon as "Near Threatened" (Madroño et al., 2004).

Overview of past and current threats Although there is evidence of predation by rats, feral cats and potentially European ferret Mustela furo (on the island of La Palma - Medina & Martín, 2009) affecting the species, there are no quantitative data on the level of importance of this threat on the species’ population. However, predation (primarily from rats - Hernández et al., 1999; Delgado García et al., 2005) is currently considered the main threat to this species along with human disturbance from leisure activities, particularly from trekking and noise disturbance from motorbikes, quad bikes, etc (a new threat identified in 2010). There is no specific breeding season so threats from leisure activities can affect the breeding all year round and makes it difficult to set limits on human disturbance. Although the threat of habitat disturbance is still present, is has been down listed to a medium threat since the majority of the species’ habitat is now protected. Habitat change, listed as a critical threat in the SAP, is now considered to be of low importance as abandoned agricultural land is reclaimed by laurel forest and so has a positive effect on the species. The increased awareness of the species’ protection status combined with increased surveillance has led to a reduction in the level of illegal hunting and placing of snares and traps and so these threats are now considered low/ not relevant. The threat of too few drinking areas has also significantly reduced as laurel forest areas have increased so there are now more drinking sites. However, it is still important to maintain water sources throughout the laurel forest, considering the gregarious nature of the species. According to research, the dark-tailed laurel pigeon makes seasonal movements in search of water and fruit trees (Martín et al., 2001). There are currently no known cases of Newcastle disease so this threat is low, however if there were to be an outbreak, the threat could be potentially high. Other diseases, particularly avian pox, have been found to affect the white-tailed pigeon (Medina et al., 2004) and so this is considered to be a medium threat to the dark-tailed laurel pigeon. Cases of such diseases are increasing, likely linked to transmission from common pigeons. Forest fires are a newly identified threat to the species which can affect the species in marginal areas or secondary environments (degraded areas, border crops, etc.) due to the natural expansion of habitat. However, since laurel forest is less susceptible to fire than other areas, this threat is of medium to low importance. Poisoning is a low threat but increasing, particularly in La Palma, as the species is persecuted for crop damage

106

(vineyards, avocado and fruit plantations). The latter could perhaps also induce a local increase in illegal hunting.

Assessment of the implementation

National and regional species action plans There is no national action plan for the species.

Species conservation Drinking points There are now more drinking sites available, also related to the expansion of the species, but there is not a regional scheme as to preserve them (see Management Plans section above, all these actions depend on the management plans to be approved).

Rat and alien species control Some islands have rat control plans in place. Rats are linked to presence of people and so are controlled in recreational areas because it is impossible to implement rat control in the laurel forest considering its extension. No action has been taken in these recreational areas to control other predators such as feral cats and dogs.

Prevention of illegal hunting Hunting is no longer a threat since hunting-free zones (coinciding with reserves) have been implemented. It is therefore thought to be residual only and not relevant.

Health control of imported birds There are no disease-control schemes in place in the Canary Islands that could prevent the dark-tailed laurel pigeon suffering major declines caused by Newcastle disease (although there are no recent records) or avian pox (recent records exist - Medina et al., 2004). There has been very little work carried out to ensure efficient health controls on imported birds or to detect the presence of Newcastle disease in bird rearing facilities. Captive breeding of this species is no longer relevant.

Diversion of recreational activities In the ford islands, the closure of tracks and recreational areas during the hottest days of summer to prevent fires benefits the species, but the rest of the year there are many disturbances in the laurel forests due to local visitors and tourists.

107

Network, and around 50-90% of the population is included in IBAs (11 sites), SPAs (10 sites) and areas protected under national law. Land ownership still remains an issue and management of privately owned lands could represent a threat. In 2006, the Deputy Ministry of Environment of the Government of the Canary Islands proposed new SPAs in 85 the Official Gazette de Canarias (BOC). This proposal included the peaks and cliffs of the north of La Palma, Bco. del Cedro and Liria in La Gomera, and forest and peaks in Tenerife as priority areas for conservation of the dark-tailed laurel pigeon. Some work has been done to establish new hunting reserves in appropriate areas, but more is needed. Management plans for these sites have been drafted but not approved (including site management, forest management, recreational site management rules, etc), so it is urgent for these to be approved and implemented. However, this is relative because most of the plans of protected areas at regional level have been approved, but to date no plans of SPAs have approved. Regional/island plans are not being implemented and restoration of pine-tree forest and thermopile forest is still pending full implementation. Pine and thermopile forests are secondary habitat for this species and restoration actions are carried out by the island authorities. In Tenerife, there are areas where laurel forest has been cleared and repopulated with Canary Island pine (Pinus canariensis). Now the idea is to replace the pines with the natural laurel forest.

Habitat conservation Forestry Commercial forestry has decreased markedly in all islands, but has remained constant (although low) in Tenerife. Forestry management is pending of approval by Regional authorities. Island Governments are now implementing management schemes, but without regional guidelines. As part of the LIFE project86 (2005-2008), work has been carried out to eradicate exotic plant species, plant native species, raise public awareness and increase knowledge of the survival of different native species present in thermophilous forests. In Tenerife, Canarian pine tree plantations are partly cleared (thinned) which makes them more like the natural habitat of the species. This is especially important in areas where laurel forest existed in the past but have now been replaced with pine trees, since the idea is to gradually enhance the natural vegetation (laurel forest) of these areas. The abandonment of agriculture has meant that abandoned land becomes colonised by laurel forest and later by the dark-tailed laurel pigeon. This has led to increased extension of laurel forest and therefore an increase in the species’ range. Tenerife has also undertaken a major effort in eradicating Monterey pine and replanting with native species, with this island previously having the largest area of planted Monterey pine and Canary Island pine of all the Canary Islands. Although significant progress has been made to eradicate Monterey pines, the exotic tree species is still a threat and eradication/control of Monterey pines and restoration with native plants remains a high priority.

85 More information available at: http://www.gobcan.es/boc/2006/226/027.html 86 LIFE project code: LIFE04 NAT/ES/000064

108

Monitoring and Research The Island Ecology and Evolution Research Group IPNA-CSIC87 (Tenerife) has been carrying out research on ecological aspects of Macaronesian pigeons from 1996 to present, however there are no national survey or monitoring programmes in place for the species. Regular monitoring of the species, at least every 4 years, is probably the top priority for this species. Regional authorities are not identifying this as a priority and this needs much more attention. More precise information on the distribution of this species is given in Martin et al. (2001), and is summarized in the Canary Island breeding bird atlas (Lorenzo, 2007). All work carried out investigating the effect of predation on breeding success is pre-2004 (Hernández et al. 1999) and much more research is needed to effectively control alien predators at priority sites for the species (such as breeding areas, recreational sites, etc).

Public awareness and stakeholder involvement Communication campaigns were carried at the beginning of the LIFE project (1997- 2000), but nothing else has been implemented since. There is still a high demand for public information about the species and the importance of the laurel forest to both locals and island inhabitants.

Community financial support One LIFE project88 has been implemented since 2004 which benefits the dark-tailed laurel pigeon. The project focused on restoration of Juniperus spp. forests on Tenerife, running from 2005-2008 with a total budget of 373,295 Euros, of which the total European Union contribution was 279,971 Euros. The species has also benefited from an additional project funded by the Autonomous Organisation of National Parks, Ministry of Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs, Spain (Ref. 80/2005) focussing on the trophic ecology of Canary Island endemic pigeons (Columba bollii and Columba junoniae) and seed dispersal in the laurel forest of Garajonay National Park (La Gomera, Canary Islands). The project ran from 2006-2009 with a total budget of 85994.25 Euro.

Conclusions Progress in the overall implementation of the action plan is moderate and further work is still needed (Average IS= 1.8). The most progress in implementing actions and the action reported to have had the most positive effect on the population has been in ensuring the species is given adequate legal protection. A scores table of the implementation of each action (including a break-down of all actions into measurable targets) is provided in Appendix 1.

87 For more details see: http://www.ipna.csic.es/departamentos/agro/eei/index.php/es/ 88 LIFE project code: LIFE04 NAT/ES/000064.

109

There are still major gaps and further implementation of the following actions is needed: • Approval of the national ‘Ley del Patrimonio Natural y de la Biodiversidad’. This law includes the publication of a Species Action Plan for the species that could list all the major conservation actions needed, but must give an adequate level of protection to the species

• Approval of the Regional forestry management plan.

• Establishment of an alien species control plan.

• Establishment of a full monitoring scheme for the species.

• Establishment of a regional awareness-raising campaign.

Contributors Patricia Marrero (IPNA-CSIC); Cristina González (SEO/ BirdLife); Iván Ramírez (BirdLife International); Juan Antonio Lorenzo (SEO/BirdLife); Mia Derhé (BirdLife International).

Appendix 1 Table 26 Implementation of the action plan in the Canary Islands. PS = Priority Score; ES- C = Spain (Canaries); API = Action Priority Index; National IS = National Implementation Score. Action Measure PS ES-C API 1.1.1 To ensure the Dark-tailed Laurel Pigeon is given adequate legal protection 4 3 1.3 a. All areas important for the species are designated as protected, with Use and Management Plans, Master Plans, Conservation Regulations and Special Plans 4 3 1.3 addressing all threats to the DTLP b. The Canary Islands wildlife law adequately protects the species, in the wider 3 3 1.0 countryside as well as in PAs. 1.2.1 To ensure, through Countryside Planning Plans, that exploitation of the countryside is compatible with the conservation of the species and its 4 2.6 1.8 habitat a. Commercial forestry in mature laurel forest discouraged and guided towards 4 2.5 2.0 suitable alternative areas. b. Regeneration of degraded laurel forest favoured over commercial forestry. 4 2.5 2.0 c. Commercial forestry no longer damages laurel forests. 4 2.5 2.0 d. Programme of alternatives to commercial forestry practices implemented. 3 3 1.0 1.3.1 Establishment of new hunting reserves in appropriate areas 3 1.8 2.3 a. New Hunting Reserves established. 3 2 2.0 b. Human activities likely to have negative effects in the new Hunting Reserves 3 1.5 2.5 minimised or removed. 1.4.1 Increased health controls on imported birds. 1 1.3 0.9 a. Health controls on birds imported are efficient. 1 1 1.0

110

b. Controls in place on bird rearing facilities to detect the presence of Newcastle 1 1.5 0.8 virus. 2.1.1 Control of illegal hunting 4 1.8 2.9 a. No. of wardens increased to provide greater surveillance of important areas. 4 1.5 3.3 b. The support of SEPRONA sought and information provided on places most 4 2.5 2.0 frequented by hunters. c. Penalties imposed under current law applied when charges are brought. 4 1.5 3.3 2.2.1 Promote the restoration and expansion of laurel forest 3 2.3 1.7 a. Eradication of Monterrey pines completed. 3 2.5 1.5 b. Forestry practices most beneficial for the environment are used, following 3 2 2.0 prior analysis. c. Re-afforestation with native plants ongoing. 3 2.5 1.5 2.3.1 Purchase of some of the important areas for the dark-tailed laurel pigeon 3 1.5 2.5 Important areas for the species acquired from private owners. 3 1.5 2.5 2.4.1 Provide additional drinking points to reduce the number of pigeons 2 1 2.0 gathering at existing natural drinking areas Additional drinking points provided. 2 1 2.0 2.5.1 Initiate a captive breeding programme for the dark-tailed laurel pigeon 1 0 0.0 Contact with zoological collection made in view of a captive-breeding program. 1 0 1.3 3.1.1 Conduct a full census of the species 4 0 0.0 Full census of the species carried out, including data on the different breeding 4 0 5.3 groups in the Canary Islands and an up-to-date inventory of all breeding areas. 3.2.1 Improve dark-tailed laurel pigeon monitoring methods 3 0 0.0 Monitoring methods improved through information exchange with experts in 3 0 4.0 Madeira. 3.3.1 Undertake regular population monitoring of the dark-tailed laurel pigeon 3 1 3.0 Population monitoring ongoing with overall census repeated every 4 years. 3 1 3.0 3.4.1 Research into breeding success and the factors affecting it 4 1 4.0 Factors affecting the breeding success (particularly predation and food 4 1 4.0 availability) understood. 3.5.1 Evaluate the economic importance of commercial forestry for the local 2 3 0.7 population, and its repercussions on the conservation of the biotope a. Economic importance of forestry evaluated. 2 3 0.7 b. Alternatives to current forestry practices identified. 2 3 0.7 4.1.1 To undertake a public awareness campaign aimed at local people, 3 1.5 2.5 particularly those living near areas important for the species a. Public awareness campaign targeted at general public carried out. 3 1.5 2.5 b. Awareness campaign targeted at hunters to gain their support carried out. 3 1.5 2.5 4.2.1 Promote ongoing dialogue between the different bodies involved in the 3 2 2.0 conservation of the species and its habitat Dialogue between the bodies involved in the conservation of the species and its 3 2 2.0 habitat strengthened. 4.3.1 Increase the effectiveness of wardens 3 2 2.0 Wardens trained and motivated and staff motivation emphasised during the 3 2 2.0 selection process for additional wardens National / Average IS 1.9

111

References

BirdLife International, 2004. Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 12)

BirdLife International 2008. Columba bollii. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. . Downloaded on 09 August 2010.

Delgado García, J.D., Arévalo, J.R. & Fernández-Palacios, J.M. (2005) Patterns of artificial avian nest predation by introduced rats in a fragmented laurel forest (Tenerife, Canary Islands). Journal of Natural History, 38, 2661–2669.

Gallo-Orsi, U. ed. (2001) Saving Europe’s most threatened birds: progress in implementing European Species Action Plans. Wageningen, The Netherlands: BirdLife International.

Gonzalez, C. 1996 Action Plan for the dark-tailed laurel pigeon (Columba Junoniae). BirdLife International report to the European Commission, unpublished. (Document available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/action_plans/docs/columb a_bollii.pdf).

Hernández, M. A. , Mart n, A. and Nogales, M. (1999) Breeding success and predation on artificial nests of the endemic pigeons Bolle's Laurel Pigeon Columba bollii and White-tailed Laurel Pigeon Columba junoniae in the laurel forest of Tenerife (Canary Islands). Ibis 141 , pp. 52-59.

Lorenzo, J. A. (Ed.) 2007. Atlas de las aves nidificantes en el archipiélago Canario (1997-2000). Dirección General de Conservación de la Naturaleza – Sociedad Española de Ornitología. Madrid. 520 pp.

Madroño, C. González Y J. A. Atienza. 2004. Libro Rojo de las Aves de España. Dirección General para la Biodiversidad-SEO/BirdLife. Madrid.

Martín, A., Hernández, M. A., Lorenzo, J. A., Nogales, M., & González, C. 2001. Las Palomas endémicas de Canarias. Conserjería de Medio Ambiente y SEO/BirdLife

Medina, F. M. & Martín, A. 2009. A new invasive species in the Canary Islands: a naturalized population of ferrets Mustela furo in La Palma Biosphere Reserve. Short communication. Oryx. 44(1). 41–44. doi:10.1017/S0030605309990743.

Medina, F. M., Ramírez, G. A, & Hernández, A. 2004. Avian Pox in White-tailed Laurel- pigeons from the Canary Islands. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 40(2), 2004, pp. 351–355.

112

Nagy, S & Crockford, N (2004) Implementation in the European Union of species action plans for 23 of Europe’s most threatened birds, BirdLife International, Wageningen, The Netherlands. http://www.mma.es/secciones/biodiversidad/especies_amenazadas/catalogo_especies/vert ebrados_aves/pdf/ver215.pdf www.grancanaria.com www.tenerife.es www.seo.org www.gobiernodecanarias.org

113

Eastern Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca

Background The European Action Plan (Heredia, 1996) was developed in 1993 and adopted in 1996 by the European Union and the Bern Convention. The action plan has not been revised since then. Its implementation has been reviewed in 2000 (Gallo-Orsi, 2001) and 2004 (Nagy & Crockford, 2004) by BirdLife. The geographical scope of the action plan covers the entire European breeding range as well as the Middle East. The present implementation review covers Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Macedonia, FYR, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Turkey and Ukraine.

General overview The SAP has been well implemented on average (AIS=2.2) with notable progress in the Pannonian countries, Bulgaria and Ukraine where the species has seen continuous population recovery since 2000. Some of the key threats have been addressed by improved species protection and with designation of protected areas and through active conservation actions on the ground such as nest guarding, prevention of disturbance and management of the habitats and threats in the breeding areas (including insulation of powerlines, prevention of poisoning and protection of nesting trees from cutting).

API 4.0 4.0 High 3.5 Medium 3.5 Low priority 3.0 3.0

2.5 2.5

2.0 2.0 API

Average IS 1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0

1 2 3 1 .1 2 3 .4 5 1 .2 3 4 .5 1 .1 1 1 .1 .1. 1. 1. 2. .1. 1. 1. 2. .2. 2. .2.6 1. 4. 5. 1 1. 1. 1.1.4 1. 1.3 2.1.1 2 2. 2.1 2. 2. 2.2 2 2. 2.2 2 3. 3.2 3.3.1 3. 3. 4.1 Action

Figure x Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each Action listed in the Eastern Imperial Eagle species action plan. Colours represent Priority Score.

Status review The global population is probably only a few thousand pairs strong, the majority breeds in Russia (total 900-1000 pairs89) and Kazakhstan (750-800 pairs90). A total population of

89 Belik et al. 2002

114

1,110-1,624 pairs is estimated in Europe91.There was a rapid decline in Europe and probably in Asia in the second half of the 20th century. Recently the Central European (Pannonian) population (121-134 pairs mostly in Hungary and Slovakia) has been increasing1, while the Balkan population (81-126 pairs mostly in Bulgaria and Macedonia92) is apparently stable (although the last proven breeding in Greece took place in 1993).

Table 27 Breeding population estimates by country Country Population Year Population Year Current Year References at the time at the 2004 population 93 of the 1996 review (breeding SAP (pairs) (pairs) pairs) Armenia 8-10 1993 0-1 1979-2009 Austria 1 1998-2002 4-6 2005-2009 Azerbaijan 35-40 1993 50-150 2007-2010 94 Bulgaria 20-25 1993 25-30 2009 95 Croatia 1-2 1993 0 2009 Cyprus 2-4 1993 2-4 1994-2002 0 0 Czech Republic 1-2 1998-2002 2-3 2009 Georgia 8-11 1993 10-15 1998-2009 Greece 0-2 1993 0-1 1995-2000 0-1 2000-2009 Hungary 34-36 1993 50-65 1998-2002 115-125 2010 Macedonia FYR 4-6 1993 25 2010 Romania 10-20 1993 0-5 2010 Russia 150-300 1995 Serbia 8-10* 1993 3 2010 Slovakia 30-35 1993 22-23 2000-2003 45-48 2009 Turkey 10-50 1993 65-200 2004 Ukraine 40-50 1993 110-130 2009-2010 * Yugolsavia in 1996

Objective(s) 1. In the short term, to maintain the present numbers of the Imperial Eagle throughout its present range. 2. In the medium to long term to ensure range expansion.

Evaluation The short term target of the plan has been achieved as shown by the recovery of the populations in the Carpathian basin and stabilisation and increase of the populations on the Balkans. In addition, the overall situation of the species further East in Ukraine and Russia is relatively stable.

90 Bragin 1999 91 Horváth et al., 2005 92 Stoychev et al. 2004 93 2010 estimates provided by the contributors to this review, unless indicated otherwise. 94 Horváth et al., 2007 95 Demerdziev et al. 2008

115

The long term objective is also nearly met, as the increase of the population has lead to recolonisation of former lost range, e.g. in the agricultural lowlands. However, the geographical target of the range expansion objective is not clear. The recolonisation of some of the range countries has not happened (e.g. Greece) or is still unstable (e.g. Austria).

Conservation and Legal Status This species has a small global population, and is likely to be undergoing continuing declines, primarily because of habitat loss and degradation, adult mortality through persecution and electrocution on powerlines, nest robbing and prey depletion. It is therefore listed as Vulnerable in 2010 the global IUCN Red List. At least in most parts of Europe numbers are now increasing (BirdLife International, 2008).

Overview of past and current threats Forestry practices and the removal of trees from the agricultural land have been considered as the most important threat at the time of the action plan, followed by persectution and disturbance. The current review confirmed the importance of forestry in relation to nest site availability, but the importance of persecution and nest robbery has fallen, replaced by newly identified threats such as poisoning and electrocution (highest documented threats for the Pannonian sub-population) and human disturbance during incubation (e.g. by farming operations). Emerging particularly to the feeding habitats are reported from Bulgaria (e.g. windfarm and solar development and conversion of pastures to vineyards, orchards or arable).

Assessment of the implementation

National and regional species action plans National action plans are adopted in Hungary96 and Bulgaria (update in prep.) and regional plans have been developed by NGOs for the Balkans and Caucasus. An international working group for the species is operational and supports the implementation and coordination of conservation actions and actively promotes international cooperation.

Species conservation Active conservation measures have been implemented in all countries, but most progress has been made in Hungary, Slovakia and Bulgaria. Monitoring and conservation actions locally are taking place in Serbia, Ukraine, Russia (incl. Western Siberia), Turkey (the European part). Conservation actions carried out include nest protection and management, prevention of disturbance, ringing, satellite and radio tracking, provision of additional food, etc. Powerline mitigation has been identified as key measure to reduce mortality currentlu carried out in Hungary, Slovakia and Bulgaria.

96 Management plan for the Imperial Eagle developed under LIFE02NAT/H/8627

116

Site conservation The population is well covered by protected areas and SPAs (50-70% on average) but as it is growing and expanding, it already occupies territories that are not protected. However, management of the SPAs is not yet established and management plans are mostly not prepared. There are 165 IBAs designated for the species in the countries covered by this plan (47 in the EU). In the EU 47 SPA have been designated and the IBAs are almost entirely covered.

Habitat conservation The two broad types of habitats required by the species are influenced by different management actions. The breeding habitats are largely dependent on forestry operations and the protection of nest territories from cutting and disturbance during the breeding season have to be restricted (this is mostly achieved in HU and SR). The species also breeds on individual trees or small forest patches in arable land and in reiver valleys, where the protection has to be ensured through protection of non-arable features. Agri- environmental schemes to ensure favourable grazing and pasture maintenance are in place in HU and SK, where guidelines for farmers were also developed. Pilot schemes have been tested in BG.

Monitoring and Research Monitoring of the species is well developed across the EU and in some of the non-EU range states. It has to be improved in TR. Satellite telemetry has been used successfully to determine important dispersal areas of juveniles and to investigate threats.

Public awareness and stakeholder involvement The main focus of the public awareness work targeting the species has been the protection of nest sites from destruction and disturbance among the farmers, shephers and foresters.

Community financial support Four LIFE projects97 have been implemented in Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary and Slovakia since 2004 with a total budget of over 4.7 million Euros, of which the total European Union contribution 3.3 million.

Conclusions The progress in the implementation of the action plan is good (AIS=2.2) and very good in BG, CY, HU, SR, SK and UA (>2.5).

97 LIFE+07 NAT/BG/000068, LIFE02NAT/GR/8497, LIFE02NAT/H/8627, LIFE03NAT/SK/000098

117

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 AR AZ BG HR CY GE GR HU MK MNE RO SR SK TR UA Ave IS

Figure xi. Progress in the implementation of the action plan per country

• Law enforcement and public awareness efforts must still improve. • Insulation of powerlines and redesign of electic poles. • Construction of windfarms has to be monitored and prevented in important breeding areas. • The management of the SPAs to ensure breeding and feeding habitats: particularly the protection of lowland trees, pastures and extensive farmland. • Farmland is the most important feeding habitat and intensification and abandonment of grasslands, cereals and pesticide use are all of critical importance. For the species and its prey both cultivated and fallow lands are necessary. • Poisoning and use of toxic chemicals in agriculture or illegally, for predator control, are a factor that is still a cause of widespread concern and has to be addressed.

Contributors

Mamikon Ghasabyan (AR), Elchin Sultanov (AZ), Stoycho Stoychev (BG), Kresimir Mikulic (HR), Michael Miltiadou (CY), Ramaz Gokhelashvili (GE), Theodora Skartsi (GR), Marton Horvath & Andras Kovacs (HU), Metodija Velevski (MK), Darko Saveljic (MNE), Sebastian Bugariu & Ciprian Fantana (RO), Dragan Simic, Goran Sekulic & Marko Tucakov (SR), Jozef Chavko & Boris Maderic (SK), Arzu Gursoy (TR), Vitaliy Vetrov (UA).

118

Appendix 1 Table 28 Implementation of the action plan in the European range states. PS = Priority Score; Ave. IS = Average Implementation Score; API = Action Priority Index; National IS = National Implementation Score.

Action Measure PS AR AZ BG HR CY GE GR HU M M RO SR SK TR UA Ave API K NE IS

1.1.1 To promote forestry policies that are 3 1 1.2 2 0 2.5 1.4 3 2.4 1 0 1.2 3.2 1.8 1.2 2.6 1.9 2.1 sympathetic to wildlife and compatible with 5 7 the conservation of the Eastern Imperial Eagle a. Parts of commercial forests are set aside to 3 1 1 2 0 2 3 3 2 1 0 2 4 1 1 4 2.1 1.9 develop naturally without felling or planting. b. Human activity is prevented within 300 m of 3 1 2 2 0 4 1 3 3 1 0 0 3 3 2 3 2.3 1.7 active nests of the EIE and other threatened birds. c. Agreements with forest owners are established 3 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 1 2.5 1 1 0 1.5 2.6 to ensure appropriate management. d. Precise guidelines for forest management in 3 1 1 1 0 3 1 3 2 1 0 1 2.5 2 1 0 1.6 2.4 areas where sensitive species occur are produced and implemented. e. Co-operation with landowners and relevant 3 1 1 3 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 4 2 1 1 1.6 2.4 forestry authorities for the protection of the species is in place. 1.1.2 Agricultural and rural development policies 2 1 0 1.3 0 0 0 1 2.6 1 0 1 1.5 3 1 1 1.5 1.7 are sympathetic to wildlife and are compatible 3 7 with the conservation of the Eastern Imperial Eagle. a. Guidelines for farming practices compatible 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 1 0 1 0 4 1 0 1.8 1.5 with the EIE are produced. b. The EIE and its prey (e.g. Suslik) are subject 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 3 1 1 1.6 1.6 of agri-environmental measures. c. Farming activities during the breeding season 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 1.3 1.8 restricted in vicinity of EIE nests. 1.1.3 All IBAs where EIE occurs are legally 3 1 1.6 2 1 2 1.6 2 1.7 1 0 2 2.2 1 1.5 1 1.6 2.4 protected and favourable management for the 7 7 5 5 species is implemented a. All IBAs where the species occurs have 3 1 1 2 0 0 2 3 2 1 0 1 2.5 1 1 0 1.6 2.4 adequate management plans. b. All sites holding one or more pairs of the EIE 3 1 1 3 0 0 2 3 2 1 0 3 3.5 0 2 0 2.2 1.9 are legally protected. c. The remnants of original lowland forests are 3 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 0 2 2 1 0 1 1.6 2.4 conserved.

119

Action Measure PS AR AZ BG HR CY GE GR HU M M RO SR SK TR UA Ave API K NE IS

d. The IUCN Action Plan for Protected Areas in 3 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1.1 2.9 Europe is implemented. 1.1.4 International co-operation and support is 3 1 2 4 1 0 2.4 2 2.4 1.4 0 2 1.6 2.8 2.4 1.5 2.0 2.0 provided to all range states, particularly those suffering from socio-economic difficulties or conflict. a. International experiences utilised in assessing 3 1 2 4 0 0 3 3 1 1 0 2 2 3 2 0 2.2 1.8 the damge to Important Bird Areas. b. International support provided on 3 1 1 4 1 0 2 1 2 2 0 2 1 3 2 1 1.8 2.2 strengthening legislation and institutions. c. Experiences shared on training conservation 3 1 2 4 1 0 2 3 3 1 0 2 3 2 3 1 2.2 1.8 specialists. d. International assistance provided on research 3 1 3 4 0 0 3 2 3 2 0 2 1 3 3 2 2.4 1.6 and monitoring. e. International support for provision of funds 3 1 2 4 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 2 1 3 2 2 2.0 2.0 and equipment. 1.2.1 National laws and regulations should be 3 1.2 1.7 3 3 4 2 2 3.2 2 2.6 3 3 2.6 3 4 2.7 1.3 reviewed and updated to be compatible with 5 5 5 7 7 the protection of wildlife and the conservation of the EIE. a. The EIE is given the maximum level of 3 2 4 4 0 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3.8 0.2 protection. b. National action/ recovery plans and habitat 3 1 1 3 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1.5 2.5 management plans are implemented for the species. c. Environmental impact assessments are 3 1 1 2 2 0 1 2 2 2 2 3 4 1 3 4 2.1 1.9 required for any infrastructure development likely to affect EIE habitat. d. Poisoning is completely banned or strictly 3 1 1 3 4 4 1 1 4 2 2 4 3 3 4 4 2.7 1.3 regulated. 1.3.1 The three international conventions that list 3 3 2.6 3.5 3 4 3 3.5 3.5 2.6 3 3.5 2.8 2.5 2.6 4 3.1 0.9 the EIE (Bern Convention; Bonn Convention; 3 3 1 3 and Washington Convention) along with the Biodiversity Convention are signed, ratified and implemented in all range states. a. Bern Convention signed and ratified. 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 4.0 0.0 b. Bern Convention adequately implemented at 3 2 1 3 2 4 2 3 3 1 2 3 1.5 1 1 0 2.1 1.9 national level. c. Bonn Convention signed and ratified. 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 4.0 0.0 d. Bonn Convention adequately implemented at 3 2 1 3 2 4 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 0 2.1 1.9 national level. e. Washington Convention signed and ratified. 3 4 4 4 4 4 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.0 0.0

120

Action Measure PS AR AZ BG HR CY GE GR HU M M RO SR SK TR UA Ave API K NE IS

f. Washington Convention adequately 3 2 2 3 2 4 0 3 3 2 2 3 2.5 1 2 4 2.5 1.5 implemented at national level. g. Biodiversity Convention signed and ratified. 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 4.0 0.0 h. Biodiversity Convention adequately 3 2 1 3 2 4 2 3 3 1 2 3 1.5 1 1 0 2.1 1.9 implemented at national level. 2.1.1 Promote the designation of all the Important 3 0 3 3 0 0 3 3 2 1 2 3 3.5 4 1 0 2.6 1.4 Bird Areas where the species occurs as protected areas All IBAs in which the species occur are protected 3 0 3 3 0 0 3 3 2 1 2 3 3.5 4 1 0 2.6 1.4 2.1.2 Encourage appropriate habitat management 3 1 1.6 3 0 0 1.3 1 2.6 1.3 1 1 2.2 3.3 2.3 0 1.8 2.2 in unprotected sites 7 3 7 3 5 3 3 a. Careful monitoring is carried out to highlight 3 1 3 4 0 0 2 1 4 2 1 0 2 4 3 0 2.5 1.5 potential threats and harmful activities. b. Regular contact established and information 3 1 1 3 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 2.5 3 3 0 1.7 2.3 shared between NGOs and forestry authorities. c. Buffer zones declared to prevent disturbance 3 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 3 1 0 1.4 2.6 during incubation and rearing. 2.1.3 Encourage appropriate habitat management 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 1.3 1 1 1 1 2.3 1 4 1.5 1.7 at privately owned sites 3 3 a. Landowners made aware of the existence of 2 1 1 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 3 1 0 1.4 1.7 EIE and encouraged to manage the habitat according to the species' needs. b. Guidelines for habitat management provided to 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 1.5 1.7 landowners. c. State-supported environmentally sensitive 2 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1.2 1.9 management schemes launched. 2.1.4 Provide artificial nest structures to avoid the 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 1 4 4 0 0 2.1 0.6 loss of clutches and chicks due to bad weather Artificial nest structures provided where 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 1 4 4 0 0 2.1 0.6 necessary 2.1.5 Increase abundance and availability of EIE 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1.5 3 0 4 1.7 2.3 key prey species a. Viable populations of prey species (suslik) 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1.3 2.7 restored in EIE areas. b. Technical guidelines produced for suslik 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 4 0 4 1.8 2.3 restoration by organisations and agencies that have the expertise. 2.2.1 Prevent nest-robbing and illegal trade 3 0 1 3 1.5 4 1.3 0 2.5 1.3 1 1.7 3.6 2.1 2.7 4 2.3 1.7 3 3 5 3 7 5 a. Surveillance and wardening of vulnerable nest- 3 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 3 1 1 0 1.7 2.3 sites. b. Heavy fines for taking birds included in 3 0 1 4 3 4 2 0 4 1 0 3 3.5 1 4 0 2.8 1.2 121

Action Measure PS AR AZ BG HR CY GE GR HU M M RO SR SK TR UA Ave API K NE IS national laws. c. Stricter controls imposed on captive-breeding 3 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1.3 2.7 centres. d. Relevant agencies and NGOs informed on the 3 0 1 3 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 2 4 3 4 0 2.1 1.9 threat posed to the EIE by trade and encouraged to take action and share information. e. Zoos informed about the risks of accepting 3 0 1 3 1 0 1 0 4 2 0 1 4 3 2 4 2.4 1.6 birds of uncertain origin. f. Information gathered on EIE trade. 3 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 1.7 2.3 2.2.2 Prevent mortality by poisoning 3 0 0 2.6 4 3.3 1 1 3 2.3 2 2.3 2.6 2.6 1.3 4 2.5 1.5 7 3 3 3 7 7 3 a. The use of poisoned baits prohibited or strictly 3 0 0 3 4 4 1 1 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 4 2.7 1.3 controlled. b. The occurrence of poisoning permanently 3 0 0 3 0 2 1 1 4 2 0 2 2.5 3 1 4 2.3 1.7 monitored in each European country. c. Authorities and farmers informed of alternative 3 0 0 2 0 4 1 1 2 3 0 2 2.5 2 1 4 2.2 1.8 methods for the selective control of 'pest' species. 2.2.3 Control illegal hunting 2 2 2 3 0 0 1.5 2 2.5 1.5 1 1 2.5 2 1 0 1.8 1.4 a. Species protection law efficiently implemented 2 0 2 3 0 0 1 3 2 2 1 1 2.5 0 1 0 1.9 1.4 and survellaince conducted in PAs where the EIE occurs. b. Awareness-raising campaigns carried out in 2 2 2 3 0 0 2 1 3 1 1 1 2.5 2 1 0 1.8 1.5 appropriate areas. 2.2.4 Reduce mortality from electrocution by 3 0 1 2.5 0 0 1 1 3 1 2 2.5 2.7 3.5 1 4 2.1 1.9 powerlines 5 a. Companies owning powerlines undertake 3 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 2 2 3 1 0 1.6 2.4 appropriate modifications to reduce EIE mortality. b. Information on methods to reduce 3 0 1 3 0 0 1 1 4 1 2 3 3.5 4 1 4 2.4 1.6 electrocution available to the relevant organisations. 2.2.5 Prevent human disturbance 2 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 3 1 1 4 1.8 1.5 Wardening of nesting birds in place. 2 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 3 1 1 4 1.8 1.5 2.2.6 Reduce incidental mortality from trapping 1 0 0 3 4 0 1 0 0 3 1 3 2.5 4 4 4 3.0 0.4 Leg-hold traps prohibited by law and regulations 1 0 0 3 4 0 1 0 0 3 1 3 2.5 4 4 4 3.0 0.4 enforced in EIE range states. 3.1.1 Establish an EIE monitoring programme 3 1 2 3 0 0 2 3 4 3 0 1 2.5 4 3 1 2.5 1.5 A monitoring programme for the EIE established, 3 1 2 3 0 0 2 3 4 3 0 1 2.5 4 3 1 2.5 1.5 with a network of competent field ornithologists in place in each state that the EIE breeds. 3.2.1 Undertake national surveys through the 3 1 2 3 0 0 3 1 4 2 0 1 2.5 4 3 0 2.4 1.6 utilisation of expertise from relevant member states 122

Action Measure PS AR AZ BG HR CY GE GR HU M M RO SR SK TR UA Ave API K NE IS

Guidelines for participants in national surveys 3 1 2 3 0 0 3 1 4 2 0 1 2.5 4 3 0 2.4 1.6 distributed and fieldwork carried out. 3.3.1 Gather data on the wintering and migration 3 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 2.1 1.9 routes of EIE, utilising satellite-tracking technology New information on migration and wintering 3 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 2.1 1.9 areas gathered by satellite-tracking. 3.4.1 Conduct research on EIE limiting factors and 2 1 2 3 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1.5 2 2 4 1.9 1.4 causes of mortality through the study of the species' habitat-use, home range and fledgling movements and utilisation of radio-tracking EIE limiting factors and causes of mortality 2 1 2 3 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1.5 2 2 4 1.9 1.4 identified. 3.5.1 Update and complete national IBA inventories 3 1 3 4 3 2 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 3 4 3.1 0.9 National IBA inventories updated. 3 1 3 4 3 2 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 3 4 3.1 0.9 4.1.1 Provide up-to-date, accurate information on 2 1 2 3 0 1 3 1 4 2 0 2 2.5 3 1 4 2.3 1.2 the status and conservation needs of the EIE through public information programmes Awareness on the need for EIE protection 2 1 2 3 0 1 3 1 4 2 0 2 2.5 3 1 4 2.3 1.2 increased. National IS and Average IS 1.1 1.8 2.7 2.4 3.0 1.8 2.0 2.6 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.5 2.8 2.0 3.2 2.2 2 4 7 3 2 7 1 1 7 9 8 1 3 4

123

References

Belik, V., Galushin, V. & Bogomolov, D. (2002): Results of the imperial eagle (Aquila heliaca) project in Russia during 1996 and 1997. Aquila 107-108: 177-181.

BirdLife International (2010) Species factsheet: Aquila heliaca. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 12/12/2010.

BirdLife International, 2004. Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 12)

Bragin, E.A. (1999): Status of the Imperial Eagle (Aquila heliaca) in Kazakhstan. In: 3rd Eurasian Conference of the Raptor Research Foundation, Mikulov, Czech Republic. 21- 26 September 1999. Buteo supplement. p. 51.

Bragin, E. & Katzner, T. (2004): Long-term population trends and nesting success of imperial eagle, golden eagle and white-tailed sea eagle in North-West Kazakhstan in 1990-2002. In: Chancellor, R.D. & Meyburg, B.-U. (eds.): Raptors worldwide: Proceedings of the VI Word Conference on Birds of Prey and Owls. WWGBP/MME BirdLife Hungary, Budapest. pp. 551-556.

Demerdzhiev, D., G. Gradev, S. Stoychev, I. Ivanov, Ts. Petrov And S. Marin (2008). Increase of the population of the Eastern Imperial Eagle (Aquila heliaca, Savigny, 1809) in Bulgaria. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Conservation of the Imperial Eagle (Aquila heliaca), Topolovgrad, Bulgaria. Acta Zool. Bul. (in press).

Nankinov, D. et al. 2004. Breeding totals of the ornithofauna in Bulgaria. Green Balkans, Plovdiv 2004, 17 pp.

Red Data Book of Ukraine. Animal world /edited I.A. Akimov - Kyiv.: Globalconsulting, 2009. - P.445.

124

Eleonora’s falcon Falco eleonorae

Background The European Action Plan (Ristow, 1999) was developed in 1999 and adopted in 2000. The action plan has not been revised, nor its implementation reviewed. Its geographical scope covers Algeria, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Morocco, Spain, Tunisia and Turkey: as well as countries were the species spends some time when not breeding: Albania, Bulgaria, France, Madagascar, Malta and Portugal. This review covers only the relevant European range of the species, including Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Spain and the Canary Islands, and Turkey. Greece is considered the most significant country for the conservation of the Eleonora's falcon, hosting more than 85% of the global population (Dimalexis et al., 2007). No information has been provided by Albania.

General overview Progress in the overall implementation of the action plan is moderate and further work is still needed (overall IS=1.8.). Greece (the country holding the largest proportion of the population) has made good progress, largely due to the implementation of two LIFE projects98. The 2003-2007 LIFE project ‘Conservation Measures for Falco eleonorae in Greece’ focussed mainly on monitoring, research and awareness-raising and this is very much reflected in the implementation scores of these actions.

4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 API 1.5 1.5 Average IS 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0

.1 .2 .1 .1 .1 .3 .2 1.1 1.1 1.1.3 1.1.4 2.1.1 2.2.1 2 2.4.1 3.1.1 3 4.1 Action

Figure xii Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action listed in the Eleonora’s falcon species action plan. Colours represent Priority Score.

98 LIFE project codes: LIFE03 NAT/GR/000091; LIFE 04 NAT/GR/000101

125

Status review Eleonora’s falcons are distributed throughout the Mediterranean region (14,300-14,760 pairs99) and off coastal north-west Africa (320-325 pairs100), with the centre of the species’ range being in the Aegean archipelagos of Greece - holding more than 85% of the global breeding population (12,300 pairs101). The species winters in Madagascar and possibly a small proportion of the population in Tanzania. The apparent increase in the size of the breeding population in Greece should be attributed to the improved monitoring scheme of the 2004-2006 study rather than to a true population growth, as the previous estimate (Birdlife International 1999) was significantly underestimated. The overall population trend for the species is therefore considered as stable.

Table 29 Breeding population estimates and trend by country Population at Current the time of the Country Year population Year Breeding trend Reference 2000 SAP (pairs) (pairs) Albania 0 1999 - - - - Bulgaria 0 1999 0-6 2007-2009 Unknown 102 Croatia 100-150 - 54-93 2000-2009 Fluctuating Cyprus 60 1999 93-130 2005-2009 4% Increasing 103 Greece 4,550 1999 12,300 2004-2006 Stable 101 Italy 400 1999 638-704 2005 Stable 104 Malta - - 0 - N/A - Portugal 0 1999 0 2008 N/A - Spain 730 1999 957-1170 2004-2007 20-50% Increasing 105 Spain - Canary Islands 100 1999 260-280 2007-2009 Increasing 106 Turkey 20 1999 32-76 2004-2006 Unknown 107

Objective(s) To maintain and enhance the Eleonora’s falcon’s colonies especially through preserving the uninhabited islets for their importance as breeding sites and their biodiversity value.

Evaluation The target of the plan has been achieved as the European breeding population of the Eleonora’s falcon is stable and no colonies are known to have gone extinct since the implementation of the action plan.

99 Estimate calculated using data obtained from this review 100 Snow & Perrins, 1998; Ristow, 1999; Burfield & Kreiser, 2004 101 National population census conducted between 2004-2006. Dimalexis et al., 2007 102 BSPB, 2007 103 Miltiadou, 2009. 104 Gustin et al., 2005. 105 Del moral, 2008. 106 Gangoso, 2007; 2008; 2009. 107 Personal data from breeding population census. Research supported by RSPB

126

Conservation and Legal Status The Global IUCN Red List Category of the Eleonora’s falcon is Least Concern because it has a very large range, and so does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence <20,000 km2 combined with a declining or fluctuating range size, habitat extent/quality, or population size and a small number of locations or severe fragmentation). It was Lower Risk/Least Concern in 1988-2000 when such category existed. The species is listed as Declining (SPEC 2) due to ‘moderate recent decline’ in the European IUCN Red List (BirdLife International, 2004), and is listed in Annex I of the EU Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC, ‘Birds Directive’), in Appendix III of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) and in Appendix II on the Convention in International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Relevant recommendation on regional and international conventions have been implemented and enforced in Greece and Malta, but not in Croatia, Spain and Turkey. Work has been undertaken in Cyprus to prepare the ratification of the Protocol on Mediterranean Biodiversity with the transposition in national law expected in November 2010. The species is legally protected in all European range states covered by the plan.

Overview of past and current threats Table 30 Table of importance of Eleonora’s falcon threats by country108. The current level of importance of threats listed in 1999 SAP and newly identified threats are listed for each country. The original importance level of the threats as listed in the 1999 SAP are included in brackets Threats identified in Threats identified in 1999 2010 &

)

loss

. West Nile virus p es Country of other Introduction (high) species in Human disturbance (high) colonies Predationcats & by locally (medium, rats high) Natural factors (low) illegal & Persecution trade (low) Habitat in persecution wintering grounds probably (unknown, hi h) degradation Habitat probably (unknown, medium) Wind farms by Poisoning pesticides Infectious diseases ( Bulgaria N/A N/A N/A Low Low N/A N/A Unknown Croatia Low Medium Low Low Low Low Low Cyprus N/A Medium Low Low N/A N/A Medium Greece High/Med Med/Low High/Med Low Low High Med/Low Low Italy Medium High High Low Low Medium Medium Malta N/A N/A N/A N/A Critical N/A Low Portugal N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Spain High High Medium Low N/A Low Canaries High High High N/A N/A Medium Low Turkey Medium Critical Low N/A N/A N/A N/A

108 No response on threats facing the Eleonora’s falcon were received from Albania.

127

Assessment of the implementation

National and regional species action plans Only Italy has a national action plan for the species, although in Croatia the "Eleonora" Association are now working on developing an action plan. There are regional action plans in the Valencian Community, Spain (Sarzo et al., 2009). National working groups coordinate the activities in Croatia and Greece (established as part of the 2003-2007 LIFE Nature project109 ‘Conservation measures for Falco eleonorae in Greece’).

Species conservation Despite human disturbance being listed as the main threat to the species, and limitation of disturbance being a high priority action in the SAP, very little work has been carried out to ensure tourism policies limit the impact of disturbance on the species and promote environmentally friendly, sustainable tourism and recreation. In addition, very little progress has been made to establish non-intrusion zones on land and at sea during the breeding season. Although national legislation for the protection of the species is fairly well enforced in countries holding significant breeding populations, the implementation of wardening and prohibiting of hunting during the breeding season has received little work by these countries. Despite the low level of implementation of wardening measures in Greece, there has been a reported population improvement due to the species protection measures in place. This is likely due to the work carried out during the LIFE projects which involved the development of a wardening plan in Greek SPA sites that host Eleonora's falcon colonies, and by implementing project specific wardening schemes in the most threatened sites. In Croatia, good progress has been made in limiting human disturbance to colonies by preventing access of local people and tourists to breeding sites. In Cyprus, all coastal cliff areas within the Republic and Western Sovereign Base Area are either closed during the autumn hunting season, so no hunting disturbance is suffered by the species during the reproductive period. Although game wardens of the State Game Fund patrol breeding areas in Cyprus, they do not monitor Eleonora’s falcons specifically, but prevent general poaching. While the species is fully protected under National law, illegal hunting of birds of prey is a serious and widespread problem in Malta as law enforcement is weak and the police units responsible for dealing with illegal hunting are under-resourced.

There has been some work carried out to implement predator control at colonies, with the majority of the work being conducted by Spain. In Greece, pilot predator management measures were implemented as part of the 2003-2007 LIFE project, resulting in a reported population improvement due to these measures. However, there has been very little progress in preventing the introduction of terrestrial predators on uninhabited islets with colonies. In Croatia, predation by introduced species is a low threat, however educational brochures have been produced to inform people of the threat to the species. The majority of the species’ nests are inaccessible to predators in Cyprus.

109 LIFE03 NAT/GR/000091

128

Site conservation There are 63 IBAs designated for the species in the action plan range, of which 54 are in Europe and 55 in the EU. The 72 SPAs in the EU designated for the species include 90- 100% of the European breeding population. The most important colonies in Greece, Italy and Spain are included in protected areas (reserves, national parks). Only one of the SPAs in Greece (Tilos) has a management plan, as a result of the 2004-2008 LIFE Nature project110. However, 5 Special Environmental Studies with draft Management plans for Astypalaia, North Dodecanese, Kinaros, Kythira and Amorgos were prepared through a previous LIFE project in 1999. In Cyprus, breeding colonies within the Goverment controlled area (Aspro cliffs) and Episkopi / Akrotiri Sovereign Base Area are protected by relevant National/EU legislation, but there is still no real action on the ground and no management plans for the areas. In Italy some coastal SPAs have now been designated (in Sicily and Sardinia).

Habitat conservation Overall, habitat conservation measures have received little work by the range countries, particularly limiting the destruction and degradation of the species’ habitat by tourism, recreation and development, which is an essential priority action. In particular, the countries holding the largest populations have made very little progress in ensuring appropriate environmental assessments are carried out to assess all development/construction plans, policies and programmes. However, the majority of existing colonies are protected against habitat alteration, although this is not always enforced, such as is the case in Malta. With the exception of Croatia, little to no work has been carried out to develop a European-wide coastal zone strategy, prioritising coastal IBAs, which is an essential priority action. In Greece, a 'Special Planning Strategy for the Coastal Zone and Islands' was presented for public consultation in August 2009. The Strategy has not yet been voted for in parliament. Land use change and agricultural intensification is an unknown (potentially medium) threat to the species and so there has been little work carried out to ensure agricultural and rural development policies are sensitive to the species and its conservation.

There has been very little implementation of actions to conserve important habitat for the species in its non-breeding range. In Cyprus, the species feeding/migration areas are protected in part through the network of SPAs, but no specific action has been taken for this species on a national level.

Monitoring and Research Monitoring programmes exist in most countries at a national level and in protected areas in Greece, Spain and Cyprus. The majority of work has focussed on monitoring the distribution, population and breeding success of the species. During 2004-7 an international population census was

110 LIFE04 NAT/GR/000101

129

conducted through the 2003-2007 LIFE project, during which population counts were performed in Spain, Italy, Croatia, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey and Tunisia (Morocco and Algeria populations were not censused). In Greece, the large majority of the work carried out for the 2003-2007 LIFE project was focussed on monitoring and research. This work included conducting the first national population census, monitoring of colonies and breeding success, assessing the primary causes of mortality for the species, satellite tracking of migration in Greece, developing and implementing an effective monitoring scheme for the species, and establishing exchange of information through the Falco eleonorae Network (FEN). The threats to the species were also investigated through monitoring and assessment of the impact of human activities at selected colonies and monitoring of improvement of breeding success after rat eradication operations. Following on from the 2003-2007 LIFE project, national censuses are planned every 10 years in Greece. In Spain SEO/BirdLIfe co-ordinated a national census in 2004-2007. There are also regional surveys conducted by the regional Autonomous Communities but with variable frequencies. In the Canary Islands research is being conducted on limiting factors and has identified a new potential threat for the species (West Nile virus – Gangoso et al., In Press). An international survey of breeding birds organised by BirdLife Cyprus was conducted in 2004. An annual breeding count is conducted along the SW coast of Cyprus by BirdLife Cyprus during autumn breeding season which covers all the colonies. In Croatia, the largest colony has been studied since 1998 and since 2000 the abundance in all nesting areas is monitored annually by NGO "Eleonora". LIPU annually monitors one reserve colony in Italy and occasionally monitors other colonies. In Turkey, monitoring is carried out by one individual from Ege University Natural History Museum Research and Application centre. In Bulgaria, bird observations take place at most of the sites where the species may occur.

Public awareness and stakeholder involvement Raising awareness of the need to protect EF and its habitat, and provide adequate training for people involved in conservation and monitoring of the Eleonora’s falcon is a high priority action that has received little work, with the distinct exception of Greece and Croatia. An extensive and well focused public awareness campaign targeting various key social groups, for the conservation of Falco eleonorae was implemented in Greece through the 2003-2007 LIFE project. This involved the production of a documentary on the species, leaflets, information kiosks, webpage and other information material. The focus of the campaign was to draw attention the Eleonora’s falcon’s role as an indisputable part of the Aegean islands and to change the image of the Greek islets from deserted places to islets of life and biodiversity. In Cyprus, annual meetings are held with the local population to educate people on the species. Brochures have been produced as well as educational materials for children.

130

Community financial support Six LIFE projects111 have been implemented in Greece (2), Italy (3) and Spain (1), during the period 2000-2010, with total budget of more than 4.4 million Euros, of which the European Union contribution was more than 3 million Euros. In addition, over 435000 Euros of national government funding has been invested in research and monitoring and management actions. However, over 90% of these funds have been spent in the EU with no funding reported Turkey and very little funding in Croatia. However, there has been a small-scale project implemented in Spain investigating the ecology, migration, juvenile dispersal, population structure, and wintering in Africa of the Eleonora's falcon.

Conclusions The progress in the implementation of the action plan is moderate (Average IS=1.8) with the country holding the largest proportion of the population (Greece) making good progress in monitoring/research actions as well as implementing regional and national conventions and protecting the species’ habitat. However, but little progress has been made in prevention of habitat destruction/degradation and reduction of human disturbance. National implementation scores (NIS) are highest in Croatia and Malta, average in Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Spain and Turkey, and lowest in Bulgaria, Portugal and the Canary Islands.

Further measures/work still needed especially in the field of: • Ensuring Environmental Impact Assessments are conducted on all developments in coastal areas • Developing and implementing of effective actions to protect coastal areas in Europe. • Implementing non-intrusion zones (marine and terrestrial) at colonies during the breeding season. • Ensuring national and international coastal tourism policies discourage development of new resorts and favour environmental friendly, sustainable tourism. • Identifying wintering areas and ecological requirements and threats identified in those areas. • Protecting the species’ habitat in wintering quarters and along migration routes. • Monitoring development and human activity in the vicinity of EF colonies. • Investigating impact of rat predation on EF colonies • Promoting the value of the species’ habitat and raising awareness of the species.

Contributors Dr. Petar Iankov (BG); Vlatka Šćetarić (CR); Michael Miltiadou (CY); Jakob Fric (GR); Danae Portolou (GR); Claudio Celada (IT); Marco Gustin (IT); Dr Andre Raine (MA); Luis Costa (PT); Pascual López-López (SP); Laura Gangoso (SP-C); Ortaç Onmuş (TU).

111 LIFE project codes: LIFE03 NAT/GR/000091; LIFE04NAT/GR/000101; LIFE98 NAT/IT/005136; LIFE98 NAT/IT/005093; LIFE97 NAT/IT/004125; LIFE98 NAT/E/005300.

131

Appendix 1 Table 31 Implementation of the action plan in the European range states112. PS = Priority Score; Ave. IS = Average Implementation Score; API = Action Priority Index; National IS = National Implementation Score. ES- Ave. Action Measure PS BL HR CY GR IT MT PT ES TR API C IS 1.1.1 Disturbance from tourism and recreation limited 3 1 2 1 1.3 2 1 0 1.7 1 0 1.4 2.6 a. Coastal tourism policies concentrate on quality improvement of existing resorts rather 3 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1.0 3.0 than developing new ones. b. National and international tourism policies favour environmental friendly, sustainable 3 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1.1 2.9 and high quality ecotourism. c. Human disturbance of EF colonies is limited. 3 0 3 1 2 2 0 0 3 1 0 2.0 2.0 1.1.2 Destruction and degradation of EF habitat by tourism, recreation and development is 4 1.3 4 1.3 1 0 2.7 0 1.3 1 1 1.7 3.1 limited a. Strategic Environmental Assessments conducted to assess all coastal development 4 1 4 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 1 1.5 3.3 policies, plans and programmes. b. Detailed EIAs carried out for individual construction/ development schemes in coastal 4 2 4 2 1 0 2 0 1 1 1 1.8 3.0 areas. c. The 5th Environmental Action Programme is implemented by the EC and a European 4 1 4 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 1.7 3.1 wide coastal zone strategy is developed, with Coastal IBAs identified as priority zones. d. Non-EU countries adopt a similar approach to coastal management as outlined above. 4 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 1 2.5 2.0 1.1.3 Agricultural and rural development policies are sympathetic to wildlife and are 2 0 3.7 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1.5 1.6 compatible with the conservation of the Eleonora´s falcon. a. Environmental friendly farming systems promoted and enhanced to ensure the food 1 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1.4 0.9 availability for EF. b. Subsidies for reduction of livestock grazing on islets available in all countries hosting EF 2 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2.0 1.3 colonies. c. Agricultural disturbance and over-grazing limited in EF areas. 2 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1.8 1.5 1.1.4 International co-operation in place between all range states, with relevant recommendation on regional and international conventions fully implemented and 3 0 1 2 3 0 3.5 0 1 0 1 1.9 2.1 actively enforced a. All contracting parties of the Barcelona Convention ratify the New Protocol on 3 0 1 2 4 0 4 0 1 0 1 2.2 1.8 Mediterranean Biodiversity. b. The criteria is completed for selection of SPAs of Mediterranean importance according 3 0 1 2 2 0 3 0 1 0 1 1.7 2.3 to the New Protocol of the Barcelona Convention. 2.1.1 Effectively protect EF habitat 3 2 2.3 1.3 1.8 2.3 0 0 2 2.7 1 1.9 2.1 a. All existing colonies protected against habitat alteration and human disturbance. 3 0 1 1 2 3 0 0 3 3 0 2.2 1.8 b. All IBAs which host EF colonies are protected. 3 3 0 2 3 4 0 0 3 4 0 3.2 0.8 c. Sustainable tourism developed in sensitive coastal habitats. 3 1 3 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1.3 2.7 d. Non-intrusion zones, in the sea and on land, at colonies implemented during the breeding 3 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1.3 2.7 season.

112 BL=Bulgaria; HR=Croatia; CY=Cyprus; GR=Greece; IT=Italy; MT=Malta; PT=Portugal; ES=Spain (National); ES-C =Spain-Canary Islands; TR=Turkey. 132

2.2.1 Establish effective species protection for the EF 2.5 2 3.5 3 1.5 2.7 2 0 1.7 1 3 2.3 1.5 a. National legislation for the protection of the species (adults, eggs, chicks) fully enforced. 2 2 4 4 3 4 2 0 2 1 3 2.8 0.8 b. Wardening implemented to avoid disturbance and nest robbery where necessary. 3 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 1.5 2.5 c. Where breeding colonies cannot achieve legal protection status, hunting prohibited on 3 0 4 4 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 2.2 1.8 breeding sites before end of breeding season. d. Transportation of livestock prevented on uninhabited islets with colonies during the 2 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2.0 1.3 breeding season. 2.3.1 Implement predator control to limit predation of EF 3 0 4 0 1.5 1 0 0 2 1 0 1.9 2.1 a. Rat and cat populations controlled on all islets that host colonies. 2 0 4 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 2.0 1.3 b. Introduction of terrestrial predators prevented on uninhabited islets with colonies. 3 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 2.0 2.0 2.4.1 Conserve important habitat for EF in non-breeding range 2.5 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 1.3 2.3 a. The species needs addressed in national strategies for wetland management and 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1.0 2.0 conservation (policies). b. EF habitat in wintering quarters and along migration routes adeqautley protected. 3 0 0 3 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 1.5 2.5 3.1.1 Monitor the distribution, population and threats to EF 3 1 3 2.8 2.6 2.3 0 0 1.9 1.7 3 2.3 1.7 a. Total breeding world population of EF assessed through international coordinated 3 1 1 4 4 3 0 0 2 4 3 2.8 1.3 census. b. Annual census of the breeding numbers on selected colonies undertaken across the 3 1 4 4 3 3 0 0 3 1 0 2.7 1.3 whole species range. c. International census conducted every 10 years. 3 1 4 0 3 2 0 0 2 1 0 2.2 1.8 d. Breeding success in selected colonies monitored annually. 3 0 2 4 4 4 0 0 3 3 0 3.3 0.7 e. Presence and population levels of introduced predators (especially rats) monitored in the 2 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1.4 1.7 vicinity of EF colonies. f. Human activities and use on uninhabited islets with EF colonies monitored. 3 1 4 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1.5 2.5 g. Development (tourist, industrial, agriculture) in the vicinity of EF colonies monitored. 3 1 4 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1.4 2.6 3.2.1 Conduct research on the threats to EF colonies and non-breeding areas, along with 3 1.5 2.3 1 3 1.8 0 0 1.9 1.9 1 1.8 2.2 ecological requirements and ranges. a. Impact of rat predation determined for colonies. 3 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 1.4 2.6 b. Impact of disturbance determined for colonies. 2 0 4 1 3 2 0 0 2 1 1 2.0 1.3 c. Causes of mortality in colonies identified. 2 0 1 1 3 1 0 0 1 1 0 1.3 1.8 d. The range of the vicinity used by EFs of a colony and their ecological requirements for 2 0 4 1 3 2 0 0 1 1 0 2.0 1.3 this area determined. e. Migratory routes and strategies identified. 3 1 1 1 3 3 0 0 3 3 0 2.1 1.9 f. Wintering areas located and ecological requirements and threats identified in those areas. 4 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 3 0 2.0 2.7 g. Information exchanged on monitoring and research between experts and conservation 3 2 3 1 4 2 0 0 3 3 0 2.6 1.4 bodies. 4.1.1 Raise awareness of the need to protect EF & its habitat, & provide adequate training 3 1 3.2 1.5 3 1.5 0 0 1.2 1 0 1.8 2.2 for all people involved in conservation and monitoring of the EF a. The value of uninhabited islets is promoted through targeted media campaign(s). 4 0 4 0 3 1 0 0 1 1 0 2.0 2.7 b. Awareness raised of EF biology, threats and need of conservation within key 3 1 4 1 3 1 0 0 1 1 0 1.7 2.3 organisations through awareness campaign. c. Private boat owners informed about the "Code of Conduct" on uninhabited islets. 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 2.0 2.0 d. Seasonal information centres established in appropriate locations. 2 0 1 0 3 2 0 0 1 1 0 1.6 1.6 133 e. People involved in conservation and monitoring of EF are adequately trained. 2 1 4 2 3 2 0 0 2 1 0 2.1 1.2 National & Average IS 1.3 2.9 1.7 1.9 1.9 2.3 1.0 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.8

134

References

Burfield, I. and K. Kreiser, editors. 2004. Birds in Europe. Population Estimates, Trends and Conservation Status. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 12. BirdLife International. Cambridge. 374 pp.BSPB, 2007

Del moral, JC (2008) El halcón de Eleonora en España. Población 2004-2007 y método de censo. SEO/BirdLife. Madrid, Spain (in Spanish with English summary)

Dimalexis A., Xirouchakis S., Portolou D., Latsoudis P., Karris G., Fric J., Georgiakakis P., Barboutis C., Bourdakis S., Ivovic M., Kominos T., Kakalis E., 2007. The status of Eleonora's Falcon (Falco eleonorae) in Greece. Journal of Ornithology 149(1): 23-30.

Gangoso, L. 2007. Estudio y divulgación del estado de la población de Halcón de Eleonor (Falco eleonorae) en el islote de Alegranza, Islas Canarias. Informe no publicado. Convenio EBD-Obra Social de la Caja de Canarias.

Gangoso, L. 2008. Identificación de amenzas e implicación social en la conservación del Halcón de Eleonor en las Islas Canarias. Informe no publicado. Convenio EBD-Obra Social de la Caja de Canarias.

Gangoso, L. 2009. Conservación del Halcón de Eleonor en Canarias: patrones de migración y efecto del cambio climático. Informe no publicado. Convenio EBD-Obra Social de la Caja de Canarias.

Gangoso, L, Juan Manuel Grande, Francisco Llorente, Miguel Ángel Jiménez-Clavero, Jesús M. Pérez and Jordi Figuerola. Prevalence of west nile virus neutralizing antibodies in Eleonora’s falcons from Canary Islands. Journal of Wildlife Diseases. In Press.

Gustin M., Corso A., Medda M. 2005. Monitoring on breeding population of Eleonora’s Falcon Falco eleonorae in Italy during 2005. In: LIFE Nature Project LIFE03 NAT/GR/000091, Conservation measures for Falco eleonorae in Greece, pp: 1-51.

Hellenic Ornithological Society (2007) Falco eleonorae Database (2004-7). LIFE-Nature project 'Conservation measures for Falco eleonorae* in Greece' (LIFE03 NAT/GR/000091).

Iankov, P. 2007. Atlas of Breeding Birds in Bulgaria. BSPB Conservation series 10.

Miltiadou, M. 2009. The Eleonora's Falcon Falco eleonorae breeding count - 28 August 2009. Cyprus BirdLife Magazine. Autumn 2009. Nicosia

Ristow, D. 1999. International Species Action Plan Eleonora’s falcon Falco eleonorae. BirdLife International report to the European Commission, unpublished. (Document available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/action_plans/docs/falco_el eonorae.pdf).

135

Sarzo et al., 2009. Conservación de aves marinas mediterráneas. Plan de Acción para la Comunitat Valenciana. Generalita Valenciana, Valencia, Spain. (in Spanish)

Snow, D.W. & Perrins, C.M. (1998) The birds of the western Palearctic, Concise ediditon. Oxford University Press.

136

Fea’s Petrel Pterodroma feae

Background The Fea’s petrel Action Plan was adopted in 1996 (Zino et al., 1996) by the Ornis Committee and endorsed by the Bern Conventions. The implementation of the action plan was reviewed in 2001 (Gallo-Orsi, 2001) and 2004 (Nagy & Crockford, 2004). This review evaluates the implementation of the species Action Plan from 2004 to 2010, in Madeira, Portugal, but not Cape Verde, therefore covering the species’ European range.

Taxonomy A recent published article (Jesus et al., 2009) calls for the separation of the Deserta’s population from the Cape Verde population based on phylogenetic analysis. The review here is referring to ‘Desertas petrel’.

General overview Progress in the overall implementation of the action plan is very high with only a small amount of further work needed (Average IS= 3.7). This high level of implementation is in large part due to the work carried out under the LIFE project ‘SOS Freira do Bugio113’.

4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 API 1.5 1.5 Average IS Average 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.1.1 2.1.1 2.2.1 2.3.1 3.1.1 3.2.1 3.3.1 4.1.1 Action

Figure xiii Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action listed in the Fea’s petrel species action plan. Colours represent Priority Score.

Status review The breeding population of Fea's Petrel is stable and was last estimated at 160-180 pairs, from censuses conducted in 2006-2009 as part of the LIFE project114 (2006-2010).

113 LIFE project code: LIFE 06NAT/P/000184.

137

Although the breeding population estimate is lower than in the 1996 SAP, it is because the 1996 estimate was less accurate, not because the population has decreased.

Table 32 Population estimate and trend by country Population at Population Current the time of the at the 2004 Breedin Referenc Country Year Year population Year 1996 SAP review g trend e (pairs) (pairs) (pairs) Portugal 2001- 2006- (Madeira 150-200 1994 170-260 160-180 Stable 115 2003 2009 )

Objective(s) To protect and maintain the breeding population of Fea's Petrel and to promote its expansion to the entire available habitat on the island of Bugio and, eventually, to Deserta Grande.

Evaluation The objective has been effectively met, as the population has been stable since 2006. Expansion within Bugio has been promoted through improving habitat conditions, etc Expansion to Deserta Grande is no longer feasible because translocations haven’t occurred due to low population numbers in source population. The species has been heard on Deserta Grande but their presence is not confirmed.

Conservation and Legal Status The Global IUCN Red List Category of Fea’s petrel is Near Threatened under criteria D1; D2 because it probably has a small population, and breeds within a moderately small range, on five islands. It faces a number of threats, but there is presently no evidence of an overall decline. Nevertheless, its restricted breeding range leaves it moderately susceptible to stochastic events and human impacts. The species is listed as Vulnerable (SPEC 1) under criteria D1;D2 in the European IUCN Red List (BirdLife International, 2004), and is listed in Annex I of the EU Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC, ‘Birds Directive’) and in Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention). The species has been protected since 1991116. Fea's Petrel is classed as Vulnerable in the Portuguese Red Data Book (Cabral et al. 1990).

114 LIFE project code: LIFE 06NAT/P/000184. 115 Based on annual colony counts since 2006. 116 In Portugal, Fea’s petrel is a protected species under Decreto-Lei 75/91, which adapts the EU Wild Birds Directive to Portuguese law.

138

Overview of past and current threats Through the LIFE project, the threats facing Fea’s petrel have been identified and reduced (with all threats listed in the 1996 SAP now at a low importance level). The threat of habitat degradation caused by overgrazing has been almost eliminated through the LIFE project and continuing actions and so is not a problem in breeding areas. The threat of predation by yellow-legged gulls was previously unknown has now been identified as low through work by the LIFE project. Disturbance by rabbits was a previously unknown threat but research conducted through the LIFE project identified this threat as high and so a rabbit eradication campaign was carried out and the threat is now at a low level. Human predation is not relevant as there are no records of this occurring. Nest predation by mice is a newly identified threat, which was high but again recued to a low level by the LIFE project’s mice eradication campaign. Nest competition by Calonectris diomedea was also identified as a threat during the LIFE project, but its impact on Fea’s petrel is currently unknown.

Assessment of the implementation

National and regional species action plans There is a national species action plan for Fea’s petrel which has been largely incorporated into the management plan for the Natural Park of Madeira and in regional legislation (constituting the national law for Madeira)

Species conservation Predation There has been significant progress in the control of feral cats and yellow-legged gulls, with cats having been fully eradicated from Bugio and Deserta Grande and gull populations controlled and monitored (this work is ongoing).

Human disturbance Wardening of breeding colonies has been improved, with wardening in Bugio granted for longer periods and a new shelter for wardening installed, security conditions enhanced and access for wardens improved at Bugio.

Site conservation The entire breeding population of the species occurs in a Natura 2000 site which is also an IBA, SPA, SAC and is protected under national law (Desertas Islands Natural Reserve). Although the marine habitat in close proximity to the breeding habitat is protected, there is little information on the distribution of the species at sea and further information is needed to grant protected area status to the appropriate marine areas.

139

Desertas Islands Management Plan reviewed and legally approved. The large majority of conservation measures carried out since 2006 have been conducted as part of the 2006- 2010 LIFE Nature Project117 “SOS Freira do Bugio”.

Habitat conservation Rabbits have been fully eradicated from Deserta Grande and ongoing works to eradicate rabbits on Bugio are being carried out. It is suspected that goats have been eradicated from Bugio, but work is ongoing to eradicate goats from Deserta Grande. Although there has been significant progress in limiting the threat of introduced species, no official contingency plan for accidental introduction of problem animals has yet been adopted. A control programme is in place for problem animals and evaluating the effectiveness of this is an ongoing activity. Natural vegetation has been replanted (with 10 different species used for dispersion) and vegetation recovery is monitored annually, however, this work needs to be ongoing. Dry walls have been built to prevent erosion and this remains an ongoing activity. Twenty four artificial burrows for breeding have been provided in the breeding area.

Monitoring and Research There has been full implementation of all research and monitoring actions from the SAP. There is a national species project/working group and a national survey/ monitoring programme in place for the species. Breeding numbers and breeding success are monitored annually (this needs to be maintained), as well as the effectiveness of artificial burrows. Significant work has been carried out to determine the taxonomic status of the species, with a recent article published recommending a separation in nomenclature of the Deserta’s population from the Cape Verde population (Jesus et al., 2009). Studies on population dynamics of the species have been continued and an ongoing monitoring scheme is in place. Studies to identify potential breeding areas have been carried out on Bugio and Deserta Grande.

Public awareness and stakeholder involvement Public awareness campaign on the Fea’s petrel was launched in 2006 (prior to the herbivores and predator eradication programme) and remains ongoing, as well as an awareness campaign in Madeira to increase numbers of visitors to the reserve. An information centre about the archipelago and the species has been established and is being continuously improved. Wardens have been trained in management and monitoring, with the monitoring campaigns now being maintained by the reserve wardens.

117 LIFE project code: LIFE 06NAT/P/000184

140

Community financial support One LIFE project118 has been implemented during the period 2004-2010 which benefits Fea’s petrel. The project focused on conserving a sustainable population of Pterodroma feae, and its breeding habitat, running from 2006-2010 with a total budget of 966,468 Euro, of which the total European Union contribution was 723,691 Euro.

Conclusions Progress in the overall implementation of the action plan is very high with only a small amount of further work needed (Average IS= 3.7). A scores table of the implementation of each action (including a break-down of all actions into measurable targets) is provided in Appendix 1. There are still major gaps and further implementation of the following actions is needed: • Increasing the knowledge of the marine habitats used by the species (as well as threats at sea) and granting legal protection for these marine habitats. • Maintaining the monitoring schemes and actions after the LIFE project. • Securing continuity of goat control measures in Deserta Grande and monitoring of eradication effectiveness of rabbits and mice in Bugio • Evaluating the necessity and feasibility of a translocation plan in the long term to secure at least two breeding locations for the species

Contributors Paulo Oliveira (Madeira Natural Park Service); Dília Menezes(Madeira Natural Park Service); Pedro Sepúlveda (Madeira Natural Park Service); Pedro Geraldes (SPEA); Luís Costa (SPEA); Iván Ramírez (BirdLife International); Ana Isabel Fagundes (SPEA); Mia Derhé (BirdLife International).

118 LIFE project code: LIFE06 NAT/P/000184.

141

Appendix 1 Table 33 Implementation of the action plan in Madeira. PS = Priority Score; PT (M)= Portugal (Madeira); API = Action Priority Index; National IS = National Implementation Score. PT Action Measure PS API (M) 1.1.1 Ensure an adequate legal and financial framework for the conservation 2 3.2 0.5 of threatened species in Portugal a. Species recovery plan incorporated in national legislation. 1 3 0.3 b. Species recovery plan incorporated in regional legislation. 1 3 0.3 c. Conservation actions for Desertas financially supported by LIFE Nature. 3 4 0 d. Conservation actions for FP financially supported by LIFE Nature. 3 4 0 e. The Marine Habitat Conservation Strategy developed by BirdLife used as 2 2 1.3 basis for additional actions. 2.1.1 Improve conditions for the breeding birds by removing herbivores and 3 3.3 0.8 predators a. Eradication of rabbit, goats and cats from Deserta Grande completed. 3 3 1 b. Eradication of rabbit, goats and cats from Bugio completed. 3 3 1 c. Some of the goats relocated. 3 0 0 d. Contingency plan for the accidental introduction of problem animals 2 3 0.7 developed. e. Expansion of the Yellow-legged Gull population prevented. 2 4 0 2.2.1 Prevent human disturbance and disruption to the breeding cycle, 2.5 4 0 predominantly through effective wardening a. Wardening of breeding colonies improved. 2 4 0 b. Shelter facilities for wardening provided at Bugio. 3 4 0 2.3.1 Promote the expansion of Fea's Petrel to other suitable areas in the 2 4 0 Desertas a. Natural vegetation replanted. 1.5 4 0 b. Dry walls to slow erosion built. 1.5 4 0 c. Artificial borrows for breeding provided. 2 4 0 3.1.1 Undertake an annual monitoring programme of the Fea's Petrel breeding 3 4 0 population a. Breeding numbers monitored annually. 3 4 0 b. Breeding success monitored annually. 3 4 0 c. Effectiveness of artificial borrows determined annually. 2 4 0 3.2.1 Evaluate the efficiency of the control programme for problem animals 2 3.5 0.3 and to monitor the regeneration of vegetation a. Effectiveness of the control programme for problem animals evaluated. 2 3 0.7 b. Vegetation recovery carefully monitored annually. 2 4 0 3.3.1 To promote research initiatives which are of direct application for the 1 4 0 conservation of Fea's Petrel a. Taxonomic status determined. 1 4 0 b. Studies on population dynamics continued. 1 4 0 c. Potential breeding areas identified. 2 4 0 4.1.1 To increase the awareness of the Madeiran public of Fea's Petrel and the Desertas Nature Reserve, and to improve their attitude towards their 2 4 0 conservation a. Public awareness campaign launched prior to the herbivore and predator 3 4 0 eradication programme. b. Public awareness on the value of the Nature Reserve increased. 2 4 0 c. Information centre about the archipelago and the species established. 2 4 0 d. Wardens trained for management and monitoring. 2 4 0

142

National / Average IS 3.7 3.5

References

BirdLife International, 2004. Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 12)

BirdLife International 2008. Pterodroma feae. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. . Downloaded on 13 August 2010.

Cabral MJ (coord.), Almeida J, Almeida PR, Dellinger T, Ferrand de Almeida N, Oliveira ME, Palmeirim JM, Queiroz AI, Rogado L & Santos-Reis M (eds.) (2005). Livro Vermelho dos Vertebrados de Portugal. Instituto da Conservação da Natureza. Lisboa. 660 pp.

Gallo-Orsi, U. ed. (2001) Saving Europe’s most threatened birds: progress in implementing European Species Action Plans. Wageningen, The Netherlands: BirdLife International.

Jesus, J., Menezes, D., Gomes, S., Oliveira, P., Nogales, M., & Brehm, A. 2009. Phylogenetic relationships of gadfly petrels Pterodroma spp. from the Northeastern Atlantic Ocean: molecular evidence for specific status of Bugio and Cape Verde petrels and implications for conservation. Bird Conservation International (2009), 19: 199-214.

Nagy, S & Crockford, N (2004) Implementation in the European Union of species action plans for 23 of Europe’s most threatened birds, BirdLife International, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Zino et al., 1996. Action plan for Fea’s petrel (Pterodroma feae). BirdLife International report to the European Commission, unpublished. (Document available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/action_plans/docs/pterodr oma_feae.pdf).

143

Bearded Vulture Gypaetus barbatus

Background The Bearded Vulture Action Plan was developed in 1997, adopted in 1999 (Heredia & Heredia, 1999) by the Ornis Committee and endorsed by the Bern Convention. This is the first review of the implementation of the action plan. The action plan is intended for implementation in: Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Spain, but also contains information for Andorra, Switzerland, Turkey and Morocco. The geographical scope of this review covers Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey. No status information has been provided by Spain.

General overview Progress in the overall implementation of the action plan is good but further work is still needed (overall IS=2.6). No specific actions for the Bearded Vulture have been taken by Turkey (holding probably the majority of the European population) since the implementation of the action plan (National Implementation Score: 1.16). As such, the implementation and effectiveness in Europe cannot be evaluated, and so this review focuses more on the implementation within the EU range states. The SAP has been most successfully implemented in the Alps (Austria, France, Italy and Switzerland).

4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5

3.0 3.0

2.5 2.5 I 2.0 2.0 AP 1.5 1.5 Average IS 1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0

1 .1 .1 1 .1 .1 1 1 .1 .2. .3 .4 .1 .4. .1 1.1.1 1 1 2.1 2.2.1 2.3. 2 3 3.2.1 3.3. 3 4 Action

Figure xiv Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each Action listed in the Bearded Vulture species action plan. Colours represent Priority Score.

Status review The Bearded Vulture was, and partly still is, widely distributed in Eurasia and Africa with a small proportion of its global range in Europe (Tucker and Heath 1994). Within Europe, the Bearded Vulture breeds in Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, France, Georgia, Greece (Crete), Italy, Macedonia (FYRO), Russia, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey - which hopefully still holds the majority of the European breeding population (100-500 pairs119).

119 Estimate calculated using data obtained from this review

144

Despite the increases in the Alps and the Pyrenees, overall the population trend is mostly negative or remains unknown, as there has been little effort in Turkey to assess the population size and trend of the species. The current European population estimate is 303-706 pairs120 (excluding the very small populations in Andorra, and Azerbaijan). The overall population trend for the species in Europe is unknown.

Table 34 Population estimate and trend by country Population at Population Current the time of the Country Year in 2004 Year population Year Breeding trend Reference 1999 SAP (pairs) (pairs) (pairs) Austria 0 1999 2 2004 1 2008 Slowly Increasing 121 1996- France 25 40 2003 45 2008 Strong Increase 122 1997 Georgia - - - - 19-21 2005 - 123 Germany - - - - 0 2010 Extinct 124 Greece 12 1996 4 2002 6-7 1996-2010 20-25% Increasing 125 Italy 2 1999 6 2004 5 2010 Increasing 126 Russia - - - - 45 2009 - 127 Spain 56 1996 81 2001 81 2003 - 128 Switzerland - - 1 2004 4 2010 Increasing 129 Turkey 100 1996 400-700 2001 100-500 1996, 2006 Unknown 130

Objective(s)

1) In the short term, to maintain and enhance the existing Bearded Vulture populations in Europe.

2) In the long term, to encourage the recolonisation of the former range.

Evaluation Although the populations in the Alps are increasing, without current population trend data from Turkey (the European population stronghold), it is not possible to say whether the short term target of maintaining or enhancing the population in Europe has been met.

120 Using data obtained from this review and from additional sources in the case of France, Spain, Georgia and Russia. 121 Data from R. Zink, pers comm. 122 Population data for France was not obtained through this review but from de Seynes et al. 2009. Trend data from R. Zink, pers comm. 123 Gavashelishvili, 2005. 124 Henning Werth and Andreas von Lindeiner, Landesbund für Vogelschutz e.V. (LBV), NABU-Partner Bavaria 125 Xirouchakis & Tsiakiris, 2009. 126 Enrico Bassi for Stelvio National Park 3 breeding pairs Christian Chioso for Regione Autonoma Valle d-Aosta 1 breeding pair 127 Based on repeated surveys from 1997-98 to 2008, Karyakin et al., 2009. 128 Population data for Spain was not obtained through this review but from Martí and del Moral 2003 129 Database of the International Bearded Vulture Monitoring. Note that this is the number of pairs that actually did start to breed in 2010. 130 Kence & Bilgin, 1996; Guven et al., 2006.

145

The populations of Crete, mainland Greece, FYR Macedonia, and Corsica have decreased or gone extinct and natural recolonisation of former range has not taken place, meaning that the long-term target has not been met..

Conservation and Legal Status The Global IUCN Red List Category of the Bearded Vulture is Least Concern as the species has an extremely large range covered by two subspecies. The species is listed as Vulnerable (SPEC 3) under criteria C1;C2a(i) in the European IUCN Red List (BirdLife International, 2004), and is listed in Annex I of the EU Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC, ‘Birds Directive’), in Appendix III of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention), in Appendix II of the CMS and in Appendix II of CITES. The species is legally protected in all European range states covered by the plan. In Andalusia, Spain, the species receives the highest degree of protection at regional level ("En peligro de extinción"/ "Endangered") by law 8/2003 and under the Deliberazione Giunta Regionale N. 7/4345 in Italy, the Bearded Vulture is considered as one of the most important species which is granted full protection and specific actions for its conservation.

Overview of past and current threats In central Europe, there is high likelihood that the species will suffer from new human- caused threats such as wind turbines and poisoned baits aimed at reducing numbers of re- established wolves (e.g. in the Alps). A recent study showed for the Alps that a decrease of the actual annual survival from 0.96 to 0.92 would endanger the success of the reintroduction project. This implies that only a few (presently less than 5) fatal collisions with wind farms per year would turn the slowly growing alpine Bearded Vulture population into a declining one and may even bring it to the verge of extinction (Schaub et al. 2009). The food searching strategy of this scavenger (distant and long lasting flights) and its low reproduction rate make the Bearded Vulture presumably more susceptible to collisions with wind farms than other species. The severe concern on the vulnerability of Bearded Vultures is supported by recent investigations on the endangered Egyptian Vulture in Spain (Carrete et al. 2009), demonstrating that wind farms significantly affect the extinction risk of this species.

146

Table 35 Table of importance of Bearded Vulture threats by country131. The current level of importance132 of threats listed in 1999 SAP and newly identified threats are listed for each country. The original importance level of the threats as listed in the 1999 SAP are included in brackets Threats identified in 1999 Threats identified in 2010

Poisoning critical) (potentially Decline in extensive livestock farming (high) Habitat lossand deterioration (high) Overhead cables (high) Food shortage high) (locally Disturbance high) (potentially Illegal shooting high) (locally Lead poisoning Wind farms changes use Land Cattle medicines etc.) (antibiotics, ingestion Rising dependance food local on provision by humans Austria L L L M L M M H/M M/L L U L France M/L L L M L L L H/M M/L L U L H/ Germany L H M L L H L M M/L L U L Greece H C M M M L C C L Italy M/L M/L L M L M/L L H/M M/L L U Spain - Andalusia C H H H L M H C U Switzerland L L L M L M L H/M M/L L U L Turkey H H C H H H H

Assessment of the implementation National and regional species action plans A national species Recovery Plan is in place in Spain (Decree 45/2003). National and international working groups coordinate the activities in the Alps and in the Pyrenees.

Species conservation Poisoning, shooting and disturbance Shooting has been a major historical threat and has been practised up until now e.g. in Crete, Austria, Italy, Switzerland and France. Nevertheless the limitation of disturbance at the nest and shooting has received a much better level of implementation in western and central Europe. Since shooting is a threat to the species in Spain (Heredia 2004), non- hunting areas have been declared from 1 December until the end of hunting season. Non- hunted areas have turned out to be the favoured breeding sites also in the Alps. In Spain the breeding grounds are regulated and monitored (for hunting, sports, forestry, etc.) between 1 December and 15 May. In the Italian regional Deliberazione Giunta Regionale N. 8/6648, the Lombardia Administration lists a set of activities that should be avoided for the conservation of the Bearded Vulture (including free climbing, fly-overs by airplanes, hand- and paragliding, etc.). In the proximity of the breeding cliffs it is

131 Information on threats facing the Lammergeier for the Alpine Countrys was provided by R.Zink (International Bearded vulture Monitoring). No response on threats facing the Lammergeier was received from Spain (nationally). 132 L= Low; M/L= Medium/ Low; M = Medium; H/M = High/ Medium; H = High; C = Critical; U = Unknown.

147

forbidden to build new powerlines and it is requirement to provide mitigation actions on existing powerlines. Breeding sites are thoroughly monitored within the International Bearded Vulture Monitoring carried out in the entire Alpine range. In Greece (Crete), regular patrolling and warding of the species nesting areas is carried out during the most critical stages of its breeding cycle The Andalusian population of Bearded Vultures only includes individuals younger than 4 years old, so protection of breeding areas is not needed but foreseen in the near future. Enforcing avoidance of disturbance and wardening of unsuccessful breeding pairs in Switzerland has been implemented by the Foundation for the Bearded Vultures in collaboration with the regional authorities.

Availability of food In general the populations should be self-sustaining in terms of food resources in the long term. Wild ungulates and/or domestic livestock serve as a main food source. Promoting the provision of food sources (primarily bones) at feeding sites has helped to push forward the positive population trend in the French and Spanish Pyrenees. In some distribution ranges e.g. on the island of Corse (France), food shortage is know to be the main factor inhibiting population growth. In areas where the species has been reintroduced (e.g. the Alps (Zink, 2005c) and Andalusia) natural food sources (including domestic livestock) are expected to be sufficient to maintain self-sustaining populations. Traditional dumping sites are illegal in Andalusia (due to EU regulations) and were closed years ago. A Governmental Network of Feeding Sites for Scavenger Birds (RACAC- Red Andaluza de Comederos para Aves Carroñeras) has been developed but these sites are rarely used by the Bearded Vulture (less than 1% of the localizations in these feeding sites). New regional regulation is currently being developed to implement the more open EU regulations regarding carcass disposal, but no improvement has been achieved yet. A viability study is needed for the Pyrenees. Artificial feeding might heavily influence the viability of this subpopulation. Eight feeding stations are functioning on the island of Crete, Greece, which are run by the NHMC. However artificial feeding has not been an obligation of competent authorities (e.g. Dept of Environment, Region of Crete or Forestry Services). The NHMC has promoted the regular provision of carrion to these sites through the collaboration with stockbreeder associations or local farmers. No actions have been taken to ensure provision of Bearded Vulture food sources in Switzerland since 1999, but illegal feeding by private persons is occurring.

Site conservation There are 40 IBAs designated for the species in Europe, of which 33 are in the EU (the remaining 7 are in Turkey). There are 54 SPAs in the EU designated for the species. 10- 50% of the most important European population (Turkey) is included in IBAs. In the region of Aragon (Spain) 90% of the Bearded Vulture breeding areas is included in SPAs and 100% of the population in Andalusia is included in SPAs. In addition, the majority of the Italian breeding range is included in the network of the protected areas.

148

Several Bearded Vulture territories have also been declared as hunting reserves in Greece. As the total population of the species is located in Crete, statutory framework was prioritized for Bearded Vulture territories on the island. A LIFE project has been funded by EU for the management of the species and its habitats on Crete, including work on elaborating Special Environmental Studies in three SPA sites and Special Management Plans in three more Natura 2000 sites targeting the species. In Andalusia, a common "Recovery and Management Action Plan for Scavenger Birds" at regional level has been drawn by the Andalusian Environmental Government, and it is expected to be passed in the following months. Switzerland is not a member of the EU and so there are no SPAs, nor any protected areas formally included in the Natura 2000 network.

Habitat conservation The distribution/density of Ibex (Capra ibex) and a combination of spacious pastures in close proximity to steep cliffs (preferably limestone) have been found to be key factors when modelling Bearded Vulture habitat in the Alps (Hirzel et al., 2004, Zink, 2006). Conserving the species’ habitat and ensuring the implementation of effective habitat protection policy has received a good level of implementation, with the exception of Turkey, where work has been limited. In the year 2009 the European bearded vulture experts have agreed upon a resolution to mitigate the risks caused by wind turbines133. The Andalusian Environmental Government environmentally assesses and reports every project inside the Natural Protected Areas (including Natura 2000 Network). Additionally, the Andalusian Gypaetus Foundation assesses projects that potentially affect the Bearded Vulture in the foreseen reintroduction areas. These reports are issued to the environmental authorities in order to have Bearded Vulture-specific assessment to evaluate the projects. A "Manual for the Preventive conservation of the Bearded Vulture and its Habitat" in Spain have been published by the Gypaetus Foundation. There have been no specific cases of damaging developments in Bearded Vulture areas in Italy, but mitigative or conservative measures have been implemented in the breeding areas.

Other specific conservation measures The overall strategy of the Vulture Conservation Foundation is to preserve the remaining fragile populations and to boost connectivity by reintroduction (Zink, 2000, Zink, 2002, Zink, 2004, Zink, 2005b, Zink, 2009) among the remaining rather isolated population nuclei in central and Western Europe. Since 2010 new release sites have been chosen to bridge between the Alpine and Pyrenean populations. In the long term, the former distribution range in the Balkans could be re-established (cf. Balkan Vulture Action Plan - www.balkanvultures.net). The Andalusian Government has promoted a Reintroduction Program134 that is being implemented by the Gypaetus Foundation. Currently all

133 For more info see: see: http://www.stelviopark.it/Italiano/Convegno_Gipeto/Resolution_20091217.pdf 134 For more info see: www.gypaetus.org (in spanish)

149

individuals released so far in Andalusia, as well as the Breeding Centre, are the result of this program.

Monitoring and Research There has been significant progress made in monitoring and surveying the population. Monitoring programmes exist in most countries at a national level, in the Alps (Zink et al., 2007) (www.gyp-monitoring .com) and in the Pyrenees also on the international level. The majority of work has focussed on annual monitoring of the breeding populations, defining population data and reproduction criteria (Fasce et al., 2005, Zink, 2005a). However, a lot of effort has been made to monitoring also individuals especially in the Alps (Zink 95-100) and more recently in Andalusia. In the Alps the monitoring is carried out within the framework of the “International Bearded Vulture Monitoring (IBM)” and is based primarily on the three pylons: common observations, satellite telemetry and genetic re-identification135. In addition to monitoring of the breeding populations in the Pyrenees, in Corsica and in Crete, all Bearded Vultures released in Andalusia and in the Alps are constantly monitored, including general public surveys, Satellite-GPS radio-tagging and direct observation on the field. Determining the causes of death are critical for the Andalusian population and this work is regularly implemented by the Regional Government. Future studies regarding seasonal food availability and future trends on extensive stockbreeding activity are needed. Genotyping, telemetry and alpine monitoring are coordinated and sustained by International Bearded Vulture Monitoring and its partners for Switzerland, Austria, Italy and France.

Research into threats Research investigating causes of death and the threats to the species has received a moderate level of work in the EU. For each dead or injured individual recovered, the partners of IBM try to detect the real cause of death or disease. Lead poisoning caused by fragments of hunting ammunition remaining in shot carcasses has turned out to be a major threat for birds of prey (Fisher et al., 2006). Lead poisoning can be a crucial factor determining the viability of reintroduced vulture species (Fry, 2003, Fry et al., 2009, Green et al., 2009) and are known to especially harm the European vulture (Mateo, 2009, Rodriguez-Ramos et al., 2009) and eagle species (Fünfstück, 2006, Kenntner et al., 2007). In the last years IBM and some partners focused their interest on lead poisoning after some cases of intoxication. In Spain, eggs were analyzed to check for problems with different substances. Since 2009 Stelvio National Park and Sondrio Administration Province (Italy) have been carrying out an experimental investigation assessing the level of threat posed by lead bullet fragments in from ungulates that have been shot during the hunting season. As result of the analysis of the 5 Bearded Vulture carcasses died in the Andalusian Bearded Vulture Reintroduction Project, lead poisoning has been demonstrated as the first cause of death for the species in Andalusia. Currently Gypaetus Foundation, is implementing a Action Plan regarding lead intoxication. This includes the study of

135 See: http://www.gyp-monitoring.com/cms/files/ibm_annual_report_2009.pdf

150

potential sources of lead or the promotion of lead free ammunition for big game in the reintroduction areas by means of target groups cooperation (hunter associations, hunting environmental officers, etc). In France some of the released bearded vultures became victim of collision with aerial cables. Intensive research about the risk of aerial collisions has been made since that. In hot spot areas of the species (e.g. in the department of Savoie) aerial cables have been marked in order to avoid further collisions.

International cooperation Every year the partners of IBM (International Bearded vulture Monitoring) in collaboration with Vulture Conservation Foundation and Alparc meets at a specific meeting on the Bearded Vulture to exchange information and experiences from the Alpine countries, Spain and other countries covering the distribution of the bearded vulture. A Bearded Vulture network was established through LIFE projects' initiative from beneficiaries form Spain, the Alps136 (France, Italy, Austria) and Greece. Its effectiveness has been key in improving field techniques and management tools as well as the production of common public awareness material.

The Andalusian reintroduction project is oriented to the recovery of the species at regional level, but is also part of an international initiative to recover all circun- mediterranean populations led by the Vulture Conservation Foundation (VCF), including conservation and reintroduction projects in France, Austria, Italy and Switzerland, between others. All this project shares best international breeding, monitoring and releasing methodologies and standards. All reintroduction projects in the frame of VCF are also part of the EEP (European Endangered Species Breeding Program), meaning a common Stud Book policy and a continuous exchange of exemplars when needed.

Public awareness and stakeholder involvement Public awareness and stakeholder involvement actions have been fairly well implemented in the EU. Several conservation organizations and regional (Aragon, Andalusia, etc) and national (Spain) governments have made public awareness campaigns on the problem of the poisoning (seminars, conferences, etc) and have produced awareness-raising materials (internet information and other). Quarterly an email newsletter137 (English) is distributed among all conservationists working on the bearded vulture. It intends to exchange relevant information all over Europe. In Andalusia, strong awareness rising campaigns have been developed against shooting and disturbances in the frame of the Bearded Vulture Reintroduction Program, including promotion of hunters' and stockbreeder associations’ prominence and participation in awareness raising initiatives. In Greece, a massive public awareness campaign was implemented, targeting all big raptors on the island of Crete, with the Bearded Vulture being the flagship species.

136 see http://www.gypaete-barbu.com/download/bilan.pdf 137 The newsletter can be ordered free of charge at: [email protected].

151

Disseminative actions took place in several protected areas where the species occurs in Italy. A general lack of information is apparent in large parts of the Italian mountains where the species is not common or rare. A campaign is being implemented in Switzerland which attempts to reduce the use of lead ammunition (promoting the use of other, eg copper-based, ammunition). Also, the campaign advocates the removal of potentially lead-polluted body parts of animals shot for hunting purposes. The campaign will be further developed and adapted as needed.

Community financial support Eleven LIFE projects138 that benefit the Bearded Vulture have been implemented during the period 2000-2010 in France (2), Greece (2), Italy (1), Italy and Switzerland (1), and Spain (5), with a total budget of more than 7.7 million Euros, of which the total European Union contribution was more than 5 million Euros. In addition, over 220,000 Euros of national government and other funding has been invested in conservation of the Bearded Vulture.

Conclusions The progress in the overall implementation of the action plan is good but further work is still needed (overall IS=2.6). The SAP has been most successfully implemented in the Alps. However, the country that holds the most significant proportion of the European population – Turkey – has made the least progress in the implementation of the action plan (National Implementation Score: 1.16), with no specific actions having been taken since the implementation of the action plan. The most progress has been made in implementing effective species and habitat protection policy as well as developing international Bearded Vulture conservation projects, promoting international co-operation and conducting of surveys and monitoring of the population. The least progress has been made in promoting the provision of wild and domestic food sources, including implementing effective policy to ensure provision of food sources. However, provision of food sources is not necessary in most of the distribution area. Only in Corsica (France) is severe lack of food thought to be the main factor for population decline (low reproduction). National implementation scores are highest in Switzerland, Austria, average in Germany, Spain and Greece and lowest in Turkey. Further measures/work still needed especially in the field of: • Re-establishing the tradition of dumping animal carcasses at specific places near villages with full agreement and cooperation of local authorities, local farmers and hunters. • Ensuring that livestock that dies in the field is left out for the Bearded Vulture. • Carrying out specific supplementary feeding in island populations.

138 LIFE94 NAT/GR/001557; LIFE98 NAT/GR/005276; LIFE02 NAT/GR/8492; LIFE03 NAT/F/000100; LIFE 98 NAT/E/005296; LIFE98 NAT/F/005197; LIFE07 NAT/IT/000436; LIFE02 NAT/E/008624; LIFE09 NAT/ES/000533; LIFE04 NAT/ES/000034; LIFE04 NAT/ES/000056.

152

• Determining causes of repeated breeding failure in island populations through detailed research. • Reducing mortality risks such as wind turbines, aerial cables, poisoned baits and lead poisoning and preparing specific information materials and implementing and targeted campaigns where poisoning is a problem.

Contributors Richard Zink (International Bearded Vulture Monitoring & Vulture Conservation Foundation, Austria); Markus Nipkow (NABU – BirdLife Germany); Stavros Xirouchakis (Natural History Museum of Crete, University of Crete); Enrico Bassi (Stelvio National Park); Juan Antonio Gil Gallús (Fundación para la Conservación del Quebrantahuesos); Sergio Couto González (Gypaetus Foundation); Raffael Ayé (Swiss Association for the Protection of Birds/BirdLife Switzerland), Michael Schaad ((Swiss Association for the Protection of Birds/BirdLife Switzerland); Daniel Hegglin (Foundation for the Bearded Vultures); Elif Yamac (Anadolu University).

153

Appendix 1 Table 36 Implementation of the action plan in the European range states139. PS = Priority Score; Ave. IS = Average Implementation Score; API = Action Priority Index; National IS = National Implementation Score.

Ave. Action Measure PS AU DE FR GR IT ES CH TR API IS 1.1.1 Implement effective species protection policy for the Bearded Vulture 3 3.3 4 3.7 3 3.3 4 3.3 1.7 3.3 0.7 a. The Bearded Vulture receives the highest degree of legal protection at international and 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 3.8 0.3 national level. b. National catalogues and inventories of threatened species are elaborated and recovery plans 3 2 4 3 2 2 4 2 1 2.6 1.4 are incorporated into domestic legislation. c. All range states are party to relevant international treaties and conventions, in particular the 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 3.4 0.4 Bern Convention. 1.2.1 Implement effective habitat protection policy 3 2.8 3.5 2.8 2.5 3.5 3.5 0 1.5 2.9 1.1 a. Environmental Impact Assessment carried out for all activities likely to affect habitats or 3 2.5 3 2.5 2 3 4 0 2 2.8 1.3 species on SPAs. b. The majority of Bearded Vulture territories are included in the European networks of 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 0 1 3.0 1.0 protected areas. 1.3.1 Implement effective policy to ensure provision of Bearded Vulture food sources 2.5 2 1 2.5 2 3 2 2.5 1 2.1 1.6 a. Common Agriculture Policy ensures maintenance of traditional farming practices in 3 2 1 3 2 3 1 4 1 2.2 1.8 mountain areas throughout the EU. b. Traditional system of disposal of animal carcasses near villages is restored. 2 0 1 2 2 0 3 1 1 1.7 1.5 2.1.1 Limit the threats to the Bearded Vulture 2 2.4 0 3.3 1.8 3.8 2.8 3.3 1.3 2.5 1.0 a. Disturbance at breeding sites during incubation and the early stages of breeding prevented. 2 2.5 0 3 2 4 2 3 1 2.4 1.0 b. All human activity within 1 km around the nest restricted. 2 2 0 4 1 4 3 3 1 2.5 1.0 c. Wardening campaigns undertaken at sites where Bearded Vultures regularly fail to breed 2 3 0 3 1 4 3 4 1 2.6 0.9 succesfully. d. Prohibitions on shooting Bearded Vultures effectively enforced. 2 2 0 3 3 3 3 3 2 2.6 0.9 2.2.1 Promote the provision of wild and domestic food sources 3 2 2 2.5 2 2 2 1.8 1.3 2.1 1.9 a. Specific supplementary feeding in all the European populations (especially island 4 0 1 2 3 0 3 1 2 2.3 2.3 populations) carried out.

139 AU = Austria; DE=Germany; FR = France; GR=Greece; IT=Italy; ES=Spain (National); CH =Switzerland; TK=Turkey.

154

b. Restoration of wild ungulate populations promoted and poaching of them controlled. 2 4 4 3 1 3 0 4 1 2.8 0.8 c. Livestock that dies in the field is left out for the vultures. 3 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1.6 2.4 d. Tradition of dumping animal carcasses at a specific place near the villages is re-established 3 1 0 3 1 0 0 1 1 1.7 2.3 with full agreement and cooperation of local authorities, local farmers and hunters. 2.3.1 Conserve the species' habitat 3 2 0 3 2 3.5 2.5 2 1 2.4 1.6 a. IBAs which include the Bearded Vulture are designated as Special Protection Areas. 3 2 0 3 3 3 3 0 1 2.6 1.4 b. Damaging developments (eg. road construction) prohibited or appropriately modified in 3 2 0 3 1 4 2 2 1 2.3 1.8 Bearded Vulture areas. 2.4.1 Develop international conservation projects that benefit the Bearded Vulture 3 4 0 4 2 4 0 4 1 3.1 0.9 International conservation projects submitted to the EU LIFE regulation or other funding 3 4 0 4 2 4 0 4 1 3.1 0.9 agencies. 3.1.1 Promote international cooperation and exchange of experience among experts working 4 4 3 4 2 4 1 4 1 3.0 1.3 on the species. International cooperation and exchange of experience occurs among experts working on the 4 4 3 4 2 4 1 4 1 3.0 1.3 species. 3.2.1 Conduct surveys and monitoring of the population 3 4 2 3.6 2.6 3.3 4 4 1.2 3.1 0.9 a. Baseline surveys of population status conducted in countries where the species is less 3 4 2 4 2 3 4 4 2 3.1 0.9 known. b. Regular monitoring of the breeding population, including breeding success, carried out. 3 4 0 4 3 4 4 4 1 3.4 0.6 c. Annual searches conducted to identify new pairs. 3 4 2 4 3 2 4 4 1 3.0 1.0 d. Attendance at feeding stations monitored. 2 0 2 2 2 0 4 0 1 2.2 1.2 e. Adequate monitoring and follow up of reintroduction projects in place. 2 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 1 3.1 0.6 3.3.1 Undertake research on requirements and factors influencing population trends sufficient 2 4 0 2.2 1.8 3 2.4 3.3 1 2.5 1.0 to prepare national recovery plans. a. Studies on population dynamics and age structure and complete PVA carried out on islands 2 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1.4 1.7 and countries where the species is decreasing. b. Causes of repeated breeding failure in island populations determined through detailed 3 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1.4 2.6 research. c. Causes of mortality, survival rates and dispersal patterns determined by satellite tracking. 3 4 0 4 3 4 3 3 1 3.1 0.9 d. Research developed on genetic variation at European and global level, with genetic studies 2 4 0 2 2 3 3 4 1 2.6 0.9 determining the degree of inbreeding in isolated populations. e. Research conducted on food availability, especially in winter, where scarcity is believed to 2 4 0 3 2 2 3 3 1 2.5 1.0 be factor. 3.4.1 Examine specimens to determine cause of death/failure and levels of environmental 1 3.0 1.0 2.3 1.3 2.7 3 3.3 1 2.1 0.6

155

contaminants a. Pathological examinations of dead specimens conducted to determine cause of death. 2 4 0 4 2 4 3 4 1 3.0 0.7 b. Examinations of failed eggs/ eggshells with suspected or confirmed high pesticide levels or from pairs with repeated breeding failure conducted, to determine fertility and embryo 1 3 0 2 1 2 3 2 1 1.9 0.7 development. c. Exposure and incidence of lead poisoning in untested populations or in susceptible 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 4 1 1.8 0.7 populations investigated. 4.1.1 Improve and maintain public awareness of the Bearded Vulture, its habitats and 3 2.3 0 2.7 2.3 2 2 2 1 2.2 1.8 conservation needs a. Information and education materials about the threats to Bearded Vulture prepared, targeted 2.5 2 0 3 3 2 2 3 1 2.3 1.4 at landowners, hunters and livestock farmers. b. Where poisoning is a problem, specific information materials prepared and targeted 4 2 0 2 3 1 2 2 1 2.1 2.5 campaign implemented. c. Special section on the Bearded Vulture incorporated in information centers within PAs 2 3 0 3 1 3 2 1 1 2.0 1.3 where the species occurs. National & Average IS 3.0 2.6 3.1 2.2 3.2 2.6 3.1 1.2 2.6

156

References

BirdLife International 2009. Gypaetus barbatus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. . Downloaded on 20 August 2010.

Fasce, P., Fasce, L., & Zink, R. (2005). Terminology of population data and reproductive parameters, Vienna: FCBV, 2005. Fisher, I. J., Pain, D. J., & Thomas, V. G. (2006). A review of lead poisoning from ammunition sources in terrestrial birds. Biological Conservation 131, 421-432.

Fry, D. M. (2003). Assessment of lead contamination sources exposing California condor, Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Game Habitat Conservation Planning Branch.

Fry, K., Sorenson, K., Grantham, J., Burnett, J., Brandt, J., & Koenig, M. Lead Intoxication Kinetics in Condors from California, R. T. watson et al., eds., Boise, Idaho, USA, The Peregrine Fund, 5668 West Flying Hawk Lane, Boise, Idaho, USA. www.peregrinefund.org.

Fünfstück, H.-J. (2006). Todesursachen beim Steinadler Aquila chrysaetos im Werdenfelser Land mit Anmerkungen zur Bleivergiftung als Todesursache bei Greifvögeln. pp. 91-96. Ornithologische Gesellschat in Bayern e.V.

Green, R. E., Hunt, G., Parish, C. N., & Newton, I. Effectiveness of Action to Reduce Exposure of Free-Ranging California Condors in Arizona and Utah to Lead from Spent Ammunition, R. T. watson et al., eds., Boise, Idaho, USA, The Peregrine Fund, 5668 West Flying Hawk Lane, Boise, Idaho, USA. www.peregrinefund.org.

Hirzel, A. H., Posse, B., Oggier, P.-A., Crettenand, Y., Glenz, C., & Arlettaz, R. (2004). Ecological requirements of reintroduced species and the implications for release policy: the case of the bearded vulture. Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 1103-1116.

Kenntner, N., Crettenand, Y., Fünfstück, H.-J., Janovsky, M., & Tataruch, F. (2007). Lead poisoning and heavy metal exposure of golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) from the European Alps. Journal of Ornithology 148, 173-177.

Mateo, R. Lead Poisoning in Wild Birds in Europe and the Regulations Adopted by Different Countries, R. T. watson et al., eds., Boise, Idaho, USA, The Peregrine Fund, 5668 West Flying Hawk Lane, Boise, Idaho, USA. www.peregrinefund.org.

Rodriguez-Ramos, J., Gutierrez, V., Höfle, U., Mateo, R., Monsalve, L., Crespo, E., & Blanco, J. M. Lead in Griffon and Cinereous Vultures in Central Spain: Correlations Between Clinical Signs and Blood Lead Levels, R. T. watson et al., eds., Boise, Idaho, USA, The Peregrine Fund, 5668 West Flying Hawk Lane, Boise, Idaho, USA. www.peregrinefund.org. de Seynes, A., and les coordinateurs-espèce. 2009. [Rare and endangered breeding birds in France in 2008]. Ornithos 16:153-184.

157

Zink, R. (2000). Development of the Bearded Vulture (Gypaetus barbatus) population in the Alps with special focus on Austria. Buteo 11, 77-96.

Zink, R. Dispersal and survival of Bearded vultures in the Alps. Which habitats are suitable? Results of the international Bearded vulture Monitoring., C. Clement, ed., Tende, France, LPO Mission Fir, pp. 95-100.

Zink, R. Alpine Monitoring of Bearded Vultures Gypaetus barbatus: preliminary data on dispersal, pair settlement and survival, in Raptors Worldwide, R. D. &. B. U. Chancellor, ed., Meyburg, pp. 185-193.

Zink, R. (2005a). "Monitoring" an Evaluation Tool to Determine Reintroduction Success, Vienna: FCBV, 2005.

Zink, R. Alpine Bearded Vulture Project: If Ending Releases Signifies Success of Project, S. Kaserer & K. Bauch, eds., Kaprun, Hohe Tauern National Park, pp. 261-269.

Zink, R. (2005c). Modellierung der Nahrungsverfügbarkeit und des Habitatpotenzials für Bartgeier (Gypaetus barbatus barbatus) in den österreichischen Alpen, Doktor der Naturwissenschaften, Universität Wien.

Zink, R. (2006). Habitatanalyse unter Verwendung von GIS am Beispiel des Bartgeiers (Gypaetus barbatus)., Greifvögel & Eulen - Neue Forschungsergebnisse aus Österreich, edited by A. Gamauf & H.-M. Berg, pp. 49-59. Wien: Verlag Naturhistorisches Museum Wien.

Zink, R. Bearded vulture monitoring program in the Alps, Jaén, Spain, Fundación Gypaetus.

Zink, R., Kriz, G., Beissmann, H., & Suchentunk, F. (2007). Web-Based Monitoring System For Spacious Moving Birds - A Case Study in the Bearded Vulture (Gypaetus barbatus)., Antalya, p. 97.

158

Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni

Background The Lesser Kestrel International Species Action Plan was adopted in 1996 (Biber, 1996) by the Ornis Committee and endorsed by the Bern and Bonn Conventions. The implementation of the action plan was last reviewed in 2004 (Nagy & Crockford, 2004). This review evaluates the implementation of the Species Action Plan from 2004 to 2010, in the European range states of the lesser kestrel. It covers the majority of the breeding population in Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, France, Georgia, Gibraltar, Greece, Italy, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and Ukraine, as well as Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia. Replies to the evaluation questionnaire were received from national and regional (in the case of Italy and Spain) experts. Since the lesser kestrel is extinct in Slovakia, only information on the population status was provided by this country. Population data for Spain was obtained through compilation of different censuses carried out at regional level between 2000 and 2007 and it is probably underestimated (Inigo pers. com). No information was provided by Albania, Gibraltar, Moldova and Russia. Population data for European Russia was obtained from Galushin (2009).

General overview Progress in the overall implementation of the action plan is fairly poor (Average IS= 1.9) and much more work is still needed. Spain which holds the majority of the population has made significant progress in some actions, but weak coordination at national level makes it difficult to evaluate the effect of these actions on the population. 4 4

3.5 3.5

3 3

2.5 2.5 I 2 2 AP

Average IS Average 1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.2 Action

Figure xv Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each Action listed in the Lesser Kestrel species action plan. Colours represent Priority Score.

159

Status review The European population is estimated at 25,000-42,000 pairs, with roughly half of these in Spain (BirdLife International, 2010). The overall population trend for the European population is increasing. Information for this implementation report was collected through a questionnaire. An approximate estimate for the European breeding range of 29,900-34,500 pairs can be extracted from this data (Table 1).

Table 37 Population estimate and trend by country Population Population Current at the time of at the 2004 Breeding Country Year Year population Year Reference the 1996 review trend (pairs) SAP (pairs) (pairs) 1998- Albania∗ 100-1000 1994 0-20 - - - - 2002 2000- 2003- 30 - 80% Armenia - - 15-60 20 - 35 140 2002 2010 Increasing 1996- 2007- Azerbaijan - - 500-3,000 1,000 Fluctuating 141 2000 2010 Bosnia & 1990- - - 0-250 10 - 50 2010 Unknown HG 2000 1995- 2000- Bulgaria 57-100 1994 0-5 0 Decreasing 142 2000 2010 Croatia 5-10 1994 0 2002 >20 2010 Unknown 143 2005 Cyprus - - - - 0 - Unknown 2009 Czech 2001- - - - - 0 Stable 144 Republic 2003 370-432% France 31-33 1994 72 2003 259 2009 145 Increasing 1994- 2005- 10 - 15% Georgia 700 1994 20-100 80 - 120146 147 2003 2008 Decreasing Gibraltar* - - 4-10 2000 - - ? ? 2004- Small Greece 2,700-3,240 1994/5 2,000-3,480 2000 2,480 - 2,900 2009 decrease 2000- Hungary - - - - 0 2010 Italy 1,300–1,500 1994 3,640-3,840 2001 4,500 - 5,500 2007- 19 - 31% 148

∗ Indicates countries for which no information on population status was received - Indicates no data available 140 www.aspbirds.org 141 Survey conducted in 2007-2008.with >50 breeding colonies and 20 nests in average recorded. Survey covered < 20% of suitable habitat. 142 Atlas of Breeding Birds in Bulgaria (BSPB, 2007) and Green Balkans Ornithological Database (2010) 143 Personal observation 144 Stastny et al., 2006. 145 Data from LPO 146 Data from Pilard et al., 2008 147 IBA project in Georgia. 2005-2008

160

2009 Increasing 2002- Macedonia - - 1,500-3,000 2002 1,000 - 1,500 Decreasing 149 2003 1990- Moldova∗ 7-12 1989 3-6 - - - - 2000 1990- 1990- Montenegro - - 0-6 0 Unknown 2002 2010 Poland - - - - 0 2009 150 54% Portugal 150 1994 349-376 2003 427 - 462 2006 151 Increasing 1990- Romania 120-130 1989 0-5 0 - 2 2010 Decreasing 152 2002 Russia 70-150 1994 300-400 2004 1,100153 2009 Increasing (European)* 1990- Serbia - - 0-6 0 2009 Decreasing 154 2002 2000- Slovakia - - - - 0 Stable 2009 1994- 1994- Slovenia 5-10 1994 0 0 155 2000 2009 12,000- 1994- 14,072- 1997- 8.6% Spain* 5,000-8,000 1994 157 20,000 2002 14,686 pairs156 2005 Increasing 21 - 30% Turkey 1,500-3,500 1994 5,000-7,000 2001 5,000 - 7,000 2004 158 Decreasing 1990- 2004- Ukraine 200-300 1994 5-10 0 Unknown 159 2000 2010

Objective (s) The short term target of the 1996 action plan is to maintain all known Lesser Kestrel breeding colonies at their 1994 levels or larger. In the medium to long term, the target is to increase the population size of the Lesser Kestrel to a level at which it no longer qualifies as a globally threatened species.

148 Sigismondi et al., 2001; Mascara & Sarà, 2006; Sigismondi et al., 2003 ; Bux, 2008 ; Sarà, 2008. 149 unpublished data of M. Velevski, B. stumberger, T. Lisicanec, E. Stoynov, B. Grubac ∗ Indicates countries for which no information on population status was received - Indicates no data available 150 Once a sporadic breeder, now accidental. Tomialojc & Stawarczyk, 2003; Komisja Faunistyczna, 2008. 151 Henriques et al., 2006. 152 published record for 1-2 breeding pairs in the Danube Delta at the beginning of the 2000s; no other confirmed/records of breeding during the last 20 years 153 Data from Galushin et al., 2009 154 Grubac, pers. comm.. 155 Personal observations from members of DOPPS, Natural History Museum and Nature Conservation Institute of the Rep. of Slovenia 156 Data from SEO, 2008. 157 Percentage annual average change 8.6% (4.7 – 12.5) over the period 1998-2008. Del Moral et al., 2010. 158 Kılıç & Eken, 2004 159 Data on numbers of 1-2 breeding pairs in Donetsk Region were not proved by checking

161

Evaluation The short term target of ‘maintaining all known Lesser Kestrel breeding colonies at their 1994 levels or larger’ has been met in most areas, at least in the European range, where the majority of the breeding populations have increased since 1994, except in those countries where the species has gone extinct (e.g. Bulgaria, Romania). However, population estimates from outside of Europe (notably Turkey, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan) need to be obtained or improved in quality in order to confirm this trend in the rest of the breeding range.

To evaluate the achievement of the target ‘increasing the population size to a level at which it no longer qualifies as a globally threatened species’ the up-to-date population estimates from the countries contributing to this review have been used. In order to be down-listed to Near Threatened on the IUCN Red List, the population should have been stable or should have not declined more than 30% over the last 10 years/ 3 generations (whichever is longer). The data presented in Table 1 shows that at least in the key populations this decline has been halted: these populations are either fluctuating, increasing or experiencing small declines. Therefore, if population estimates from outside of Europe (notably Turkey, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan) confirm these results, the long term target of the plan should also be achieved. However, quantitative data from these range states was not available for this review160.

Conservation and Legal Status The Global IUCN Red List Category of the Lesser Kestrel is Vulnerable with criteria A2b,c,e; A3b,c,e; A4b,c,e (IUCN, 2010), because it has undergone rapid declines in Western Europe, equivalent to c.46% in each decade since 1950, on its wintering grounds in South Africa, equivalent to c.25% in each decade since 1971, and possibly in parts of its Asian range. It is suspected that this decline is ongoing on the basis of rates of habitat loss and degradation on its breeding and wintering grounds. The species is listed as Depleted (SPEC 1) in the European IUCN Red List (BirdLife International, 2004), and is listed in Annex I of the EU Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC, ‘Birds Directive’), Appendix III of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention), Appendix I and II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS/ Bonn Convention) and Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

The lesser kestrel benefits from complete legal protection across Europe, as well as in Morocco, Tunisia, and Turkey. However, enforcement of the legal requirements needs improvement, particularly in Azerbaijan, Italy, Macedonia FYR, and Spain, as well as in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Romania. Ensuring full legal protection for the species was of a high priority and was fully implemented in all relevant countries. This action was also reported to have the most positive impact on the lesser kestrel population, with significant improvements

160 The threat category of Falco naumanni has been proposed for revision in 2011

162

contributing to the recovery of the affected population reported in Aragon and Andalucía, Spain; Portugal and Cyprus; and slight improvement reported in two other countries containing significant populations). This action therefore requires little future work, but enforcement of legal protection needs to be maintained and increased.

Overview of past and current threats The breeding output of the Lesser Kestrel population has been identified as the key factor determining the population growth rate. Therefore factors affecting breeding success and survival of juveniles to breeding age (recruitment) were found to have the greatest impact on the population. Table 2 reviews the past and current threats to the lesser kestrel.

Table 38 Table of importance of lesser kestrel threats by country161. The current level of importance of threats listed in 1996 SAP and newly identified threats are listed for each country. The original importance level of the threats as listed in the 1996 SAP are included in brackets.

Newly identified Threats identified in 1996 threats in 2010

1996 Assessment (priority indicated in brackets) Habitat loss in breeding Habitat loss in (CR) areas the availability in Reduction use pesticide due to prey of (CR) winter Habitat loss in sitesstopover quarters and (unknown) ofLoss nest-sites (L/M) competition Interspecific (L/M) (L) Pesticide toxicity Human persecution and disturbance (L) Windfarms Shooting powerlines Electrocution change Climate 2010 Assessment Armenia L L Azerbaijan L L L L L Bosnia and Herzegovina CR CR CR L L L H Bulgaria H/ M CR H L M M L H Croatia H M H M M L M Cyprus L L France M M H H M L L H Georgia H L L L L L L Greece H H H L M M Italy CR CR CR M M M M H M M Macedonia M M H L M L Montenegro

161 No response on threats facing the lesser kestrel were received from Albania, Spain, Moldova, Poland, Russia or Gibraltar.

163

Portugal CR L CR M L L M M Serbia CR H L M M M M Slovenia H CR M L M L Turkey H H M M L L Ukraine M H H M

Assessment of the implementation

National and regional species action plans The production and effective implementation of national action plans for the lesser kestrel were listed as high priority actions in the action plan, but have so far received little implementation and so remain a priority for future work. France adopted and implemented a national action plan (Plan National de Restauration du Faucon Crécerellette, 2002-2006), and also developed of a second Action Plan for the period 2010-2014, while in Azerbaijan and Bulgaria such plans are produced by NGOs and are not officially adopted by the Governments. Portugal began developing a national action plan for steppe bird species (including the lesser kestrel) in 2002, but this was never concluded. The Caucasus Regional Species Action Plan for the lesser kestrel was developed in 2008 and includes Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. This plan is pending approval.

Species conservation Management at breeding colonies Management of breeding colonies has been successfully done to some extent in all countries which have them: Spain, Portugal (in Castro Verde region only), Italy (in Basilicata region only), France, Gibraltar and Armenia as this measure has been incorporated in a number of LIFE projects. Thorough experience with restoration and management of colonies has been gained locally. For example, artificial nests have been installed by DEMA at the Iglesia de la Purificación de Almendralejo (80-85 pairs) making it probably the largest colony in Europe located in one building and breeding in artificial nest boxes and SEO/BirdLife has developed a restoration project to install in abandoned church (Iglesia de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Madrigal de las Altas Torres) 120 artificial nest. Some work has been carried out in Italy to promote management at breeding colonies, mainly due to the local LIFE Nature Project ‘Rapaci lucani’ (2005- 2009). This project included the adjustment of building codes of the municipalities of Matera and Montescaglioso, in order to protect and increase lesser kestrel breeding and roosting sites; and the installation of artificial nests integrated with the historical buildings (2,000 artificial nests designed and produced). Portugal has made some progress in promoting appropriate management at breeding colonies, with significant results achieved in providing artificial nests to secure breeding sites. In Portugal one of the most successful actions, despite the licence constraints, is the construction of new buildings that contain nest cavities. Between 2003 – 2006, with the support of a LIFE

164

project162, more than 800 new breeding sites were made available in the two main SPAs where the species occurs. Further implementation of regional management is needed in the rest of Spain, Italy and Portugal. A booklet has been produced in France which for maintaining awareness of cavities under the roofs of human habitation in collaboration with architecture (in Hérault). Agreements have been reached with landowners, breeders and hunting associations for the management of land that favours the Lesser Kestrel in Crau and Aude, France. Putting up of artificial nesting sites in the Crau and Aude. In Greece, nest boxes have been provided in several areas with success by University research projects, Hunting Associations and recently by Hellenic Ornithological Society, but a general overview of the significance of these actions still remains unpublished. In Turkey and Macedonia further work is still needed to protect colonies both in and outside of human settlements. However, FWFF (Fund for Wild Flora and Fauna) have provided nest boxes in Macedonia, with success.

Reintroduction and recolonisation Reintroduction was seen as low priority although some positive examples were reported. In Spain, a breeding centre was created by DEMA in 1990 to reinforce the population and facilitate release programmes in Portugal and France (Aude). Potential Reintroduction of Lesser Kestrel in Bulgaria is in its initial stage, with a feasibility study initiated by the Green Balkans Federation; a habitat model for identifying potentially suitable lesser kestrel restoration sites developed; and lesser kestrel captive-breeding stock obtained. Although low priority overall, reintroduction can help restore the former range of the species, where natural recolonisation is not imminently feasible (unfortunately in some cases the foraging habitat is no longer suitable).

162 LIFE project code: LIFE 02/NAT/P/8481

165

Site conservation The protection of key sites has been implemented to different degrees in each of the countries. Of the countries holding significant populations (>50 pairs), the majority of the respective national populations are protected in Greece (95-96%), Italy (50-90%), Spain (50- 90%), Portugal (91-92%) and France (100%). In 2004 Spain [give figure] designated a new SPA in Extremadura (2004) especially for the lesser kestrel, but further work is required in designating key habitats and breeding/ feeding areas as SPAs, and particularly in acquiring land or reaching agreements with landowners for suitable management for the species. In 2006, France designated a new SPA in Hérault especially for the lesser kestrel.

Only 5-10% of the national population is protected in Azerbaijan, and only 0-10% is protected in Macedonia. Key breeding areas have been designated as Important Bird Areas (IBA) in Turkey, resulting in 50-90% of the national population now being included in IBAs. However, further work is needed to protect steppes and dry grassland habitats in Turkey, as well as ensuring suitable management on privately owned land. A habitat management guide has been created for the lesser kestrel population in Aude, France.

Table 39 Coverage of the key national populations with protected areas. % of nat. % of national % of national population in Country population in population in protected IBAs SPAs areas Azerbaijan 5 - 10% 5 - 10% France 62% 100% 100% Macedonia, FYR 50-90% 0 0-10% Greece 95 - 96% 95 - 96% 0 Italy 10-50% 50-90% 0-10% Portugal 91 - 92% 91 - 92% 6% Russia ? ? ? Spain 50-90% 30-50% 0-10% Turkey 50-90% n/a 0-10%

For countries holding small (<50 pairs) or no breeding populations, progress has been made in designating key (former) breeding/ feeding sites as SPAs, however, further work is still needed in protecting steppes and dry grassland habitat, and ensuring appropriate management on agricultural land.

Habitat conservation Agricultural and forestry policies Ensuring that agricultural policies are sympathetic to wildlife and are compatible with the conservation of the lesser kestrel and other threatened/ declining species is a high priority

166

action. Only Spain has made significant progress in implementing it by ensuring the species benefits from targeted agri-environment measures. The agri-environmental scheme for the main SPA in Portugal has continued (beginning in 1995) and has slightly improved in 2007, but still needs amendments. No other agri- environmental schemes were initiated in other areas where the species breeds in Portugal (these will begin in 2011). There are measures to maintain agri-environmental intensive livestock rearing on the plains of Crau in France. In Bulgaria, agri-environmental measures that support the conservation of pastures (which may benefit the lesser kestrel) are included in the Bulgarian Rural Development Program. The first agri-environmental schemes implemented in Slovenia in 2001 had no special conservation measures for the lesser kestrel and were poorly implemented in both of the Natura 2000 sites that previously may have held lesser kestrels. Little work has been carried out to prevent afforestation of lesser kestrel habitats (an important threat), with the exception of Azerbaijan and Portugal, despite this being a high priority. No particular progress has been made by Turkey in preventing the use of toxic chemicals as well as encouraging land management programs to prevent overgrazing, construction and afforestation in lesser kestrel breeding and foraging areas.

Monitoring and Research Overall, despite being a high priority action and recent scientific interest, the conducting of surveys and monitoring of the lesser kestrel has been patchy. In the key country Spain, only regional surveys have been carried out. The development of a standard methodology for monitoring the species and the carrying out of national surveys at breeding/migrating/ wintering areas is acutely needed. More detailed studies on the ecology, monitoring of demographic parameters and habitat management have been done (e.g. France, Portugal, Italy) largely within LIFE projects. Roosting places are currently being studied in Extremadura, Spain and Sicily, Italy. There has also been research analysing the contamination of eggs and individuals by pesticides in France. National censuses have been conducted every year since 1983 in France.

Information exchange Most of the recent scientific publications on the lesser kestrel originate from Spain, where strong research programmes existed in the 1990s. At present, species working groups exist Armenia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Italy (e.g. Palermo university and/or individuals in other regions). Several species experts in Portugal do not form a formal national working group. In Hungary, scientific information was exchanged between MME's Red-footed Falcon conservation team and Lesser Kestrel experts from Spain between 2006 and 2009. There has been participation of several scientific organisations in France in the study and monitoring of the lesser kestrel in both France and in Senegal.

167

Public awareness and stakeholder involvement Significant progress has been made in raising the awareness of lesser kestrel and their feeding and breeding habitats in Spain, Portugal, France and Armenia.. Websites (e.g. http://www.demaprimilla.org, www.liferapacilucani.it ), ‘lesser kestrel awards’ (Premios Primilla de Barros 2009), interpreting centres, information brochures, environmental awareness campaigns, including workshops with children and adults, and ‘lesser kestrel days’ have been developed.

Community financial support Nine LIFE projects have been implemented in the period of 2004 – 2010 which benefitted the lesser kestrel: one in France163, three in Italy164 (in Matera Province, Parmesan lowlands; and the National Park of Gargano); two in Portugal165 (covering four SPAs: Castro Verde; Vale do Guadiana; Piçarras; and Mourão/ Moura/ Barrancos); and three in Spain166 including one joint with France (in Aude and Extremadura; and Aragon). The total budget was more than 11.6 million Euros, of which the total European Union contribution was more than 7.9 million Euros.

The species has also benefited from some other Community funding for projects such as lesser kestrel breeding centres in Spain and Portugal; an EU funded project in Portugal on the conservation and reestablishment of lesser kestrel in the Evora region; the Norwegian Embassy funded SOS lesser kestrel project in Armenia; Participatory conservation and recovery of an important roost in Senegal through the establishment of a Community Nature Area, assisted by LPO/BirdLife France; as well as general conservation measures in Bulgaria for target species of the EU Birds Directive, including lesser kestrel (as well as the project ‘lesser kestrel – a bird with no past but with a future’). An internationally funded project assessing the current status and distribution of imperial eagle and lesser kestrel has been carried out in Azerbaijan, and National Government funds have been secured to conduct research on the lesser kestrel at the Croatian coast.

Conclusions The species has stabilized and started to recover but still major gaps in the implementation of the planremain. The following actions remain priority for implementation: • Promoting the compatibility of agricultural policies with conservation of the lesser kestrel and other steppic species, particularly ensuring that appropriate land cultivation techniques and traditional extensive pastoral systems are maintained (e.g. those that promote high insect densities)

163 LIFE project code: LIFE05NAT/F/000134 164 LIFE project codes: LIFE05 NAT/IT/000009; LIFE07 NAT/IT/000499; LIFE06 NAT/IT/000026 165 LIFE project codes: LIFE 02/NAT/P/8481; LIFE07/NAT/P/000654 166 LIFE project codes: LIFE05NAT/F/000134; LIFE00 NAT/E/007297; LIFE04 NAT/ES/000034

168

• Production, and in particular implementation, of national action plans for the lesser kestrel. • Acquisition of land or agreements reached with landowners for suitable management. • Results from LIFE projects in Italy and Portugal should be continued, strengthened and expanded to other regions of the country, e.g. extending building codes to municipalities where the species occurs in the rest of Italy.

Taking into account the current prioritisation of old and new threats, priority work should be carried out on measures that maintain population growth in SW Europe, consolidate the distribution range across Europe by stopping decline and restoring populations in SE Europe, and begin coordinated monitoring of key populations (Turkey, Spain, and S. Balkans). This is to be achieved by implementing targeted actions that improve breeding success; increase survival; improve habitats conditions outside of breeding areas; restore the range of the species to pre-decline areas (as far as possible); and improve international coordination of conservation actions, monitoring and sharing of knowledge (this also applies to regions, e.g. Spain).

Contributors Dr. Petar Iankov (BSPB/BirdLife Bulgaria); Elena Kmetova (Green Balkans Federation - Bulgaria); Michael Miltiadou (BirdLife Cyprus); Zdenek Vermouzek (Czech Society for Ornithology); John Cortes (Gibraltar Ornithological & Natural History Society); Bousbouras Dimitris (Hellenic Ornithological Society); András Kovács (MME/BirdLife Hungary); Péter Palatitz (MME/BirdLife Hungary); Giuseppe Giglio (LIPU/BirdLife Italy); Marco Gustin (LIPU/BirdLife Italy); Maurizio Sarà (Department of Animal Biology - Palermo University); Jaroslaw Krogulec (OTOP) Rita Alcazar (LPN); Sebastian Bugariu (Societatea Ornitologica Romana); Ciprian Fantana (Societatea Ornitologica Romana); Miroslav Demko (SOS/BirdLife Slovakia); Katarina Denac (DOPPS/BirdLife Slovenia); José Antolín López (Defensa y Estudio del Medio Ambiente); David Serrano (Estación Biológica de Doñana-CSIC); Metodija Velevski (Macedonian Ecologcal Society); Kotrošan Dražen (Naše ptice); Arzu Gursoy (University of ondokuz mayis); Ramaz Gokhelashvili (GCCW); Mamikon Ghasabyan (ASPB)’ Darko Saveljic (Center for protection and research of birds of Montenegro); Marko Tucakov (Provincil Institute for Nature Conservation); Yury Milobog (Kryvyi Rih State Pedagogical University); Elchin Sultanov (Azerbaijan ornithological Society); Kresimir Mikulic (Association for Biological Research – BIOM); Beatriz Estanque (LPN - Portugal); Fernando Diez (SOMACYL (Sociedad publica de medio ambiente de Castilla y Leon)); Rigas Tsiakiris (HOS/BirdLife Greece); Philippe Pilard (LPO - BirdLife France); Ana Iñigo (SEO/BirdLife Spain); Boris Barov (BirdLife International); Mia Derhé (BirdLife International).

169

Appendix 1 Table 40 Implementation of the action plan in different countries167. PS = Priority Score; Ave. IS = Average Implementation Score; API = Action Priority Index; National IS = National Implementation Score. MN Ave. Action PS AR AZ BA BG HR CY FR GI GR IT MK PT RO SI ES RS TR UA API E IS 1.1 Agricultural policies are sympathetic to wildlife and are compatible with the conservation of 3 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 1.6 1 1 0 1.2 1 1 3 0 1 2 1.3 2.7 the lesser kestrel as well as other threatened or declining species a. The species benefits from targeted agri-environment measures, or similar 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 3 0 1 0 1.4 2.6 programmes outside the EU. b. Farming incentives and subsidies are favourable to the habitats of the species (e.g. help maintenance of 3 1 1 1 1 0 1 3 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1.2 2.8 semi-natural grasslands and fallow land). c. Grazing regimes maintain suitable habitat for the species (no overgrazing 3 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1.1 2.9 or abandonment). d. Appropriate land cultivation techniques are used (e.g. those that 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 1.2 3.8 promote high LK prey densities e. Use of pesticides in feeding habitat 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 strictly regulated and monitored. 1.2 Promote forestry practices which do not conflict with lesser kestrel 3 1 2.5 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1.7 1 1.7 0 0 1.5 0 1.3 2.7 conservation a. Afforestation projects avoid sites 3 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 2 0 1.3 2.7

167 AR = Armenia; AZ = Azerbaijan; BG = Bulgaria; BA = Bosnia & Herzegovina; HR = Croatia; CY = Cyprus; FR = France; GI = Gibraltar; GR = Greece; IT = Italy; MK = Macedonia; MNE = Montenegro; PT = Portugal; RO = Romania; SI = Slovenia; ES = Spain; RS = Serbia; TR = Turkey; UA = Ukraine. Countries that do not have confirmed breeding populations are shaded orange.

170

MN Ave. Action PS AR AZ BA BG HR CY FR GI GR IT MK PT RO SI ES RS TR UA API E IS important for the LK. b. Afforestation and deforestation programmes in LK areas are subject 3 1 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1.4 2.6 to environmental impact assessment. c. Co-ordination between agriculture 3 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 1.1 2.9 and forestry authorities in place. 1.3 Promote the full legal protection of the species and important 3 3 2.5 1 3 2.5 3.5 4 4 0 2.5 2.5 3 3.5 2.5 4 2.5 0 4 4 3.1 0.9 breeding sites. a.The species is fully legally protected. 3 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 4 4 3.8 0.2 b. Enforcement of legal protection is 3 2 1 1 2 1 3 4 4 0 1 1 2 3 1 4 1 0 4 0 2.2 1.8 effective 1.4 All range-states should be encouraged to produce a national 3 1 2 1 2 0 1 3.5 4 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1.7 2.3 action plan for the lesser kestrel a. National action plan produced. 3 1 2 1 3 0 1 4 4 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 2.2 b. National action plan effectively 3 1 2 1 1 0 1 3 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 2.7 implemented. 2.1 Promote the designation of protected areas for the lesser 3 2 1.5 1 1.7 3 0 4 4 4 1.3 1 0 2.3 2.3 2.5 0 0 2 0 2.3 1.7 kestrel a. New protected areas have been designated on steppes and dry 3 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 4 0 2 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 1.8 2.2 grasslands (since 2000) b. Key breeding and feeding areas 3 1 1 1 3 3 0 4 0 4 1 0 0 3 3 4 0 0 4 0 2.7 1.3 designated as SPAs. c. Land acquired or agreements reached with landowners for suitable 3 3 0 1 1 0 0 4 0 0 1 1 0 3 1 1 0 0 1 0 1.7 2.3 management. 2.2 Promote appropriate management 3 3.7 1.5 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 1.7 1.3 0 2 0 0 4 0 2 0 2.4 1.6

171

MN Ave. Action PS AR AZ BA BG HR CY FR GI GR IT MK PT RO SI ES RS TR UA API E IS at breeding colonies a. Co-operation with departments responsible for historic building 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 2 resulting in conservation of breeding sites. b. Artificial nests provided where 2 4 1 1 1 0 0 3 0 1 2 2 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 2.2 1.2 necessary to secure breeding sites. c. Colonies outside human settlements 3 4 2 1 1 0 0 4 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 2.4 1.6 are protected. 3.1 Conducting of surveys 3 2 2 1 2 1 4 4 3 0 2 1 0 3 1 1 0 0 1.5 3 2.1 1.9 a. Standard methodology for monitoring 3 3 2 1 0 0 4 4 2 0 2 1 0 4 1 1 0 0 2 3 2.3 1.7 the species developed and published. b. Surveys carried out at breeding, 3 1 2 1 2 1 4 4 4 0 2 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 3 2 2 migrating and wintering areas. 3.2 Research into factors limiting 3 2 3 1 2 0 0 3 3 0 2 1 0 3.5 1 1 0 0 1 3 2 2 lesser kestrel populations a. Research on habitat requirements 3 3 2 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 2 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 3 2.1 1.9 carried out. b. Appropriate habitat management for 3 1 4 1 2 0 0 3 3 0 2 1 0 3 1 1 0 0 1 3 2 2 the species identified and promoted. 3.3 Reintroduction and recolonisation of lesser kestrel under suitable 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 4 0 0 0 1.9 0.7 conditions a. Reintroduction programmes carried 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 4 0 0 0 1.9 0.7 out closely following IUCN criteria 3.4 Impact of pesticides on lesser 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 2.5 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1.2 1.9 kestrels a. Pesticide residuals and heavy metal contamination in eggs and tissue 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 1.7 monitored.

172

MN Ave. Action PS AR AZ BA BG HR CY FR GI GR IT MK PT RO SI ES RS TR UA API E IS b. Impact of chemical pollutants 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 studied. 3.5 Information exchange on the lesser kestrel and its conservation 2 3 2 1 1 2 0 3 0 0 1.5 2 0 4 1 1 0 0 1.5 2 1.9 1.4 needs a. Scientific information and expertise 2 3 2 1 1 2 0 3 0 0 2 3 0 4 1 1 0 0 2 2 2.1 1.3 between researchers exchanged. b. Training on research techniques and methodologies provided by 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 1.6 1.6 institutions carrying out intensive research programmes with the LK. 4.1 Raise awareness of lesser kestrel 2 3 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 3 1 1 4 0 1 0 1.6 1.6 feeding habitats a. Awareness campaign on the species targeted at local authorities, farmers, 2 3 1 1 0 0 1 3 1 0 1 1 0 3 1 1 4 0 1 0 1.7 1.5 shepherds and hunters carried out. b. lesser kestrel used as a flagship for the conservation of steppe, grasslands 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 1 1 4 0 0 0 1.7 1.5 and traditional agricultural practices. 4.2 Raise awareness of the importance 2 3.3 2 2 1 0 0 3.3 2.5 1 1 1.7 0 3.3 1 1 4 0 1 0 2 1.3 of lesser kestrel breeding colonies a. Awareness campaigns on the importance of breeding colonies 2 3 0 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 0 3 1 0 4 0 1 0 1.9 1.4 carried out. b. Leaflet on restoration practices which 2 3 2 2 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 4 1 1 4 0 1 0 2 1.3 favour the species produced. c. No cases of intentional destruction of colonies, shooting and persecution 2 4 0 2 0 0 0 4 4 1 1 3 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 2.4 1.1 registered National & Average IS 2.1 1.9 1 1.5 2.1 2 3.2 3.3 1.8 1.5 1.3 3 2.4 1.3 1.6 3.5 0 1.7 2.9 1.9

173

References

Abuladze, A. 2009. Lesser Kestrel in Georgia. Institute of Zoology, Tbilisi, Georgia. In: Pilard, P. (eds.) 2009. Actes du VII Congrés International sur le Faucon crécerelette (Almendralejo 20, 21, 22 & 23 Novembre 2008). LPO Mission rapaces.

Biber , J. P. 1996. International Action Plan for the Lesser Kestrel (Falco naumanni). BirdLife International report to the European Commission, unpublished. (Document available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/action_plans/docs/falco_nauma nni.pdf).

BirdLife International 2008. Falco naumanni. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. . Downloaded on 04 August 2010.

BirdLife International, 2004. Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 12)

Bux, M. 2008. Grillaio Falco naumanni. In: Bellini F., Cillo N., Giacoia V. & Gustin M. (eds) 2008. L’Avifauna di interesse comunitario delle gravine ioniche. Oasi LIPU niche. gravina di Laterza, Laterza (Ta). pp38 pp38-41.

Del Moral, J. C., Bermejo,A., Molina, B., Escandell,V. and Palomino, D. (Eds.) 2010. SEO/BirdLife monitoring programs in 2008 SEO/BirdLife. Madrid.

Galushin, V., Bragin, A., Mikhail, I. 2009. Current status, population trends and conservation of the Lesser Kestrel in Russia and Kazakhstan. Working Group on Raptors of Northern Eurasia (Rusia). In: Pilard, P. (eds.) 2009. Actes du VII Congrés International sur le Faucon crécerelette (Almendralejo 20, 21, 22 & 23 Novembre 2008). LPO Mission rapaces.

Henriques, I., Constantino, R. & Alcazar, R. 2006. Monitorização das colónias de Peneireiro- das-torres Falco naumanni em Portugal. Relatório Final da Acção D2 do Projecto LIFE Peneireiro-das-torres. LPN, Lisboa, Portugal.

Iankov, P.(ed.) 2007. Atlas of the Breeding Birds in Bulgaria. BSPB Conservation Series N#10

Italy LIFE Nature project: www.liferapacilucani.it

IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. . Downloaded on 04 August 2010.

Kılıç, T. & Eken, G. 2004. Türkiye'nin Önemli Kuş Alanları Güncellemesi, Doğa Derneği. Ankara: BirdLife International.

Komisja Faunistyczna 2008. Rzadkie ptaki obserwowane w Polsce w roku 2007. Not. Orn. 49: 81–115. (Rarity Commission Report)

Mascara R. & M. Sarà. 2006. Densità e biologia riproduttiva del grillaio Falco naumanni nella piana di Gela (Sicilia). Avocetta 30: 51 – 59

174

Mascara, R. & Sarà, M. 2007. Censimento di specie di uccelli steppico-cerealicole d'interesse comunitario nella piana di Gela (Sicilia sud-orientale). Naturalista sicil., S. IV, XXXI (1), pp. 13-25

Miltiadou M.2009 Summary Results of the Akrotiri Autumn 2009 Raptor Migration Census. Cyprus BirdLife Magazine. Winter 2010. Nicosia.).

Nagy, S & Crockford, N (2004) Implementation in the European Union of species action plans for 23 of Europe’s most threatened birds, BirdLife International, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Pilard, P. 2009. Le programme LIFE Transfert et le Plan Français de Restauration du Faucon crécerelette. In Pilard, P. (eds.) 2009. Actes du VII Congrés International sur le Faucon crécerelette (Almendralejo 20, 21, 22 & 23 Novembre 2008). LPO Mission rapaces.

Sarà, M. 2008. Breeding abundance of threatened raptors as estimated from occurrence data. Ibis, 150: 766–778.

Sarà, M. 2010. Climate and Land use change as determinants of Falco naumanni abundance. Proceedings of 18th EBCC Conference, Caceres march 2010.

Sigismondi A., G. Cassizzi, N. Cillo Cillo, M. , Laterza. 2003. Status e problemi di conservazione della popolazione di Grillaio Falco naumanni nelle Murge. Atti I Convegno Italiano Rapaci Diurni e Notturni. Preganziol (TV). Avo Avocetta N; 1, Vol. 27.

Sigismondi A., G. Cassizzi, N. Cillo, M. Laterza, A. Losacco, E. Muscianese. 2001. Population survey of the Lesser kestrel (Falco naumanni) in the Murgia hills (Italy). Abstracts 4th Eurasian Congress on raptors Seville-Spain. Raptor Research Foundation.

Spanish DEMA work: http://www.demaprimilla.org/life/

Stastny K., Bejcek V., Hudec K., 2006: Atlas of distribution of breeding birds in the Czech Republic. Aventinum Praha 2006.

Tomialojc L., Stawarczyk T. 2003. Awifauna Polski. Rozmieszczenie, liczebność i zmiany. PTPP "pro Natura". Wroclaw. (Birds of Poland) www.aspbirds.org

175

Lesser spotted eagle Aquila pomarina

Background The European Species Action Plan for the lesser spotted eagle (Meyburg et al. 1997) was adopted in 1997 by the Ornis Committee and in 1999 by the Bern Convention. The species’ breeding distribution is restricted to Eastern and Central Europe, and the plan requires active implementation in Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia- Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Montenegro, Macedonia FYR, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Syria, Turkey and Ukraine. As a long-distance migrant wintering in Southern Africa, the species is subject of the CMS Memorandum of Understanding of Birds of Prey. The plan has not been revised and its implementation has not been reviewed since adoption. No information was proved by Albania or Russia.

General overview Progress in the implementation of the action plan has been low (Average IS=1.6) and much further work is needed.

4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5

2.0 2.0 API

Average IS 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0

.4 .1 .2 .1 .2 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .2 .2 .1.1 .2 .2 .3 .3.2 6 .7 .8 .9 1.1.11.1.21.1.31 1 1 2 2.1.22.1.32.1.42.1.52.1.62 2 2 2 3.1.13.2.13.3.13.4.13.5.13. 3 3 3 4.1.1 Action

Figure xvi Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each Action listed in the lesser spotted eagle species action plan. Colours represent Priority Score.

Status review The lesser spotted eagle’s breeding population is virtually confined to east-central Europe. Following declines in the west of its range prior to 1970, the relatively small European breeding population (14,000-19,000 pairs) was probably stable during 1970- 1990, despite declines in some small Balkan populations (Tucker & Heath 1994). However, its numbers fell during 1990-2000, due to a decline in the important Latvian

176

population and further reductions in some smaller populations in the west and south of its range (BirdLife International 2004). Taking into account the species’ long generation length (11 years), this slow decline could be significant if it has continued or accelerated since 2000. Recent research in Belarus indicates that the species may suffer gradual declines in response to both agricultural intensification and abandonment (Geoff Hilton in litt. 2005). At the same time, the population in Ukraine has increased and seems to be expanding its range eastwards to European Russia (BirdLife International 2004; Meyburg et al. 2001), although it is unclear to what extent this reflects increasing observer interest rather than actual expansion.

Table 41 Population estimate and trend by country Population Reference at the time Current Country of the 1999 Year Year Breeding trend population SAP (pairs) 60-80% 168 Armenia 35-40 1996 30-40 2002-2009 Fluctuating 20-100 169 Azerbaijan 100 1996 2000-2010 Fluctuating pairs 3250 +/- 170 Belarus 1996 3200-3800 2005 Stable 100 Bosnia and - 10 1996 1-10 2010 Unknown Herzegovina 60-120 350-400 10-20% 171 Bulgaria 1996 2007 (1300) pairs Increasing Croatia 200 1996 60-70 2010 Decreasing 172 Czech 173 2-5 1996 0 2001-2003 − Republic 500-600 174 Estonia 375 1996 2008 Stable pairs Georgia 85 1996 50-70 pairs 2000-2008 5-10% Increasing 175 Germany 130 1996 102 pairs 2009 0-10% Decreasing 176

168 IBA monitoring by ASPB 169 Birds in Europe 2004, Birds of Azerbaijan. M. Patrikeev, 2004, current field research. 170 Dombrovski & Ivanovski, 2005. 171 Demerdzhiev et al., 2007. 172 Red Data Book (2003), personal observation − Indicates no data available 173 Stastny et al., 2006. 174 Elts et al., 2009. 175 GCCW IBA project. 176 Monitoring data (unpubl.) from three federal states Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (Wolfgang Scheller) Brandenburg (Torsten Langgemach) Saxony-Anhalt (Matthias Weber).

177

Greece 60-80 1996 80-110 1996-2009 Decreasing 177 80-90% 178 Hungary 150 1996 36-45 2009 Decreasing Latvia 2000-2800 1996 3500 2009 15% Decreasing 179 1931-2869 180 Lithuania 500-730 1996 2009 Fluctuating pairs Macedonia 181 1-2 1996 5-10 2009 Unknown FYRO Montenegro (see Serbia) 1996 0 - - Poland 1660-1850 1996 1800-2000 2007 Stable 182 Romania 100 (2000) 1996 1800-2300 2005 Unknown 183 Russia - - 1996 - - - (European) 20-200 - Kaliningrad 1996 - - - (200) North - 50 (500) 1996 - - - Caucasus 23-26 184 20-30% Serbia together 1996 7-9 2009-2010 Fluctuating with MNE Slovakia >700 1996 600-900 2002 Stable Slovenia 3 1996 0 pairs 2008-2009 - 185 300-500 186 Turkey 1996 80-120 2004 Unknown (3000) 200-250 800-1200 10-25% 187 Ukraine 1996 2003-2008 (800) pairs Increasing

177 Compilation of data from Important Bird Area database (mostly within the last decade) and various recent studies. This estimation is based mainly from data obtained from surveys at the existing network of SPAs and IBAs. 178 MME, 2010. 179 Aunins, A. & Priednieks, J. 2008. 180 Mischenko et al., 2003 181 unpublished data of M. Velevski, T. Lisicanec, B. Hallmann 182 Chylarecki et al., 2006-2008. 183 http://milvus.ro/lesser-spotted-eagle-census-in-the-carpathian-region-of-romania 184 Puzovic, Stojnic, Vucanovic (pers. comm), own data 185 Monitoring reports by DOPPS (http://www.natura2000.gov.si/uploads/tx_library/Monitoring_ptice_2vmesno_2004.pdf, http://www.natura2000.gov.si/uploads/tx_library/Monitoring_ptic__2007-II.pdf, http://www.natura2000.gov.si/uploads/tx_library/Monitoring_popis_DOPPS_200 186 Türkiye'nin önemli kuş alanlari, 2004 Güncellemesi (Turkey IBA book) 187 Birds in Europe: BirdLife Conservation Series №12. 2004

178

Objective(s) 1. In the short term, to halt the population decrease and safeguard all existing breeding habitat. 2. In the medium to long term, to safeguard the distribution and numbers of the European population of the Lesser Spotted Eagle, restoring the range to what it was in 1920.

Evaluation If only population numbers and trends are taken into account the short term objective of the plan has been met as the population has stopped declining overall, as data from the breeding range and from autumn migration counts in Israel suggest. It may have even increased in some countries, but to what extent this is a genuine increase or result of new data it is not clear. The trends in the key countries with significant and well monitored populations is stable. It is also suspected that species may be expanding its breeding range eastwards, but there is a lack of accurate data from Russia to quantify this. Whether “all existing breeding habitat” has been safeguarded188 we can not measure accurately with the available data. On one hand the total forest cover has been increasing or at least been stable throughout the species range. On the other hand, the second important component of the suitable breeding habitat – mosaics of pastures, meadows and arable fields has been under pressure from agricultural intensification (in the W of the range) and abandonment (in the N and E of the range). Overall, we assume that the available suitable habitat has not decreased since the adoption and the species is not restricted due to lack of suitable habitat.

Conservation and Legal Status The species is currently listed globally as Least Concern (IUCN, 2010) and as Declining in Europe (BirdLife, 2004).

It is listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive and Appendix II of the Bern and Bonn Conventions and in Annex 1 of the CMS “Raptors”Agreement. It is legally protected in all countries where the plan applies.

Overview of past and current threats The main threats identified at the time of preparation of the plan remain relevant today (habitat changes caused by forestry; agriculture; shooting; disturbance). The intensity of forestry as a threat is perceived lower on average in most countries, but is still the highest rating threat to the species, followed by agricultural activities in the foraging areas that affect the quality of the hunting habitat. The importance of shooting has fallen.

Novel threats identified in this review are collision with windfarms (e.g. cases in Germany, elswhere reported as potential) and degradation and loss of wetlands.

188 We find problematic the use of the words ‘safeguard’ as it is not clear what it means, and whether the same meaning is used for the habitat, distribution and numbers.

179

Assessment of the implementation

Implementation by action

National and regional species action plans Only three countries have developed national action plans (Estonia, Slovakia and Ukraine).

Species conservation Ensuring the legal protection regime for the species and prohibiting poisoning are the best implemented actions. Limiting disturbance by forest opeations in the vicinity of the nests is not sufficiently well implemented (best in PL and BY, followed by EE and DE and not at all in LT and LA). Supplementary feeding. Saving the second chick in broods has not been tried Captive breeding, restocking, reinforcement, reintroduction has not been considered priority. Species working groups are set up in EE, PL, RO, SB, SK.

Site conservation There are 98 IBAs designated for the species in its breeding range (74 in the EU) and the population covered varies from 84% in DE to less than 10% in countries with large and dispersed populations (LT, LV, PL, EE). The same applies to the coverage of the species by protected areas and less than 50% of the population is covered. Generally roosting sites and areas of concentration of the non-breeding population and on migration are not well covered by protected areas, as they are not well known. Management of protected areas with the species as objective has not been implemented well, except for DE and PL.

Habitat conservation Making forest policies compatible with conservation of the breeding habitat of the species is insufficiently achieved (AIS 1,6), it is best implemented in EE, DE, HU and BY (e.g. Belarus has a flexible system that protects all known nests of birds of prey from logging; EE has a national register of the known nests which are automatically protected from logging) and least implemented in AR, AZ and TR, where even the distribution of the species is not well known. Although felling of trees with nests is prevented in most countries, the disturbance by forest operations during the breeding season remains a problem as reported by LV, RO, SK. Farming practices are less favourable to the species overall (AIS 1,5) only HU stands out with a higher score. The weakest actions have been to prevent the effects of agricultural intensification and removing harmful subsidies both leading to loss of grassland habitats. Agri-environmental measures supporting semi-natural grasslands exist in HU, LT, LV, SK but they are not specifically targeting the species.

180

The least implemented actions are those related to preventing unfavourable modifications of the water tables and construction in the breeding territories (only DE reports a system of zoning preventing windfarms within 6 km of known nests).

Other specific conservation measures Small scale actions to provide artificial nests have been tried in several countries, but these are not considered of high importance. Prevention of electrocution and collisions with powerlines has been addressed in DE, SK and HU.

Monitoring and Research National monitoring schemes operate in 11 countries and in two more this is done for the population in some protected areas only and this action has been well implemented (AIS 2.4). Monitoring schemes of raptors (PL, EE) carried out by NGOs. Ringing, marking, telemetry is well coordinated among the countries involved (by the World Working Group on Birds of Prey). National species and raptor conservation working groups exist in (BG, DE, ES, PL and SK).Specific conservation related research is done in most of these countries.

Public awareness and stakeholder involvement IBA-caretaker project on one of the most important LSE breeding site in Belarus - Nalibockaja pusca. In Latvia, there are awareness-raising actions involving work with mass-media, web- cams, questionnaires, films. In Romania, informational meetings are currently organized in the target areas inviting stakeholders who will be important in future management of the SPA’s: local farmers, foresters and representatives of professional and non-profit organizations/authorities. Some works to increase knowledge of foresters of conservation of lesser spotted eagle nests were performed by USPB (Ukraine) in 2008 during the first pilot project on LSE nest site detection and installation of nesting platforms.

Community financial support Eight LIFE projects189 that benefit the lesser spotted eagle or its habitat have been implemented, in Bulgaria (1), Croatia (1), Estonia (1), Greece (3), Poland (1) and Romania (1), during the period 2000-2010, with a total budget of more than 14.3 million Euros, of which the total European Union contribution was more than 10.4 million Euros. In addition, nine projects receiving over 300,000 Euros of national government or international donor funding have been carried out.

189 LIFE07NAT/BG/000068; LIFE05 TCY/CRO/000111; LIFE04NAT/EE/000072; LIFE02 NAT/GR/008497; LIFE02 NAT/GR/008489; LIFE 99 NAT/GR/006475; LIFE08 NAT/PL/000510; LIFE 08 NAT/RO/000501.

181

Conclusions Progress in the implementation of the action plan has been low (Average IS=1.6). National implementation scores (NIS) are highest in Poland, Germany and Estonia.

3.5 3

2.5

2 1.5

1 0.5

0 AR AZ BY BH BG CR CZ EE GE DE GR HU LV LT MK PL RO SR SK SI TR UA Ave IS

Figure xvii National Implementation Scores for each country in the lesser spotted eagle action plan

There are still major gaps and further implementation of the following actions is needed:

• Studying lesser spotted eagle migration and wintering, in particular: o Monitoring lesser spotted eagle numbers during migration, o Identifying all major roosting places on migration and identifying means of their protection. o Researching habitat requirements, food diversity and losses during migration

• Protecting roosting places on the migratory route

• Preventing of disturbance in breeding areas near nests

• Ensuring Agricultural and farming policies are sympathetic to wildlife and are compatible with the conservation of the lesser spotted eagle.

Contributors Mamikon Ghasabyan (Armenian Society for the Protection of Birds); Elchin Sultanov (Azerbaijan Ornithological Society); Viktar Fenchuk (APB-BirdLife Belarus); Dražen Kotrošan (Ornitološko društvo "Naše ptice); Dimitar Demerdzhiev (Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds – BirdLife Bulgaria); Kresimir Mikulic (Association for Biological Research – BIOM); Zdeněk Vermouzek (Czech Society for Ornithology); Ülo Väli (Estonian Ornithological Society / Eagle Club); Ramaz Gokhelashvili (GCCW); Torsten Langgemach (Landesumweltamt Brandenburg, Staatliche Vogelschutzwarte); Bourdakis Stratis (Hellenic Ornithological Society); Ádám Pongrácz, Kovács András (MME/BirdLife Hungary); Viesturs Kerus (LOB); Rimgaudas Treinys (Institute of Ecology of Nature Research Centre); Metodija Velevski (Macedonian Ecological Society); Darko Saveljic (Center for Protection and Research of Birds of Montenegro);

182

Jaroslaw Krogulec (OTOP); Ciprian Fantana; Tamas Papp (Romanian Ornithological Society; Milvus Group); Dragan Simic; Goran Sekulic (league for ornithological action of Serbia); Marko Tucakov (Provincial Institute for Nature Conservation); Miroslav Demko, Dušan Karaska (SOS/BIrdLife Slovakia); Katarina Denac (DOPPS-BirdLife Slovenia); Jose Tavares (RSPB-Doğa Derneği); Igor Gorban (Ukrainian Society for the Protection of Birds); Boris Barov (BirdLife International); Mia Derhé (BirdLife International).

183

Appendix 1 Ave Actions Measures PS AR AZ BY BiH BG HR CZ EE GE DEGR HU LV LT MK ME PL RO RS SK SI TR UA API IS 1.1.1 Forestry policies are compatible with 3 1 1 2.2 1 1.5 1.2 1.4 3.5 1.8 2.8 1 2.3 1.7 1.3 1 0 3 1.8 1.5 1.8 1.2 1 1.6 1.6 2.4 conservation of the lesser spotted eagle 1.1.2 Agricultural and farming policies are sympathetic to wildlife and are compatible with 3 1 1 1 1 1.5 1 0 1.4 1.2 1 1 2 1.6 1 1 0 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.8 1.4 1 2 1.5 2.6 the conservation of the lesser spotted eagle. 1.1.3 Protected areas policies and regulation should promote conservation of lesser spotted eagle 3 1 1 1 1 1.5 1 0 2.3 2.3 3 1 2.5 2.3 1.8 1.5 0 3.5 2 1.3 2 1.3 1 2 1.9 2.2 habitat 1.1.4 International co-operation occurs between conservationists working on the LSE and its 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 3 2 3 1 3 3 2 2 0 4 3 1 3 1 1 2 2.2 1.2 habitats 1.2.1 Promote national legislation which adequately 3 2 2.85 3.3 1 2.8 3.3 4 3.3 2.8 3.3 2 3.3 2.3 2.3 2.5 0 3.8 2.8 2.9 3 3.5 2.8 2 2.8 1.2 protects the species and its habitat 1.2.2 Preparation of detailed action plans for the 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 4 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 1 1 2 1.4 1.8 species 2.1.1 Prevention of disturbance in breeding areas near 3 1 1.3 1.81 1 1 1 2 1.3 2.8 1 3 1 1.3 1 0 2.3 1 1.3 1.3 1.8 1 1 1.3 2.7 nests 2.1.2 Prevention of forestry operations in breeding 3 1 1. 3 4 1 1 1. 3 1 3. 7 1 3.3 1.7 3.7 1.3 2 1 0 4 1.3 1.5 1. 7 2 1. 3 1.7 1.8 2.2 areas near nests 2.1.3 Provision of artifical nests 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1.0 2.0 2.1.4 Prevention of mortality by poisoning 1 1 4 4 1 1 3 1 0 1 3 2 0 4 4 0 0 4 4 1 2 4 1 2 2.9 0.4 2.1.5 Maintenance of LSE habitat in the agricultural 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 0 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 0 2 2 1.5 3 1 1 1 1.5 2.6 landscape 2.1.6 Reduction of electrocution 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 3 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1.3 1.8 2.2.1 Identify and protect all main breeding 3 1 1.5 1 1 2 0 0 3 1.5 2.5 1.5 0 1 2 1 0 3.5 1.5 1.8 1.5 0 1 1 1.6 2.4 concentrations 2.2.2 Protect roosting places on the migratory route 3 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 1.1 2.9 2.3.1 Control of hunting 4 4 3 4 1 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 3.7 0.4 2.3.2 Increase breeding success by saving the second 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1.0 1.0 chick 3.1.1 Conduct surveys of LSE breeding populations 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 4 1 4 1.5 2.5 2 2 1 0 4 2.5 1 3.5 3 1 1.5 2.2 1.9

184

3.2.1 Study of LSE migration and wintering 3 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 2 0 1 1 1.3 2.8 3.3.1 Conduct research into factors limiting LSE populationa, especially habitat requirements, 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 2.7 2.3 2.3 1.7 1.5 2 2 1 0 0 1 1 2.3 0 1 1 1.4 2.6 food diversity and losses during migration 3.4.1 Monitor LSE numbers during migration 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1.0 3.0 3.5.1 To identify all major LSE roosting places on 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1.0 3.0 migration and to study means of their protection. 3.6.1 Study of LSE migration in Greece 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1.0 1.0 3.7.1 Identification of the location of non-breeders 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 1.3 1.8 3.8.1 Reintroduction and recolonisation attempts 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.0 1.0 where appropriate 3.9.1 Promotion of co-operation and information 2 1 1 1 1 1.3 1 0 2.5 1.8 2 1 2.3 4 2 1 0 2.3 1.5 1 2.7 1 1 1.8 1.8 1.5 exchange between LSE research groups 4.1.1 Improve and maintain public awareness of the 2 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 3 2 3 2 3 2 1 1 0 3 2 1 3 1 1 1 1.6 1.6 LSE, its habitats and conservation needs National IS and Average IS 1.3 1.4 1.6 1 1.6 1.6 2.4 2.7 1.5 2.7 1.5 2.5 1.8 1.8 1.4 4 2.9 1.9 1.5 2.3 1.8 1.2 1.5 1.6

185

References

Aunins, A. & Priednieks, J. 2008. Ten years of farmland bird monitoring in Latvia: population changes 1995 – 2004. Revista Catalana d’Ornitologia, 24, 53-64.

Chylarecki P., Rohde Z., Sikora A., Cenian Z. Monitoring ptaków w tym monitoring obszarów specjalnej ochrony ptaków Natura 2000. Materiały do raportu do Komisji Europejskiej z wdrazania Dyrektywy Ptasiej w Polsce w latach 2006-2008.

Dombrovski & Ivanovski. 2005. New Data On Numbers And Distribution Of Birds Of Prey Breeding In Belarus. Acta Zoologica Lituanica. Volumen 15, Numerus 3 Issn 1392-1657.

Demerdzhiev, D., S. Stoychev, A. Grozdanov, B. Tonchev, E. Stoynov, I. Mitev. 2007. Lesser Spotted Eagle (Aquila pomarina). - In: Iankov, P. (ed.). Atlas of Breeding Birds in Bulgaria. Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds, Conservation Series.

Elts, J., Kuresoo, A., Leibak, E., Leito, A., Leivits, A., Lilleleht, V., Luigujõe, L., Mägi, E., Nellis, R., Nellis, R. & Ots, M. 2009. Status and numbers of Estonian birds, 2003–2008. Hirundo 22: 3-31.

Mischenko, A., Väli, Ü., Treinys, R., Bergmanis, U., Domashevski, S. and Ivanovski, V. Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila pomarina C.L. Brehm, 1831. In: V.M. Galushin, V.P. Belik, V.N. Melnikov, E.A. Bragin, A.D. Numerov (eds). "Birds of Russia and surrounding regions: Falconiformes. Newton I. 2003.

MME. 2010. National Monitoring of Birds of Prey and Owls in 2009. Research report. Budapest. 53 pp. (In Hungarian).

Patrikeev, M. (2004) Birds of Azerbaijan. Pensoft Publishers: Series Faunistica. 380pp.

Stastny K., Bejcek V., Hudec K., 2006: Atlas of breeding distribution of birds in the Czech Republic. Aventinum Praha 2006.

Monitoring reports by DOPPS (http://www.natura2000.gov.si/uploads/tx_library/Monitoring_ptice_2vmesno_2004.pdf http://www.natura2000.gov.si/uploads/tx_library/Monitoring_ptic__2007-II.pdf http://www.natura2000.gov.si/uploads/tx_library/Monitoring_popis_DOPPS_2000

http://eagle.free.ngo.pl/orlik_krzykliwy.htm

186 Little bustard Tetrax tetrax

Background The EU Species Action Plan for the little bustard (de Juana & Martínez, 2001) was developed in 1997 (published in 2001) approved by the Ornis Committee, and endorsed by the Council of Europe/Bern Convention. This is the second review of the implementation of this plan, the first one made in 2006 with data collected in 2004 (Nagy, 2006). The plan has not been revised since its adoption. The purpose of this review is to review the progress with implementation of the plan to date and to evaluate its effectiveness to achieve its objectives. Based on the findings, a revision of the action plan is ongoing. The current implementation review covers the period 2004-2010. Data was collected through a questionnaire circulated between 1 May and 30 June 2010 through the BirdLife partners to national and regional experts in Azerbaijan, Greece, France, Italy, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Turkey and Ukraine. Information was received from all countries, except France and Russia for which the latest available published data was used (Attié and Micol, 2009; Antonchikov, 2006).

General overview Progress in the overall implementation of the action plan is good but further work is still needed (overall IS=1.9). The SAP has been most successfully implemented in Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal, despite the species not breeding in Greece. A scores table of the implementation of each action (including a break-down of all actions into measurable targets) for each country is provided in Appendix 1.

4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 API 1.5 1.5 Average IS 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.1.1 1.2.1 1.3.1 1.4.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 3.1.1 3.2.1 3.3.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 Action

Figure xviii Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action listed in the Little Bustard species action plan. Colours represent Priority Score.

Status review The species population is stable in Spain, based on an annual population change of - 0.8% (-3.2% – 1.6%) between 1998-2008 (Del Moral et al., 2010). In all other countries from which monitoring data was available, the species continues to. The only country, which reported a population increase was Russia, but the quality of the data is poor as there are no census and conservation projects targeting the species (Antonchikov, 2006). The resident population in Southern France was found to be stable or even increasing in 2004. It is important to standardize reporting of population estimates so that they are comparable both spatially and temporally, and thus European and global estimates and population trends can be determined. In order to obtain reliable population estimates, winter counts are recommended (ensuring all wintering populations are included) as they provide numbers of all individuals and account for recruitment. However, winter counts do not allow for differentiation between age classes and sexes and so breeding counts should be conducted as well. It is recommended that breeding population estimates be obtained by counts of males, which are then multiplied by accurate sex ratios to provide a calculated total number of individuals. Sex ratios should be reported not only to allow comparison between populations, but also because sex ratio is a key population parameter and a measure of productivity. (Table 2).

188

Table 42 Population estimate by country Population Population at at the time Breeding Country Year the 2006 Year Current population Year Reference of the 1999 trend review SAP 1677-1875 resident males Increasing 4,000-5,000 1,483-1,675 France 1994 2004190 2008 191 ind. males 356-370 migratory males Stable

Italy - 1995- 10-30% 50 ind. 15-20 ind. 2005 0 2010 192 Peninsula 1996 Decreasing 400-700 2007, Italy - 1,500 - 1995- males 2005 530-960 ind. 2008, Decreasing 193 Sardinia 2,200 ind. 1996 1,500-2,000 2009 ind. 13,260 - 21,771 10,000- 2003- males (breeding); 2003- Portugal 1994 >20,000 ind. Unknown 194 20,000 ind. 2004 9,722 - 14,272 ind. 2006 (wintering) 10,000-20,000 Russia195 9,000 males 1990s 2004 - - - - ind. 41,482 – 86,195 males 100,000- 50,000- 71,112-147,763 ind. Spain 200,000 1996 2004 2005 Stable 196 100,000 males (breeding); males 16,429-35,929 ind. (wintering) 2006 (breeding 1 -20 breeding; 5-50 Turkey 0-50 ind. 1994 30-60 ind. 2004 ); 2009 Decreasing - wintering (winterin g) 5 -7 pairs, 30 - 50 ind. 10 - 20% Ukraine 8-10 ind. 1994 100-110 ind. 1999197 2009 198 (breeding); Decreasing 70 - 80 (wintering)

190 Information from Attié and Micol, 2009 191 Information from the revised species action plan (Inigo, 2010). 192 Gustin M & Petretti F.2007, 2008, 2009 internal reports for LIPU Conservation Department 193 Schenk et al., 1995; BirdLife Internaional 2004 194 Silva & Pinto, 2006; http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/O+ICNB/Estudos+e+Projectos/Proj_LIFE_natureza.htm; http://www.spea.pt/ms_sisao/index.php?op=documentos 195 Data from Mischenko, 2004 in Antonchikov, A. 2006 196 Population estimate from García de la Morena, et al. 2006. Trend data from Del Moral et al., 2010 (annual population change -0.8% (-3.2 – 1.6)between 1998-2008). 197 Information from Andryuschenko, Y. 1999. 198 Red Data Book of Ukraine, 2009.

189

Table 43 Selected population parameters (size, trend and sex ratio) of the little bustard in countries covered by this survey. Sex ratio No. of (females No. of Quality of Year of Estimated Quality of Country Season displaying and juv. individuals estimate estimate trend trend estimate males to males) 1,483- Good Good France breeding 1:1.4 2004 Decreasing 1,675199 (Observed) (Observed) 2007, 250 - Medium 10-30% Medium Italy breeding 1.4:1 530 - 960 2008, 400200 (Estimated) Decreasing (Estimated) 2009 13,260 – Good 2003- Poor Portugal breeding Unknown 21,771201 (Estimated) 2006 (Suspected) 9,722 – Good 2003- 30 - 70% Medium wintering 14,272 (Estimated) 2006 Decreasing (Estimated) 41,482- 71,112- Medium Good Spain breeding 1.4:1 2006 Stable 86,195202 147,763 (Estimated) (Estimated) migrating/ 16,429- Medium Medium 2006 Decreasing wintering 35,929 (Estimated) (Inferred) Spain - 721 - Good 15 - 30% Good breeding 2009 Catalonia 1205203 (Observed) Decreasing (Observed) migrating/ 1,000 – Good 15% Medium 2006 wintering 1,500 (Estimated) Decreasing (Inferred) 1 - 20 Medium Poor Turkey 2006 Decreasing breeding pairs204 (Inferred) (Suspected) Medium Medium 5 - 50 2009 Fluctuating wintering (Inferred) (Estimated) 30 - 50 Medium 10 - 20% Poor Ukraine breeding 5 -7 pairs individuals 2009 (Inferred) Decreasing (Suspected) 205 Poor Poor wintering 70 - 80 2009 Unknown (Suspected) (Suspected)

Objective(s) The objective of the 1999 action plan is to stop the decline of the threatened little bustard populations and to enhance the density and breeding success of the species throughout its range.

Evaluation Based on the data collected for this evaluation, the objectives of the plan have not been met. Overall, the European population of the species continues to decline, although since the population is now stable in Spain, this decline is small. Enhancing the density and breeding success has not been achieved. Information about the breeding success from Spain and France has shown that it is far below optimal (Morales et al., 2005; Delgado et al., 2009) to maintain viable populations in the long term.

199 Information from Jolivet, C., 2006. 200 Gustin & Petretti, 2007, 2008, 2009. 201 Silva & Pinto, 2006. 202 García de la Morena, et al., 2006. 203 Ponjoan, et al., 2010. 204 Information on number of males/ sex ratio was not available from Turkey and Ukraine. 205 Akimov - Kyiv, 2009

190

Conservation and legal status The Global IUCN Red List Category of the Little Bustard is Near Threatened with criteria A2c,d; A3c,d; A4c,d nearly met (IUCN, 2010), because the population is estimated to be in decline owing to ongoing habitat destruction. The species is listed as Vulnerable in the European IUCN Red List under criteria A2b (BirdLife International, 2004), and is listed in Appendix I of the EU Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC, ‘Birds Directive’), Appendix III of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention), and Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

Table 44 IUCN Red Listing classification of the little bustard since adoption of the International Action Plan Year Global IUCN Red List Category

2008 Near Threatened

2004 Near Threatened

2000 Lower Risk/Near Threatened

Overview of past and current threats The main threats affecting the European little bustard populations have been well studied in France and the Iberian Peninsula. They are all connected to agricultural practices. The most important threats are: - Increased mortality of females and juveniles by farm machinery; - Insufficient food supply causing low breeding success; - Habitat loss and degradation leading to local extinctions; - And less importantly, shooting, collisions with man made structures and disturbance. In the Iberian context, the unfavourable farming practices lead to landscape scale changes in the predominant land-uses. In agricultural habitats a shift to intensive farming practices is driven by irrigation schemes (public subsidies) and conversion of dry cereal crops to intensive perennial crops such as vineyards, olives, etc, as well as the substation of hard wheat with barley, which required earlier harvesting. The loss of fallow land as an element of the farming mosaic is probably more important factor in France and Italy, where the agriculture is much more intensive than on the Iberian peninsula. There, the main causes for loss of favourable habitats are linked to production of bio fuel crops and the weak application of environmental safeguards and cross compliance. In the eastern parts of the range the ecology of the species and the impact of threats is less well studied.

191

Assessment of the implementation

National and regional species action plans National species action plans have been developed by France, Italy and Portugal. A regional plan is the process of approval in Catalonia.

Species conservation Little bustards are legally protected from killing across their range. It is included in the national lists of threatened species. However, insufficient enforcement of the legal protection regime was mentioned by several countries (e.g. Turkey, Ukraine, Italy, Spain) mainly because of persecution by farmers and poaching. France and Spain have attempted a joint programme of reinforcement of the populations in Central and Western France by release of captive bred chicks in the framework of a joint project206 between 2006-2009.

Site conservation The species has dispersed distribution in lowland, predominantly agricultural landscapes which explain the large number of SPAs and needed for its effective protection. Nearly 750 SPAs have been designated in Spain, France, Portugal and Italy. In the same time the typical habitats of the species are under continuous threat by unfavourable agricultural practices. Despite of this progress, still less than half of the breeding population has been covered by protected areas. However, actual management of the habitat in these sites is required to ensure the conservation of the species, and the lack of such management is the key problem to be addressed. Agri-environmental measures on large scale have been the key instrument to deliver favourable management in and outside of SPAs, however their overall impact is yet insufficient (as population trends show). The main reasons for failure are the low uptake levels, the availability of counter productive incentives and loss of habitat diversity as a result of continuing intensification of farming. An overview of the coverage of the population with protected areas is presented in Table 4.

206 LIFE04/NAT/FR/000091

192

Table 45 Overview of the coverage of the little bustard populations in sites with legal protection. Percentage of national Percentage of national Percentage of national population included in Country population included in population included in protected areas under IBAs SPAs national law. Greece 10-50% 10-50% 0-10% France 30% N/A Italy 30 - 50% 30 - 50% 0% Portugal 34 - 48% 29 - 43% 0-10% Spain N/A 26.3 - 33.2 N/A Spain - Catalonia 90-100% 50-90% 50-90% Turkey 50 - 100% N/A N/A Ukraine 70 - 80% 70 - 80% 70 - 80%

In Catalonia, Management Plans for the SPA with little bustard population have been developed and agri-environment schemes are in place in most sites. In other Spanish autonomous communities, management plans for SPAs have not been developed and implemented. The agri-environmental schemes have various degrees of success, generally failing to attract sufficient number of farmers to take part. Portugal has designated 8 new SPAs, but actual management targeted at the species is taking place in one SPA only – Castro Verde. In Italy, Sardinia approx 50% of the species breeding range lies in SPAs, but no effective site conservation measures are in place; fragmentation of large extensive farmland continues and high-nature value grasslands are being replaced with intensive crops at an increasing rate. As a result, a 20% decrease of the monitored population in last 5 years took place. One of the most important breeding areas, the Campeda plateau (estimated at 100 breeding males in 1980s (Petretti, pers. com.) has been dramatically transformed at the end of 1990s by stone crushing and removal of the natural vegetation, and today 0-3 displaying males remain. In Apulia despite of the fact that 50% of the former species range lies in the Gargano national park , the lack of conservation measures has lead to local extinction. In France, targeted agri-environmental measures (MAET) have been developed and tested in the regions of Pitou-Charentes on 137 500 ha of arable land. Management agreements have been elaborated and signed with farmers, which are believed to have lead to small increase of the affected populations. Therefore, a supplementary programme for restocking has been initiated. Greece, Macedonia, Turkey and Ukraine have done little habitat conservation measures or only individual projects on small scale.

Monitoring and Research In France, Spain and Portugal national census takes place every 5 years as part of national monitoring programmes. Coordination on monitoring the species in SPAs has to be improved further in Italy.

193

Community financial support Seven LIFE projects207 have been implemented since 2004 that benefit the little bustard: two in Spain and one in France, Italy and Portugal, two in Portugal, one in Italy and one in France, with the total funding of more than € 9.8 million Euros and an EU contribution of more than € 6.1 million Euros. In addition, one project (Avifauna III) receiving 400,000 Euros of national government funding is being carried out between 2009 and 2011 that benefits the species.

Conclusions Progress in the implementation of the action plan has been insufficient (Average IS 1.9). - The plan fails to achieve its objectives due to insufficient integration with the agricultural practices. This is evident from the low Average IS of the relevant actions 1.1.1 (Ave. IS 1.5) and 2.1.2 (Ave. IS 1.2) - Stakeholder involvement (farmers and agriculture administration) is a key to the success of implementation and it has not been achieved at sufficiently large scale. - Despite of the clear evidence of continuing decline of the species most of the known threats have continued to increase across the species range. - Positive results have been achieved only locally, where targeted funding has been provided in combination with specialized expert support on the ground.

The revised SAP should involve closer the farming community to increase their buy-in. - In order to maintain or increase the range, the potential future climate space needs to be taken into account. - At a biogeographical scale, the existing subpopulations should be the primary conservation target. - It is not feasible to restore the species in former range, where the suitable habitat was completely lost. Ö Lower priority should be given to reintroduction and restocking projects, as they are also technically difficult. - Conservation measures should be preferred to restoration measures.

Contributors Ana Iñigo (SEO/BirdLife Spain); Barbaros Demirci (Bagımsız - TR); Beatriz Arroyo (IREC-CSIC - ES); Carlos Palacín (MNCN-CSIC – ES); Carmen Martínez (MNCN- CSIC – ES); Cristina Barros Fuentes (SEO/BirdLife Spain); Domingos Leitão (SPEA/BirdLife Portugal); Eladio García de la Morena (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid - ES); Francesco Petretti (LIPU/BirdLife Italy); George Handrinos (HOS/BirdLife Greece); Gerard Bota (Centre Tecnològic Forestal de Catalunya – ES); João Paulo Silva (Institute for Nature Conservation and Biodiversity, University of Lisbon - PT); Juan Traba (Department of Ecology. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid - ES); Manuel Morales (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid - ES); Marco Gustin

207 LIFE04 NAT/FR/000091; LIFE07 NAT/IT/000426; LIFE07 NAT/P/000654; LIFE02 NAT/P/008476; LIFE2003NAT/CP/P/000008; LIFE07 NAT/E/000731; LIFE04 NAT/ES/000034.

194

(LIPU/BirdLife Italy); Teresa Gil (SOMACYL Junta de Castilla y León – ES); Thanos Kastritis (HOS/BirdLife Greece); Yuriy Andryushchenko (Azov-Black Sea Ornithological Station – UA); Boris Barov (BirdLife International); Mia Derhé (BirdLife International).

195 API IS IS Ave. TR UA C ES- PT ES S IT - GR IT UA = Ukraine. 3 1 1 2 2.3 1 2 0 1 1.5 2.5 32.31.5 4.0 1 1 2 2 0 1 1 1.0 41 0 1 3.1 1 0 0 1 1.7 41 0 1 1.6 0 3 0 1.7 21 0 1 1.8 0 3 0 1.3 21 0 1 3.6 0 2 0 1.3 41 2 0 1 1 2 1 1 3 1.51.51.52.5 0 1.5 2.5 0 31.5 0 1.5 0 0 1 0 0 2 2.5 31.51.5 0 0 2 0 0 1 20.3 3.3 4 4 3.7 3.5 21 4 1.74 3 4 3 0.3 0.4 4 4 3.5 4 3.6 23 4 3 0.7 4 3 4 4 3.0 21 0 2 3 4 0.7 0 4 3.0 24 0 1 0 0.7 0 0 4 3.0 24 0 1 3 0 0 4 1.7 31.32.3 2 2 3 2 0 3 3 1.5 31.52.5 1.6 2 2 3 2 0 3 4 1.7 22 0 1 0 0 2 3 1 1 1.1 1 2.7 1.331.5 1 0 1.5 1.3 2.9 1.1 1 0 1 0 2 1 PS erage Implementation Score; API = ain – Catalonia; TR = Turkey; th LB conservation in place & effective. of little bustard as protected areas bustard as protected of little . PS = Priority Score; Ave. IS Av 208 most important LB areas. LB areas. important most

assessments/ appropriate assessments, taking into account appropriate assessments, assessments/ y Grassland Birds is established under the Bonn Convention. ES= Spain (National);–C = Sp ES iversity as an objective alongside production objectives compatible with the conservation of the little bustard the little the conservation of with compatible strictly prevented in the significant LB populations, are designated as SPAs. law for the Little Bustard in each range state Bustard in each Little the law for that contain significant populations ote agricultural practices wi compatible in place involving all range states.

under national and international law. national and international under a. Article 39 of the EU Treatydefining is reformed, biodiversity agriculture objectives of policy. b. Sectoral plan under the EU biodiversity strategy elaborated. c. Livestock support systems encourage low-intensity grazing regimes by decoupling payments livestockfrom heads. d. Policies regulating cattle stock are ecologicallymanagement sound. that prom e. Agri-environment measures impactsubject to Environmental are a. Afforestation schemes the LB in its habitats. b. Afforestation grasslands of and arable land is receives legal a. The LB full protection in national law. b. The LB is included as a threatened species in National Red Data Book/ National Catalogue. c. Appropriate legislation relevant to 'threatened' listing is implemented. a. Regional agreement on the Conservation Palearctic of Dr a. All IBAs in the EU Member States, holding b. Protected areas established (under national law) in non EU countries. a. Developments that could change or fragment the habitat are prevented. To designate all Important Bird Areas all Important To designate

GR = Greece; IT = Italy; IT-S = Italy – Sardinia; PT = Portugal; – Sardinia; PT = Portugal; IT-S = Italy Italy; IT = GR = Greece; 1.1.1 Agricultural policies promote the maintenance of biod 1.2.1 wildlife and are Forestry policies are sympathetic to 1.3.1 To seek full legal protection in national is co-operation 1.4.1 International 2.1.1 2.1.2 and managed adequately protected areas are Ensure protected Action Measure Action Priority Index; National IS = National Implementation Score. Action Priority Index; National IS = Appendix 1 Table 46 Implementation European range states of the action plan in 208

b. Availability of legume crops and unploughed fallows increased and cultivated land temporarily set-aside. 3 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 2 1.3 2.7 c. Key predators controlled where predation is a significant problem. 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1.0 2.0 d. Pesticide use reduced in order to ensure adequate food resources. 3 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1.0 3.0 2.1.3 Prevent any hunting or poaching of the Little bustard 1 2 1.5 1 3 2 1 1 1 1.6 0.8 a. Hunting laws adequately enforced. 1 2 2 1 4 3 1 1 1 1.9 0.7 b. Hunters and farmers (on whose crops the LB may feed) have increased awareness of the LB. 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 1.2 0.9 3.1.1 Develop and implement an international population monitoring programme for the Little bustard 3 3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.8 3 1 1 2.3 1.7 a. Census methods to be used throughout the range of the species are standardised. 3 3 3 2 3 3.5 3 1 1 2.4 1.6 b. Trends in distribution, population size, density of breeding males and sex ratio of the LB throughout its range are 3 0 2 3 2 2 3 1 1 2.0 2.0 accurately quantified and monitored. 3.2.1 Conduct research on the breeding biology, habitat requirements, movements and wintering areas of the LB 3 3 1.5 1.7 2.7 2.3 2.3 1 1.3 2.0 2.0 a. Breeding biology research and understood. 3 0 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1.6 2.4 b. Factors affecting breeding success determined. 3 0 0 0 2 1.5 2 0 2 1.9 2.1 c. Diet of adults and chicks investigated and related to food availability. 3 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 1.3 2.8 d. Habitat selection across the species' range researched. 3 0 2 2 4 3 3 1 2 2.4 1.6 e. Movement patterns of the Little bustard identified by marking birds. 3 0 0 1 3 3 3 0 1 2.2 1.8 f. Wintering areas located and habitat requirements identified. 3 3 0 0 3 3 3 0 1 2.6 1.4 3.3.1 Evaluation of management/ conservation measures for the LB 3 0 0 1 1 1 2.3 0 1 1.3 2.7 a. Application of agri-environment measures targeted at the LB is monitored. 3 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 1 1.4 2.6 b. Application of agri-environment measures targeted at the LB is improved following results of monitoring. 3 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 1.3 2.8 c. Implementation of agri-environment measures targeted at the LB by farmers is increased. 3 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 1.3 2.8 4.1.1 Raise public awareness and inform the rural community about the conservation needs of the LB 3 0 1.5 0 1.3 1 1.3 0 1 1.2 2.8 a. Rural communities and farmers are aware and supportive to the conservation of the species and its habitats. 3 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1.0 3.0 b. Cases of unintentional or intentional persecution, killing or disturbance are fully prevented. 3 0 2 0 2 1 1 0 1 1.4 2.6 c. Profile of the LB raised as an important element of European natural heritage. 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1.0 2.0 d. The LB established as a flagship species for the protection of steppic habitats throughout Europe. 2 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 1.4 1.7 4.1.2 Provide training and advice to conservation and agricultural agencies 2 0 1 0 2.51.5 1 0 1 1.4 1.7 a. Technical training provided to conservation staff on LB biology, census techniques and management practices. 2 0 1 0 3 2 1 0 1 1.6 1.6

197

b. Agricultural agency staff in charge of agri-environment measures are advised on the requirements of LB. 2 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 1.3 1.8 National & Average IS 2.4 1.7 2 2 1.6 2.2 1.4 1.4 1.9

198

References

BirdLife International, 2004. Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 12)

De Juana & Martínez, 2001. European Union Action Plans for the Little Bustard (Tetrax tetrax). BirdLife International report to the European Commission, unpublished. (Document available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/action_plans/docs/tetrax_tetrax. pdf).

Del Moral, J. C., Bermejo,A., Molina, B., Escandell,V. and Palomino, D. (Eds.) 2010. SEO/BirdLife monitoring programs in 2008 SEO/BirdLife. Madrid.

García de la Morena, E. L.; Bota, G.; Ponjoan, A. y Morales, M.B. 2006. El Sisón Común en España. I Censo Nacional (2005). SEO/BirdLife. Madrid

Gustin M & Petretti F. 2007, 2008, 2009 Internal reports for LIPU Conservation Department.

Ponjoan, A., Bota, G., & Ma osa, S. 2010. Trapping techniques for Little Bustards Tetrax tetrax according to age, sex and season. Bird Study. 57:2. pp. 252 – 255.

Red Data Book of Ukraine. Animal world /edited I.A. Akimov - Kyiv.: Globalconsulting, 2009. - P.445.

Schenk, H., Murgia, P .E & Nissardi, S . 1995. Prima nidificazioned el Fenicotteroro sa( Phoenicopterus ruber)in Sardegnae problemid I conservazione delles peciec olonialni elloS tagnod i Molentargius. SupplR. ic.B iol.S elvaggin2a2 :3 13-321.

Silva, J. P., Pinto, M., (2006). Relatório Final da Acção 2 do Projecto Life Natureza Conservação do Sisão no Alentejo (LIFE02NAT/P/8476): inventariação dos núcleos do Alentejo. Instituto da Conservação da Natureza. http://portal.icnb.pt/ICNPortal/vPT2007/O+ICNB/Estudos+e+Projectos/Proj_LIFE_natureza.ht m

199

Madeira laurel pigeon Columba trocaz

Background The Madeira laurel pigeon Action Plan was adopted in 1996 (Oliveira and Heredia, 1996) by the Ornis Committee and endorsed by the Bern Convention. The implementation of the action plan was reviewed in 2001 (Gallo-Orsi, 2001) and 2004 (Nagy & Crockford, 2004). This review evaluates the implementation of the species Action Plan from 2004 to 2010, in Madeira, Portugal, therefore covering the entire range of the species.

General overview Progress in the overall implementation of the action plan is high (Average IS= 2.7) and due to the evaluation against the action plan targets, no further action is needed. The most progress in implementing actions has been made in enforcement of habitat protection through Natural Park regulations, reducing killing by humans and increasing public awareness of the Madeira laurel pigeon and its habitat.

4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 API

Average IS 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.1.1 2.1.1 2.2.1 2.3.1 2.4.1 3.1.1 3.2.1 4.1.1 Action

Figure xix Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action listed in the Madeira laurel pigeon species action plan. Colours represent Priority Score.

Status review The breeding population of the Madeira laurel pigeon is fluctuating and was last estimated at 8,500-10,000 individuals, from censuses conducted from 1986-2009209 by the Madeira Natural Park.

Table 47 Population estimate and trend by country Population at Population at the the time of the time of the 2004 Current Population Country Year Year Year Reference 1996 SAP review population trend (pairs) (pairs) Serviço Do Portugal 8,500-10,000 1986- Parque Natural 3,500-4,900 1994 4,142-16,910 2002 Fluctuating (Madeira) ind. 2009 Da Madeira 2006; 2009

209 Linear transect censuses conducted in 1986, 1995, 1999, 2003, 2006, 2009 (Serviço Do Parque Natural Da Madeira 2006; 2009)

200

Target(s) In the short term, to maintain the population of Madeira laurel pigeon at no fewer than 3,500 individuals. In the medium term, to ensure its continued increase towards occupying all suitable habitats in Madeira. In the long term, to enable the recolonisation of areas of its former range through habitat restoration.

Evaluation The short term objective has been met as the breeding population has been >3,500 individuals since 1986 (population size 8,500-10,000 individuals, 2009). The medium term objective has also been met as the species now occurs in all laurel forest habitats, as well as edge areas. The species is widespread throughout all laurel forest areas, including areas of its former range (Serviço Do Parque Natural Da Madeira 2006; 2009)

Conservation and Legal Status The Global IUCN Red List Category of the Madeira laurel pigeon is Near Threatened with criteria B1a+b(iii,v); B2a+b(iii,v); C2a(ii) because it has a very small extent of occurrence, although this is not yet severely fragmented or restricted to few locations. The population has declined as a result of habitat degradation, hunting and poisoning. The species is listed as Rare (SPEC 1) under criteria <10,000 pairs in the European IUCN Red List (BirdLife International, 2004), and is listed in Annex I of the EU Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC, ‘Birds Directive’) and in Appendix III of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention). No measures have been taken to list the species in Appendix II of the Bern Convention. The species has been protected since 1991210 under national legislation.

Overview of past and current threats There are no new threats facing the species additional to those listed in the 1996 SAP. The main threat facing the species is unpopularity (particularly from illegal poisoning, although there have been no recent cases) due to the crop damage that they cause, however, this is only of medium importance. Livestock grazing was previously a medium level threat which is now not relevant since livestock don't graze in laurel forest nor in areas where laurel forest is increasing grazing. The importance of forest fires and habitat loss is still low and the impact of predation (by rats, feral cats and birds) remains unknown.

Assessment of the implementation

National and regional species action plans The species action plan has been incorporated into national or regional legislation, and has been largely incorporated into the management plan for the Natural Park of Madeira, which was a high priority.

210 In Portugal, the Madeira Laurel Pigeon is a protected species under Decreto-Lei 75/91, which adapts the EU Wild Birds Directive to Portuguese law.

201

Species conservation Hunting and poisoning A main threat to the species is unpopularity due to crop damage and so the Natural Park has provided farmers with three varieties of bird-scaring devices (gas canisters; holographic reflecting tape; and excluding nets), supporting around 1,000 farmers each year (the number of freely distributed devices is increasing). No compensation measures or in-kind payments for farmers have been undertaken as the regional government deems this action to be not relevant since bird-scaring devices are considered the best way to reduce conflict with farming interest. Unpopularity with farmers has led to government control programmes - three of which have been carried out in the last 10 years. Annual evaluations of the extent of crop damage by the species but was begun recently, but no results are available yet. Illegal killing, particularly poisoning, of the species still occurs, mainly on agricultural land, however there is no recent data available to quantify this. Wardening inside the laurel forest and surrounding areas has been reinforced to improve enforcement of killing regulations, especially in sensitive areas. There are no hunters that specialise in pigeon shooting.

Predator control It is likely that the species is predated by rats, however the impact of rat predation on Madeira laurel pigeon breeding success is not known, nor is the interaction between rats and the laurel forest and no work has been carried out on these actions. The Região Autónoma da Madeira has recently implemented a rat control project, but there are no results yet on the success of the project. Some work has also been started to reduce the amount of litter accessible to rats.

Site conservation Practically the entire population of the species occurs in two IBAs, Laurissilva (IBA PT083) and Maciço Montanhoso Oriental (IBA PT084). Both sites are fully classified as SPAs and also protected under national law. The Laurissilva is also designated as an UNESCO World Heritage Site (site no934). In addition, all patches of laurel forest are designated as protected areas and all dense high-canopy forest below 950m receives maximum protection status. Between 50-90% of the population is in strictly protected areas. A laurel forest Management Plan has been developed and legally approved and includes visitor number restrictions to the most sensitive areas. Several areas of the Natural Park of Madeira have Management Plans implemented and legally approved and funds are available for its implementation, but further funding is still needed.

Habitat conservation Several recovery works inside the laurel forest and surrounding areas have been conducted by the Regional Government Services, including cattle removal and control of invasive plant species inside laurel forest. Several campaigns have taken place to inform tourists of the risk of fires. The natural park does not have appropriate means to extinguish fires, as recent fires on Madeira have highlighted, and so more work on this is still needed. An inventory of the laurel forest was recently completed and shows that laurel forest areas are expanding.

202

Monitoring and Research National survey/ monitoring programmes for the species exist in Madeira although there is no monitoring programme in place for the species in protected areas. The species has been monitored continuously since 1986. Between 1995 and 2003 censuses were carried every 4 years and, since then, have been carried out every 3 years. In each census, transects cover both laurel forest and surrounding ares, covering a large habitat spectrum from 100-1600m. There has been little work undertaken to monitor breeding success and to understand habitat preferences and selection of the species. There is a national species project/ working group and information is exchanged with researchers from the Canary Islands as well as several studies conducted in cooperation with the Canary Islands.

Public awareness and stakeholder involvement An information centre has been set up in Funchal to inform people on the biotopes of the Natural Park of Madeira and the importance of the Madeira laurel pigeon and its habitat, but it is not a fully equipped visitor centre. Conferences for schools and trips to laurel forest have also been carried out. Information material on the Madeira laurel pigeon and its habitat have been produced and freely distributed.

Community financial support Conservation of the Madeira laurel pigeon previously received support from LIFE projects and funding from the EU and other international sources but currently receives little funding.

Conclusions Progress in the overall implementation of the action plan is high (Average IS= 2.7). A scores table of the implementation of each action (including a break-down of all actions into measurable targets) is provided in Appendix 1. The targets listed in the action plan have now been met due to the high level of implementation of recommended actions, and so no further work is needed. However, successful actions should be maintained and there are still some knowledge gaps which could be addressed. The following actions should be considered:

• Maintaining the species habitat in good condition. • Continuing and improving management plan implementation and increasing funding for management actions. • Maintaining monitoring schemes and actions. • Conducting of research on breeding success, habitat preferences and factors contributing to expansion movements outside laurel forest areas. • Evaluating the impact of rats on the Madeira laurel pigeon, researching the dynamics of rat populations in the laurel forest and monitoring the rat control programme. • Increasing measures to diminish litter in laurel forest areas. • Ensure authorities have appropriate means to prevent and extinguish fires in the Laurel forest. • Improving the species popularity through increased awareness and increased funding for the scaring devices distribution project.

Contributors Paulo Oliveira (Madeira Natural Park Service); Luís Costa (SPEA); Iván Ramírez (BirdLife International); Ana Isabel Fagundes (SPEA); Juan Antonio Lorenzo (SEO/Canárias); Pedro

203

Geraldes (SPEA); Pedro Sepúlveda (Madeira Natural Park Service); Mia Derhé (BirdLife International).

204

Appendix 1 Table 48 Implementation of the action plan in Madeira. PS = Priority Score; PT= Portugal (Madeira); API = Action Priority Index; National IS = National Implementation Score.

Action Measure PS PT API To ensure an adequate legal and financial framework for the conservation of 1.1.1 2 2.3 1.1 laurel forests and the Madeira laurel pigeon a. The management plan for the Natural Park of Madeira developed, approved and 3 3 1 adequate funds available for its implementation b. The species action plan is incorporated into the management plan. 3 3 1 c. The species recovery plan is incorporated in national legislation. 1 3 1 d. The species recovery plan is incorporated in regional legislation. 1 3 1 e. MLP conservation receives funds from the EU and other international sources. 3 1 0 f. The Natural Park of Madeira is designated as a UNESCO World Heritage site. 2 0 0 g. The species is listed in Annex II of the Bern Convention. 1 1 1 h. Abandonment of agriculture in key areas promoted by appropriate policy 2 2 1.3 mechanism. 2.1.1 Reduce human predation 2.5 2.8 1.0 a. Prohibition of killing the species enforced by the Natural Park. 3 4 0 b. Number of wardens in areas where killing is a problem increased. 3 4 0 c. Hunters specialising in pigeon shooting identified and movements observed. 3 0 0 d. The Natural Park provides farmers with a variety of bird-scaring devices. 3 4 0 e. Extent of crop damages evaluated annually. 2 3 0.7 f. Efficient compensation plan developed. 2 1 0 g. Farmers supported with in kind payments. 2 1 0 Enforce current habitat protection through the implementation of the Natural 2.2.1 3 4 0 Park regulations a. All dense, high-canopy forest below 950m receives maximum protection status. 3 4 0 b. Inventory of the laurel forest completed. 3 4 0 c. All patches of laurel forest declared protected areas. 3 4 0 2.3.1 Improve breeding success 2 2.5 1 a. Amount of litter accessible to rats reduced (to reduce predation by rats) 2 2 1.3 b. Where and when necessary, visitor numbers are restricted. 2 3 0.7 2.4.1 Encourage the spread of the Madeira laurel pigeon into suitable habitat 3 2.8 1.2 a. Feasibility of eliminating grazing from sheep and goats evaluated. 3 3 1 b. Sheep and goats removed from sensitive areas. 3 3 1 c. Shepherds prevented from setting fire to the laurel forest. 3 2 2 d. Tourists informed of the risk of fires. 3 4 0 e. The natural park has appropriate means to extinguish fires. 3 2 2 To obtain regular information on the size, range and trends of the Madeira 3.1.1 3 2.4 1.6 laurel pigeon population a. Population monitoring ongoing. 3 4 0 b. Breeding success monitored. 3 1 3 c. Impact of rat predation on breeding success understood. 3 1 3 d. Information exchanged with researchers from Canary Islands. 3 4 0 e. Habitat preferences and selection understood in detail. 3 2 2 To promote better knowledge of the effect of rats on the general ecology of laurel 3.2.1 2 1.5 1.7 forests a. Interaction between rats and the laurel forest studied. 2.5 1 2.5 b. Rat control programme carefully monitored. 2 2 1.3 4.1.1 To increase public awareness of the Madeira Laurel Pigeon and its habitat 3 3.5 0.5 a. Information centre set up to inform people on the biotopes of the Park and the 3 3 0 importance of the MLP and its habitat. b. Information material produced and distributed. 3 4 0 National &Average IS 2.8 2.7

205

References

BirdLife International, 2004. Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 12)

BirdLife International 2008. Columba trocaz. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. . Downloaded on 05 August 2010.

Gallo-Orsi, U. ed. (2001) Saving Europe’s most threatened birds: progress in implementing European Species Action Plans. Wageningen, The Netherlands: BirdLife International.

Nagy, S & Crockford, N (2004) Implementation in the European Union of species action plans for 23 of Europe’s most threatened birds, BirdLife International, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Oliveira, P. & Heredia, B. 1996 Action Plan for the Madeira laurel pigeon (Columba trocaz). BirdLife International report to the European Commission, unpublished. (Document available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/action_plans/docs/columba_troc az.pdf).

Serviço Do Parque Natural Da Madeira (2006) Evolução dos efectivos populacionais de pombo trocaz, Columba trocaz entre1986 e 2006): Actual estado de conservação.

Serviço Do Parque Natural Da Madeira (2009) Evolução dos efectivos populacionais de pombo trocaz, Columba trocaz (1986 - 2009): Actual estado de conservação.

206

White-tailed laurel pigeon Columba junoniae

Background The white-tailed laurel211 pigeon Action Plan was adopted in 1996 (Gonzalez, 1996) by the Ornis Committee and endorsed by the Bern Convention. The implementation of the action plan was reviewed in 2001 (Gallo-Orsi, 2001) and 2004 (Nagy & Crockford, 2004). This review evaluates the implementation of the species Action Plan from 2004 to 2010, in the Canary Islands archipelago, Spain, therefore covering the entire range of the species.

General overview Progress in the overall implementation of the action plan is moderate and further work is still needed (Average IS=1.9). The most progress in implementing actions and the action reported to have had the most positive effect on the population has been in ensuring the species is given adequate legal protection.

4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 API 1.5 1.5 Average IS 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0

.1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .2 3 .2 .3 .4 .5 .1 .5 .1 .2 .3 1 1 1. 1.4 2.1 2 2 2 2 3 3.2.1 3.3 3.4 3 4 4 4 Action

Figure xx Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action listed in the white-tailed laurel pigeon species action plan. Colours represent Priority Score.

Status review The size and trend of the species’ population is still poorly known as there has never been a proper census of the species. The most recent estimate is the same as the 2004 estimate (BirdLife, 2004) and was obtained through the 1997-2000 LIFE project212. During surveys, it is difficult to distinguish between the white-tailed and dark-tailed laurel pigeon, particularly when in flight. Therefore the most recent population estimates are relative abundances and are of poor quality. However, estimates of relative abundance have identified the best habitat areas for this species in each of the four islands where it is present (Martín et al., 2001). In one of them, the small island of El Hierro, the species was recorded for the first time in the late 1990s. It is unknown whether the species breeds on the island. Furthermore, to date, no white-tailed pigeon

211 Research has established that this species is not an exclusive to laurel forests since it also inhabits other forest environments of the Canary Islands (Martín et al., 2001). Therefore it is proposed to refer to the species as ‘white- tailed pigeon’ rather than ‘white-tailed laurel pigeon’ 212 LIFE project code: LIFE96 NAT/E/003095

207

nests have been found on the island. Since the 1997-2000 LIFE project has been no major population studies or censuses. The population is believed to have been recovering over the last 20 years, since the species now has a larger area of occupation but there is no quantitative data on the population increase. The distribution of the white-tailed laurel pigeon was previously believed to be closely linked to the distribution of laurel forests, but a research team of ornithologists from the University of La Laguna in the late 1990s found that the species has a wider habitat range, including pine and termophile forest (Martín et al., 2001), and thus it has been proposed to change the name to ‘white-tailed pigeon’.

Table 49 Breeding population estimates by country Population at Population at the Current Country the time of the Year time of the 2004 Year Year Population Reference population 1996 SAP review trend Spain 1,000-2,499 1997- 1,240-1,480 ind 1985 Unknown - Unknown - (Canaries) pairs213 2000

Objective(s) In the short term to conserve the white-tailed laurel pigeon population at no less than its 1985 level and in the medium to long term to promote the expansion of its range.

Evaluation The short term target has been met as the 1985 population was 1,240-1,480 pairs and the current population is estimated to be larger than this. However, this estimate is not recent, is of poor quality and the increase in numbers may reflect increased sampling effort (more habitat types sampled in the 1997 census) rather than an actual population increase. It is difficult to say whether the medium to long term target has been met as it is not quantifiable. However, it has been found that the species occurs in habitats outside of laurel forest and so has a larger range than previously believed. Therefore the known range of the species has increased but this is likely due to increased knowledge of the species’ habitat. Populations have been studied more thoroughly and this is reflected in the identification of new areas, however, it is clear that potential habitat (laurel and pine forest) has genuinely increased.

Conservation and Legal Status The Global IUCN Red List Category of the white-tailed laurel pigeon is Endangered under criteria B1a+b(iii) because it has a very small range on just four islands, within which the extent and quality of its habitats is continuing to decline. The species is listed as Endangered (SPEC 1) under criteria B1a+b(iii) in the European IUCN Red List (BirdLife International, 2004), and is listed in Annex I of the EU Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC, ‘Birds Directive’) and in Appendix III of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention). Regional conservation law has recently changed, downlisting the species from “Sensible a la alteración del habitat” (‘sensitive to habitat alteration’) to “Vulnerable”. The national law is being updated and prevails over regional law, and for now, the species is nationally listed as “Sensible a la alteración del habitat”. A draft submitted for public information reveals that the

213 Refers to no actual figures, only represents the estimated size of the population in BirdLife International (2004), taken from the 1997-2000 LIFE project census.

208

species will be downlisted to “Vulnerable”, which, if approved, would give precedence to regional law, and so the species would be ultimately considered as “Vulnerable”. The Red Book of Birds in Spain evaluated this pigeon as "En peligro " (Madroño et al., 2004).

Overview of past and current threats Although there is evidence of predation by rats, feral cats and potentially European ferret Mustela furo (on the island of La Palma - Medina & Martín, 2009) affecting the species, there are no data on the level of importance of this threat. Predation is thought to be a critical/high threat for the white-tailed laurel pigeon as it breeds on the ground and so is very vulnerable to predation. Predation is the primary threat the white-tailed laurel pigeon, with rats having the largest impact of all introduced predators (Hernández et al., 1999; Delgado García et al., 2005). Another main threat to this species is human disturbance from leisure activities, particularly abseiling and climbing, causing disturbance to breeding sites that were previously unreachable (a new threat identified in 2010). There is no specific breeding season so threats from leisure activities can affect the breeding in spring and summer months and makes it difficult to set limits on human disturbance. Although the threat of habitat loss is still present, is has been down listed to a medium threat since the majority of the species’ habitat is now protected. Habitat change, listed as a critical threat in the SAP, is now considered to be of medium importance as abandoned agricultural land is reclaimed by laurel forest and so has a positive effect on the species. Though laurel and pine forests have gradually recovered their previous range in recent decades, it is not the case with thermophile forests. Thermophile forest is currently the worst preserved and most threatened (due to past human habitation, livestock and agriculture). It is suspected that this type of forest was the original historic habitat of the white-tailed pigeon (Martín et al., 2001). The increased awareness of the species’ protection status combined with increased surveillance has led to a reduction in the level of illegal hunting and trapping so these threats are now considered low/not relevant. The threat of lack of drinking areas has also significantly reduced as laurel forest areas have increased so there are now more drinking sites. However, it is still important to maintain water sources throughout the thermophile, pine and laurel forest. Forest fires are a newly identified threat to the species but since laurel forest is less susceptible to fire than other areas, this threat is important in predominantly in pine and thermophile forests. Poisoning is a low threat but is suspected to be increasing, particularly in La Palma, as the species is persecuted for crop damage (vineyards, avocado and fruit plantations). The latter could also induce a local increase in illegal hunting. There are currently no known cases of Newcastle disease so this threat is low, however if there were to be an outbreak, the threat could be potentially high. Other diseases, particularly avian pox (Medina et al., 2004), are a medium threat as they are increasing, likely linked to transmission from common pigeons.

Assessment of the implementation

National and regional species action plan There is no national action plan for the species.

Species conservation Drinking points

209

There are now more drinking sites available, also related to the expansion of the species, but there is not a regional scheme as to preserve them (see Management Plans section above, all these actions depend on the management plans to be approved).

Rat and alien species control Some islands have rat control plans in place. Rats are linked to presence of people and so are controlled in recreational areas because it is impossible to implement rat control in the laurel and pine forests, considering its extension. No action in has been taken in recreational areas to control other predators such as feral cats and dogs.

Prevention of illegal hunting Hunting is no longer a threat since hunting-free zones (coinciding with reserves) have been implemented. It is therefore thought to be residual only and not relevant.

Health control of imported birds There are no disease-control schemes in place in the Canary Islands that could prevent the dark-tailed laurel pigeon suffering major declines caused by Newcastle disease (although there are no recent records) or avian pox (recent records exist - Medina et al., 2004). There has been very little work carried out to ensure efficient health controls on imported birds or to detect the presence of Newcastle disease in bird rearing facilities. There are ongoing efforts to reintroduce the species in Gran Canaria (there are historical records of the species occurring here), with birds from La Palma.

Captive breeding There is a programme of the Cabildo of Gran Canaria (island government) to reintroduce the species on the island. Some eggs and chicks from La Palma have being fostered by Java Doves and they have started to breed by themselves in January 2010. However the definitive breeding centre has not yet been built. Facilities are expected to be finished at the end of 2010 and preliminary work will be probably carried out in 2011 (A. Martín, pers. comm.).”

Site conservation The majority of the distribution areas for the species have already been protected according to regional or national law. Most of the distribution range (including all breeding sites) is classified as Natura 2000 sites and Canary’s Regional Protected Sites Network, and around 50- 90% of the population is included in IBAs (11 sites), SPAs (8 sites) and areas protected under national law. Land ownership still remains an issue and management of privately owned lands could represent a threat. In 2006, the Deputy Ministry of Environment of the Government of the Canary Islands proposed new SPAs in the 214 Official Gazette de Canarias (BOC). This proposal included the peaks and cliffs of the north of La Palma, Bco. del

214 More information available at: http://www.gobcan.es/boc/2006/226/027.html

210

Cedro and Liria in La Gomera, and forest and peaks in Tenerife as priority areas for conservation of the white-tailed laurel pigeon. Some work has been done to establish new hunting reserves in appropriate areas, but more is needed. Management plans for these sites have been drafted but not approved (including site management, forest management, recreational site management rules, etc), so it is urgent for these to be approved and implemented. However, this is relative because most of the plans of protected areas at regional level have been approved, but to date no plans of SPAs have approved. Regional plans are not being implemented and restoration of pine-tree forest and thermopile forest is still pending full implementation. Pine and thermophile forests are secondary habitat for this pigeon and restoration actions are carried out by the island authorities. In Tenerife, there are areas where laurel forest has been cleared and repopulated with Canary Island pine (Pinus canariensis). Now the idea is to replace the pines with the natural laurel forest.

Habitat conservation Commercial forestry has decreased markedly in all islands, but has remained constant (although low) in Tenerife. Forestry management is pending of approval by Regional authorities. Island Governments are now implementing management schemes, but without regional guidelines. As part of the LIFE project215 (2005-2008), work has been carried out to eradicate exotic plant species, plant native species, raise public awareness and increase knowledge of the survival of different native species present in thermophilous forests. In Tenerife, Canarian pine tree plantations are partly cleared (thinned) which makes them more like the natural habitat of the species. This is especially important in areas where laurel forest existed in the past but have now been replaced with pine trees, since the idea is to gradually enhance the natural vegetation (laurel forest) of these areas. The abandonment of agriculture has meant that abandoned land becomes colonised by laurel forest and later by the white-tailed pigeon. This has led to increased extension of thermophile forest and therefore an increase in the species’ range. Tenerife has also undertaken a major effort in eradicating Monterey pine and replanting with native species, with this island previously having the largest area of planted Monterey pine and Canary Island pine of all the Canary Islands.

Monitoring and Research The Island Ecology and Evolution Research Group IPNA-CSIC216 (Tenerife) has been carrying out research on ecological aspects of Macaronesian pigeons from 1996 to present, however there are no national survey or monitoring programmes in place for the species. Regular monitoring of the species, at least every 4 years, is probably the top priority for this species, along with conducting a census covering all utilised habitat types of the species. Regional authorities are not identifying this as a priority and this needs much more attention. More precise information on the distribution of this species is given in Martin et al. (2001), and is summarized in the Canary Island breeding bird atlas (Lorenzo, 2007). All work carried out investigating the effect of predation on breeding success is pre-2004 (Hernández et al. 1999) and much more research is needed to effectively control alien predators at priority sites for the species (such as breeding areas, recreational sites, etc). Since the species breeds on the ground on cliffs and hard to reach areas, surveying is more difficult for this species.

215 LIFE project code: LIFE04 NAT/ES/000064 216 For more details see: http://www.ipna.csic.es/departamentos/agro/eei/index.php/es/

211

Public awareness and stakeholder involvement Communication campaigns were carried at the beginning of the LIFE project (1997-2000), but nothing else has been implemented since. There is still a high demand for public information about the species and the importance of the laurel forest to both locals and island inhabitants.

Community financial support One LIFE project217 has been implemented since 2004 which benefits the dark-tailed laurel pigeon. The project focused on restoration of Juniperus spp. forests on Tenerife, running from 2005-2008 with a total budget of 373,295 Euros, of which the total European Union contribution was 279,971 Euros. The species has also benefited from an additional project funded by the Autonomous Organisation of National Parks, Ministry of Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs, Spain (Ref. 80/2005) focussing on the trophic ecology of Canary Island endemic pigeons (Columba bollii and Columba junoniae) and seed dispersal in the laurel forest of Garajonay National Park (La Gomera, Canary Islands). The project ran from 2006-2009 with a total budget of 85994.25 Euro.

Conclusions Progress in the overall implementation of the action plan is moderate and further work is still needed (Average IS=1.9). A scores table of the implementation of each action (including a break-down of all actions into measurable targets) is provided in Appendix 1. There are still major gaps and further implementation of the following actions is needed: • Approval of the national ‘Ley del Patrimonio Natural y de la Biodiversidad’. This law includes the publication of a Species Action Plan for the species that could list all the major conservation actions needed. • Approval of the Regional forestry management plan. • Improvement of the conservation status of the species. • Establishment of an alien species control plan. • Establishment of a full monitoring scheme (monitoring at least every 4-5 years) and conduct a full census of the species including all utilised habitat types. • Improvement of hunting season monitoring with increased wardens and penalties imposed. • Establishment of a regional awareness-raising campaign.

Contributors Patricia Marrero (IPNA-CSIC); Cristina González (SEO/ BirdLife); Iván Ramírez (BirdLife International); Juan Antonio Lorenzo (SEO/BirdLife); Mia Derhé (BirdLife International).

217 LIFE project code: LIFE04 NAT/ES/000064.

212

Appendix 1 Table 50 Implementation of the action plan in The Canary Islands. PS = Priority Score; ES-C = Spain (Canaries); API = Action Priority Index; National IS = National Implementation Score. Action Measure PS ES-C API 1.1.1 To ensure the white-tailed laurel pigeon is given adequate legal protection 3.5 2.8 1.5 a. All areas important for the species are designated as protected under the Canary Islands Countryside Law (1994), with Use and Management Plans, 4 3 1.3 Master Plans (Planes Directores), Conservation Regulations and Special Plans addressing all threats to the WTLP. b. The Canary Islands wildlife law adequately protects the species, in the 3 2.5 1.5 wider countryside as well as in PAs. 1.2.1 To ensure, through Countryside Planning Plans, that exploitation of the countryside is compatible with the conservation of the species and its 4 2.6 1.8 habitat a. Commercial forestry in mature laurel forest discouraged and guided towards 4 2.5 2.0 suitable alternative areas. b. Regeneration of degraded laurel forest favoured over commercial forestry. 4 2.5 2.0 c. Commercial forestry no longer damages laurel forests. 4 2.5 2.0 d. Programme of alternatives to commercial forestry practices implemented. 3 3 1.0 1.3.1 Establishment of new hunting reserves in appropriate areas 3 1.8 2.3 a. New Hunting Reserves established. 3 2 2.0 b. Human activities likely to have negative effects in the new Hunting 3 1.5 2.5 Reserves minimised or removed. 1.4.1 Increased health controls on imported birds. 1 1.3 0.9 a. Health controls on birds imported are efficient. 1 1 1.0 b. Controls in place on bird rearing facilities to detect the presence of 1 1.5 0.8 Newcastle virus. 2.1.1 Control of illegal hunting 4 1.8 2.9 a. Number of wardens increased to provide greater surveillance of important 4 1.5 3.3 areas. b. The support of SEPRONA sought and information provided on places most 4 2.5 2.0 frequented by hunters. c. Penalties imposed under current law applied when charges are brought. 4 1.5 3.3 2.2.1 Promote the restoration and expansion of laurel forest 3 2.3 1.7 a. Eradication of Monterrey pines completed. 3 2.5 1.5 b. Forestry practices most beneficial for the environment are used, following 3 2 2.0 prior analysis. c. Re-afforestation with native plants ongoing. 3 2.5 1.5 2.3.1 Purchase of some of the important areas for the white-tailed laurel pigeon 3 1.5 2.5 Important areas for the species acquired from private owners. 3 1.5 2.5 2.4.1 Provide additional drinking points to reduce the number of pigeons 2 1 2.0 gathering at existing natural drinking areas Additional drinking points provided. 2 1 2.0 2.5.1 Initiate a captive breeding programme for the white-tailed laurel pigeon 1 0 0 Contact with zoological collection established in view of a captive-breeding 1 0 0 programme. 3.1.1 Conduct a full census of the species 4 1 4.0 Full census of the species carried out, including data on the different breeding 4 1 4.0 groups in the Canary Islands and an up-to-date inventory of all breeding areas. 3.2.1 Improve white-tailed laurel pigeon monitoring methods 3 2 2.0 Monitoring methods improved through information exchange with experts in 3 2 2.0 Madeira.

213

3.3.1 Undertake regular population monitoring of the white-tailed laurel 3 1 3.0 pigeon Monitoring of the population ongoing with overall census repeated every 4 3 1 3.0 years. 3.4.1 Research into breeding success and the factors affecting it 4 2.5 2.0 Factors affecting the breeding success (particularly predation and food 4 2.5 2.0 availability) understood. 3.5.1 Evaluate the economic importance of commercial forestry for the local 2 3 0.7 population, and its repercussions on the conservation of the biotope a. Economic importance of forestry evaluated. 2 3 0.7 b. Alternatives to current forestry practices identified. 2 3 0.7 4.1.1 To undertake a public awareness campaign aimed at local people, 3 1.8 2.3 particularly those living near areas important for the species a. Public awareness campaign targeted at general public carried out. 3 1.5 2.5 b. Awareness campaign targeted at hunters to gain their support carried out. 3 2 2.0 4.2.1 Promote ongoing dialogue between the different bodies involved in the 3 2 2.0 conservation of the species and its habitat Dialogue between the bodies involved in the conservation of the species and 3 2 2.0 its habitat strengthened. 4.3.1 Increase the effectiveness of wardens 3 2 2.0 Wardens trained and motivated and staff motivation emphasised during the 3 2 2.0 selection process for additional wardens National & Average IS 1.9 1.9

214

References

BirdLife International, 2004. Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 12)

BirdLife International 2008. Columba junoniae. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. . Downloaded on 09 August 2010.

Gallo-Orsi, U. ed. (2001) Saving Europe’s most threatened birds: progress in implementing European Species Action Plans. Wageningen, The Netherlands: BirdLife International.

Gonzalez, C. 1996 Action Plan for the white-tailed laurel pigeon (Columba Junoniae). BirdLife International report to the European Commission, unpublished. (Document available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/action_plans/docs/columba_jun oniae.pdf).

Lorenzo, J. A. (Ed.) 2007. Atlas de las aves nidificantes en el archipiélago Canario (1997- 2000). Dirección General de Conservación de la Naturaleza – Sociedad Española de Ornitología. Madrid. 520 pp.

Madroño, C. González Y J. A. Atienza. 2004. Libro Rojo de las Aves de España. Dirección General para la Biodiversidad-SEO/BirdLife. Madrid.

Martín, A., Hernández, M. A., Lorenzo, J. A., Nogales, M., & González, C. 2001. Las Palomas endémicas de Canarias. Conserjería de Medio Ambiente y SEO/BirdLife

Medina, F. M., Ramírez, G. A, & Hernández, A. 2004. Avian Pox in White-tailed Laurel- pigeons from the Canary Islands. Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 40(2), 2004, pp. 351–355.

Nagy, S & Crockford, N (2004) Implementation in the European Union of species action plans for 23 of Europe’s most threatened birds, BirdLife International, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

215

http://www.mma.es/secciones/biodiversidad/especies_amenazadas/catalogo_especies/vertebrad os_aves/pdf/ver216.pdf www.grancanaria.com www.tenerife.es www.seo.org www.gobiernodecanarias.org

216

Zino’s Petrel Pterodroma madeira

Background The Zino’s petrel Action Plan was adopted in 1996 (Zino et al., 1996) by the Ornis Committee and endorsed by the Bern Convention. The implementation of the action plan was reviewed in 2001 (Gallo-Orsi, 2001) and 2004 (Nagy & Crockford, 2004). This review evaluates the implementation of the species Action Plan from 2004 to 2010, in Madeira, Portugal, therefore covering the entire species’ range.

General overview Progress in the overall implementation of the action plan is very high with only a little further work needed (Average IS= 3.5).

4.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 API

Average IS Average 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.1.1 2.1.1 2.2.1 2.3.1 3.1.1 3.2.1 4.1.1 Action

Figure xxi Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action listed in the Zino’s petrel species action plan. Colours represent Priority Score.

Status review The breeding population of Zino’s petrel is increasing (by 10% since 2000) and was last estimated at 65-80 pairs, based on annual censuses (counts at colony) carried out since 2000.

Table 51 Breeding population estimates by country Population Population Current at the time at the 2004 Breeding Country Year Year population Year Reference of the 1996 review trend (pairs) SAP (pairs) (pairs) Portugal 10% 20-30 1994 60-75 2003 65-80 2000-2009 218 (Madeira) Increasing

Objective(s) To increase the breeding population to at least 40 pairs by the year 2000, by eliminating the factors which are adversely affecting the species.

218 Serviço Do Parque Natural Da Madeira 2006; 2009

217

Evaluation The target has been met as there were >40 pairs in 2000, and this number has now increased to 65-80 pairs (2009). However, this increase is not solely down to an actual increase in the population, but also due to the discovery of a new breeding colony (of 20-30 pairs in 2003). The second part of the objective has largely been met as the factors adversely affecting species have been significantly reduced (overgrazing eliminated; human predation eliminated; rats/cat numbers significantly reduced).The species is still highly threatened, as latest fires confirm.

Conservation and Legal Status The Global IUCN Red List Category of Zino’s petrel is Endangered under criteria D1 because it has an extremely small population breeding on six cliff ledges in the central mountain massif of Madeira. The species is listed as Critically Endangered (SPEC 1) under criteria D1 in the European IUCN Red List (BirdLife International, 2004), and is listed in Annex I of the EU Council Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC, ‘Birds Directive’) and in Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention). The species has been protected since 1991219. Zino's Petrel is classed as Endangered in the Portuguese Red Data Book (Cabral et al. 1990).

Overview of past and current threats Through the LIFE project, the threats facing Zino’s petrel have been identified and reduced. The impact of predation has been significantly reduced (to a medium level threat) by control programmes implemented through the LIFE project and continuing actions. Habitat degradation has been reduced to a medium level threat due to removal of cattle through the LIFE project and continuing actions. Human predation no longer occurs, and several actions have been carried out to reduce the impact of disturbance, consequently it is now considered a low level threat. A newly identified threat in 2010 is the presence of a new NATO radar. It is suspected that the lights, radiation, disturbance, fencing, etc, may affect the birds, but the extent is as yet unknown.

Assessment of the implementation

National and regional species action plans The species action plan has been included in the mountainous massive management plan which has been reviewed and legally approved.

Species conservation The large majority of conservation measures carried out since 2001 have been conducted as part of the 2001-2006 LIFE Nature Project220. The actions from this project remain ongoing.

219 In Portugal, Fea’s petrel is a protected species under Decreto-Lei 75/91, which adapts the EU Wild Birds Directive to Portuguese law. 220 LIFE project code: LIFE00 NAT/P/007097

218

Predation There has been significant progress in the control of rats and feral cats, with rat levels reduced to a minimum and breeding areas kept free of rats, due to trapping campaigns in the breeding areas (ongoing since 1980s). A monitoring scheme has been implemented to monitor rat and cat populations and to evaluate the success of trapping campaigns.

Human disturbance Wardening of breeding colonies is ongoing and access to breeding areas after dark is only authorised by permit from Madeira Natural Park. However, during the day breeding areas are freely accessible.

Site conservation The entire breeding population of the species occurs in a Natura 2000 site which is also an IBA, SPA, SAC and is protected under national law (Madeira Natural Park). However, there is little information on the distribution of the species at sea and further information is needed to grant protected area status to the appropriate marine areas. The Madeira Island Central Mountainous Massif Management Plan has been legally approved which covers most of the Natural Park area, including the species’ breeding sites.

Habitat conservation Goats have been completely removed from around breeding areas and significant progress has been achieved in providing artificial burrows for the species (this is an ongoing action).

Monitoring and Research There is a national species project/working group and a national survey/ monitoring programme for the species. Breeding numbers are monitored annually and night-time point counts are conducted annually to determine new breeding areas for the species (a new colony was discovered in 2003). There has been full implementation of all research and monitoring actions from the SAP, with the exception of identifying the feeding and non-breeding range of the species. Some work has been started on researching the feeding and non-breeding range of the species, including marine censuses and placement of data-loggers, however further work is needed and should be a priority action. Habitat selection for breeding colonies has been characterised and the diet of predators has been studied (feral cat diet studied – no Pterodroma remains found in faeces). A project to investigate rat ecology and population dynamics is ongoing.

Public awareness and stakeholder involvement Several educational materials have been produced during and after the LIFE project, with the species used in some campaigns, but not as the symbol of Madeira (this is considered only relevant for birdwatchers as it is a symbol recognised by the public). An information centre about the Natural Park and the species has been established and is continuously improved. A new centre regarding specifically this species under construction and will completed around September/October 2010.

219

Community financial support One LIFE project221 has been implemented during the period 2004-2010 which benefits Zino’s petrel. The project focused on the conservation of Zino's petrel through restoration of its habitat, running from 2001-2006 with a total budget of 1,696,748 Euro, of which the total European Union contribution was 1,187,724 Euro. Although this project has since finished, the majority of the conservation actions are ongoing.

Conclusions Progress in the overall implementation of the action plan is very high with only a little further work needed (Average IS= 3.5). A scores table of the implementation of each action (including a break-down of all actions into measurable targets) is provided in Appendix 1. There are still major gaps and further implementation of the following actions is needed: • Maintaining the monitoring schemes and actions. • Studying foraging areas, behaviour and threats at sea • Determining non-breeding dispersal areas • Granting legal protection for the Marine habitats. • Ensuring the breeding areas are kept free of rats and controlling predation by feral cats • Ongoing wardening of breeding colonies and controlling access to the breeding area. • Continuing search for new breeding colonies

221 LIFE project code: LIFE00 NAT/P/007097

220

Appendix 1

Table 52 Implementation of the action plan in Madeira. PS = Priority Score; PT= Portugal (Madeira); API = Action Priority Index; National IS = National Implementation Score. Action Measure PS PT API

1.1.1 Ensure an adequate legal and financial framework for the conservation of 2 3 0.7 Zino's petrel a. Species recovery plan incorporated in national legislation. 1 3 0.3 b. Species recovery plan incorporated in regional legislation. 1 3 0.3 c. Management plan for the Natural Park of Madeira established. 3 3 1 d. Funds from LIFE regulation used for the conservation of the species and of 3 4 0 the endemic flora. e. The Marine Habitat Conservation Strategy developed by BirdLife used as 2 2 1.3 basis for additional actions. 2.1.1 Improve conditions for the breeding birds by controlling mammalian 4 3.7 0.4 predators a. Eradication of rats completed. 4 3 1.3 b. Breeding areas kept free of rats. 3 4 0 c. Predation by feral cats controlled. 4 4 0 2.2.1 Control human access and disturbance of the breeding area 3 3.8 0.3 a. Wardening of breeding colonies ongoing. 3 4 0 b. Land where ZP breed acquired. 3 4 0 c. Habitat management carried out. 3 4 0 d. Access controlled in the breeding area. 3 3 1 2.3.1 To encourage expansion of the breeding area to other suitable ledges, and promote natural regeneration of vegetation through exclusion of grazing 2 3.7 0.2 stock from the breeding area a. Review of conservation action for other Pterodroma species completed. 1 4 0 b. Artificial burrows for breeding provided in suitable areas and acceptance 1 3 0.3 monitored. c. Goat number reduced by fencing the breeding area. 3 4 0 3.1.1 Undertake monitoring and research programmes to determine population 3 4 0 status and distribution of ZP a. New breeding colonies identified. 3 4 0 b. Breeding numbers monitored annually. 3 4 0 3.2.1 Promote scientific investigations that enhance and facilitate recovery effort 1.5 3.1 0.4 a. Research on population dynamics and survival rates continued. 2 4 0 b. Habitat selection for breeding colonies characterised. 1 4 0 c. The diet of predators living around the breeding area studied. 1 4 0 d. ZP feeding range identified. 2 1 2 e. ZP non-breeding range identified. 2 2 1.3 f. Taxonomic status determined. 1 4 0 g. Ecology and population dynamic of rats investigated. 1 3 0.3 4.1.1 Increase awareness of the need to protect Zino's Petrel and of the natural 2 3.3 0.4 value of the Natural Park of Madeira a. Educational material on the species produced. 2 4 0 b. ZP used as the symbol of the island of Madeira. 2 2 1.3 c. Information centre about the Natural Park and the species established. 2 4 0 National & Average IS 3.6 3.5

References

221

BirdLife International, 2004. Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 12)

BirdLife International 2008. Pterodroma madeira. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010.2. . Downloaded on 13 August 2010.

Gallo-Orsi, U. ed. (2001) Saving Europe’s most threatened birds: progress in implementing European Species Action Plans. Wageningen, The Netherlands: BirdLife International.

Nagy, S & Crockford, N (2004) Implementation in the European Union of species action plans for 23 of Europe’s most threatened birds, BirdLife International, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Zino et al., 1996. Action plan for Zino’s petrel (Pterodroma madeira). BirdLife International report to the European Commission, unpublished. (Document available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/action_plans/docs/pterodroma_ madeira.pdf).

Serviço Do Parque Natural Da Madeira 2006; 2009

222

Marbled Teal Marmaronetta angustirostris

2008 International Marbled Teal Species Action Plan Implementation Report

Coverage This report evaluates the implementation of the EU Species Action Plan from 2004 in the EU range states of the species. The evaluation covers all 25 range states of the species (14 with breeding populations, 4 with stop-over sites and 7 with a wintering population) and 2 EU countries. The implementation of non-country specific actions hasn’t been evaluated. Replies have been received from national experts from EU countries.

Status The species is classified as “vulnerable” on the IUCN red list of globally threatened species due to large population losses in the past and the current very small area of occupancy. In 2007, the breeding population was 73-97 breeding pairs in the EU countries. Including Turkey and Russia the population in Europe is approximately 223-311 breeding pairs.

The world wintering population is estimated at 14,000–26,000. The West Mediterranean and West Africa wintering population is estimated in 3,500-5,000 individuals. The biggest wintering population is in the Southwest of Asia estimated in 5,000-15,000 wintering individuals (Wetlands International 2006). In Spain in 2006 the wintering population was estimated in 175-250 individuals, more than 50% in El Hondo wetland.

The current breeding population estimate is lower than at the time of writing the EU action plan and of the first review. The evolution of the population is very oscillating, but with some decreasing trend. It should be borne in mind that the quality of census has been variable, being higher since 1992. The species is typically fluctuating and according to the opinion of the national experts the overall trend was negative.

Populatio Last SAP Current Country Year Year Year n in SAP review population

Italy 0 n/a 1 – 2 p. 2001 - 2002 2 – 3 2006-2007 1985 - Spain 30 – 250 31 – 204 1994 - 2001 73 – 97 2007 1994

In Italy the populations were stable in the last year, but only with 3 breeding pairs. However in Spain the population has suffered an important decline, mainly in the south. In the East of Spain, in Valencia and Balearic Islands the populations are stable, but in the South, in Andalusia the species is decreasing.

223

Min Max Country Region Year (pairs) (pairs) Trend Italy Western Sicily 2006-2007 1 2 stable South Eastern Sicily 2006-2007 1 1 new breeding Spain Valencia 2004 51 Valencia 2005 62 Valencia 2006 30 Valencia 2007 55 stable Balearic islands 2004 1 Balearic islands 2005 1 Balearic islands 2006 2 3 Balearic islands 2007 3 3 Balearic islands 2008 1 3 slowly increasing Andalusia 2004 75 81 Andalusia 2005 27 32 Andalusia 2006 31 Andalusia 2007 13 36 decreasing Murcia 2007 1 stable Canary islands 2007 1 2 no breeding

Targets In the short term to maintain the current population and area of occupancy throughout its range. In the medium term, to promote the population increase of the species within its current range. In the long term to promote the expansion of the breeding population to other suitable areas.

Evaluation against target After 4 years and after the first review of the SAP which concluded that at least short-term goals have been achieved if, in response to population size, we can conclude that have not achieved the objectives of the action plan, nor short or long term. His occupancy area remains the same today in eastern Spain, however, in southern this area has reduced, and the species doesn’t breed in some wetlands where it was breeding in the past.

Protection Status The species is fully legally protected in all EU member states. Outside the EU, the species isn’t protected in some countries in the north of Africa (Egypt, Lebanon and Syria) and Armenia, but is fully protected in Algeria, Azerbaijan, Israel, Morocco, Russia, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey.

National and regional species action plans Only Italy has approved National Species Action Plan, but Action Plan implementation is still partial. There are draft action plans in Spain, at the last meeting of National Working Species Group in Spain in 2007, under the Wild Fauna and Flora Committee, the Environmental Ministry representative committed to drafting a first draft of the National Strategy for the

224

Conservation of Marble Teal in Spain. There is a regional recovery action plan in Balearic Islands and in Andalusia there is a draft recovery plan for the species, as was done in 1998 and never was approved. Since 2002 until June 2007 has carried out a conservation programme at the Marble Teal in Andalusia.

The Marbled Teal Working Group has met annually since 1994 coordinated by the Ministry of Environment, with the attendance of the regional governments, Ministry of Environment and experts. The species is considered as "endangered" by the Spanish official list of threatened species. AEWA was signed by Spain in 1998 and ratified in 1999. A regional evaluation in Spain in 2002 (following the IUCN guidelines version 3.1) considered the species to be Critically Endangered. Italy ratified AEWA on 6th February 2006 (Law no. 66/06) and formally joined it on 1st September 2006 and the species is fully protected since 1992 (Law no. 157/92). No separate National Wetland Conservation Strategies have been developed in any country, and they are not considered necessary with other tools being available.

Site protection There have been 11 Important Bird Areas identified for the species; all in Spain. All of these sites are classified as SPAs, totally 16. There are five IBAs supporting non-breeding populations of the species. But not all the areas are protected, in Andalusia aren’t protected Laguna de Los Tollos (Cádiz), el Codo de la Esparraguera (Cádiz), La Cañada de Las Norias (Almería), and Salobrar de Campos (Mallorca). In Italy all the sites are SPAs, but two important sites are not included in natural reserves; Leone Marsh in Weatern Sicily and Pachino Marshes in South Eastern Sicily.

Management plans In Spain seven protected areas have management plans that all address the species requirements and are partially implemented. Prevention of damage to sites has often failed. Whereas Environmental Impact Assessment procedures necessary for many major projects have been effective in avoiding damage, for smaller projects not subject to EIA it has been more difficult to prevent damage. There are many damaging projects and consents for water exploitation that affect water level and water quality. Agriculture practices surrounding wetlands cannot be judged as sustainable, which means that the impact of many activities is not properly evaluated. Most important sites have management plans, but these do not avoid many of the problems. In Italy any management plan is approved.

Habitat conservation In Italy two restoration projects are currently ongoing in Sicily, taking into account Marble Teal habitat requirements; also the Italian Ministry of the Environment is planning the creation of about 200 ha of new wetlands in the Natural Reserves of "Biviere di Gela" and "Oasi del Simeto". In Spain:

225

- Valencia, two important habitats have been restored, and in - Murcia, some older pools to irrigate are concentrate now aquatic birds species like Marble Teal. - Andalusia has created a new artificial wetland not exclusive for the species but very important for it.

Prevent hunting and lead poisoning In Italy hunting is forbidden only in the key sites in Western Sicily, while it is allowed in the Pachino Marshes (South Eastern Sicily). A national Decree (17 October 2007) restricted the hunting season in all SPAs, posticipating the hunting opening to 1st October in the Pachino Marshes; in the Mazara del Vallo hunting district the look-alike European Common Teal has been protected in order to avoid the accidental killing of the Marled Teal. In Spain hunting has been banned at important sites (El Hondo SPA since 1997), but it still is practiced at other sites that regularly hold the species in Andalusia (Marismas del Guadalquivir surrounding Doñana National Park) and the Valencian Community (Salinas de Santa Pola SPA and partially in El Hondo SPA). However, effective wandering and other methods to reduce the chance that Marbled Teals are shot are not implemented, despite the fact that funds are available for enforcement of hunting legislation. Lead shot are not allowed at key sites In Italy, a national Decree (17 October 2007) phased out the use of lead shots in all the SPA wetlands - including the Pachino Marshes - since the 2008-09 hunting season. And in Spain the Law 42/2007 ban use lead shots in all the wetlands, but more control to verify the effective performance is necessary. Reducing other mortality factors Only in Spain in two regions some measures has been carried out to reduce other mortality factors, the same measures that have been assessed in the last SAP implementation revision. In Valencia the concrete slopes of an irrigation channel, and adjacent road, were modified at El Hondo SPA to prevent nestling casualties, and in Andalusia two rules regulating fishing gear (net width of tunnel fishing traps) and fishing period were established at the Marismas del Guadalquivir, so that fishing activity does not affect teal reproduction. Effectiveness varies by sites.

Research and Monitoring

All the breeding sites in Spain and Italy are regularly survey. Coordinated counts are carried out periodically at all known and possible breeding sites, in Italy some possible breeding sites in Sicily are regularly monitored on a volunteer basis. All sites where the species is recorded are covered by the Mid-winter counts are also survey. But in Italy the important sites aren’t surveyed simultaneously.

In Spain breeding population size and inter and intra-annual population size changes are well known, although there is need for improvement in quality of counts and involvement of

226

volunteers. There is an Andalusian plan of coordinated counts with dates that coincide with those of the national censuses. One of the periodical counts coincides with the mid-winter counts and covers all sites used by the species.

Some studies on the species' ecology and habitat requirements, relevant for conservation, have been carried out in Spain (especially Andalusia and Valencia) and Morocco. However, there has been very little research activity since 2001.

In Italy, where the population is so small and located just using data phenology and breeding success are currently available but not on ecology and habitat requirement.

At present the movements of the species are not well known, and relatively few ringing activities has been carried out on the species in order to avoid disturbance. In Spain some birds have been marked with winged tags, providing useful information about mortality rates. The experts recommend tagging with satellite transmitters to study long-distance movements. Many threats have been identified and assessed by the above studies; like water level management, habitat degradation, poaching and human disturbance in the breeding season are the main limiting factors, however, some limiting factors remain to be understood (e.g. competition with other aquatic birds or predation for invasive exotic species like carps).

Networking and awareness raising An environmental campaign, that has been carried out in the framework of the Life project in Valencia, was finished at the same time that the Life project and any specific campaign about the species has been carry out. Some reports and document have been published in internet but without public information related. In Italy the National Action Plan was distributed among Local Administrations, Hunting and Conservation Associations and Clubs. No specific campaign targeted at hunters.

Community financial support Any specific Life project has been carry out during the last four years. For the first review two Life project have addressed (LIFE96 NAT/E/003105, LIFE03 NAT/E/000055) that have been ended.

Conclusions There hasn’t been so much progress in the implementation of the action plan (Average IS=2,4), from the first review SAP implementation. International conservation agreements such as AEWA can play an important role, but Turkey has not signed up to this yet. The species is fully protected but national and regional actions plans aren’t developed nor implemented.

227

However some additional measures have taken at in Spain; Andalusian Wetlands Plan adopted in 2002, through which are being carried out actions as: * Control of invasive alien species - Inside the Andalusia Plan to control de Invasive alien species, started in 2005 and outgoing. * Studies on the effectiveness of grit to decreasing the impact of spent lead shot in wetlands – In some areas in Cadiz province. * Monitoring network and evaluation of wetlands – In all Andalusia Region, inside the Wetland Conservation Andalusia Plan. * Water regulation project in the Nature Reserve Brazo del Este (Seville) – Started in 2003 and coordinate by Andalusia Regional Government. * Regulating water levels in La Cañada de las Norias (Almeria) – From 2006 until now the Andalusia Regional Government is working in this aim. * Control of overgrazing in Nature Reserve Brazo del Este, Dehesa de Abajo and Doñana National Park (Seville) – From 2004 until now the Andalusia Regional Government working in this aim.

But some actions must be implemented in Spain:

- To protect the breeding and wintering areas that still are not. Declare SPA all breeding and wintering locations that haven’t decelerated yet.

- Approve the National Action Plan and Recovery Plans of different Autonomous Communities, maintain the Working Group and make a coordinated plan with North Africa.

- To promote the fishing management plans and reduces fishing pressure in some areas like Almenara. We need a fish management plan all species localities.

- Habitat restoration to amplify the breeding and feeding possibilities for the species, altought in Parque Natual de El Hondo, Salinas de Santa Pola, Veta la Palma, Brazo del Este, Codo de la Esparraguera, Marisma de Adventus, Cañada de las Norias, Laguna de las Moreras.

- Local cleaning of lead shots in areas of high concentration (especially in the Parque Natual de El Hondo).

- Ban the species introductions from captivity to avoid genetic and veterinary risk. Carry out genetic studies to characterize the different populations in the world. Develop a genetic stock follow the IUCN recommendations.

Contributors Ana Iñigo, Andy J. Green, José Luis Echevarría, Alessandro Andreotti, Concha Raya, Jordi Muntaner and Gustavo Ballesteros.

228

Appendix: Marbled teal action plan implementation scores

229

Aquatic Warbler Acrocephalus paludicola

(2008)

Coverage This report evaluates the implementation of the EU Species Action Plan from 1996 in the EU range states of the species, as well as the implementation of the CMS Species Action Plan from 2003 across all of the species’ EU and non-EU range states. The evaluation covers all 16 range states of the species (8 with breeding occurrence, 7 with stopover sites and 1 with a wintering population), 12 EU countries and 4 non-EU countries. Additionally, the implementation of non-country-specific actions has been evaluated. Three countries have not been included in this review, as they are not yet officially recognized as range states by the CMS Memorandum of Understanding for the conservation of this species: Mauritania and Mali, which presumably hold parts of the population in winter, and Morocco, which presumably is important during migration. Replies have been received from national experts from all countries.

Status The species is classified as “vulnerable” on the IUCN red list of globally threatened species due to large population losses in the past and the current very small area of occupancy. In 2007, the breeding population was 11,342-13,939 singing males (unit used instead of breeding pairs, as the species does not form pairs), of these 2,966-3,024 in the EU (22-26%). Within the official range states, an estimated 300-1,000 migratory records of the species are made annually, all of them within the EU. The only confirmed wintering population of 5-15,000 individuals is confined to Senegal, i.e. outside the EU. The current breeding population estimate is higher than at the time of writing the EU action plan but within the lower part of the brackets given in the CMS action plan . The main reason of the change in numbers is an adjustment of the population estimates. The dramatic population decline has been stopped since the late 1990ies, with the overall population now being fluctuating with a possible underlying slow decline. Populations in the three main breeding countries are relatively stable (fluctuating with a possible slow decline in Belarus, increasing with a recent local decline in the Ukraine and a slow decline in Poland). National populations in all other countries show confirmed declines at various rates.

230

Table 53 Aquatic warbler population size and trends Current Reason for change of Population in population estimate/trend since Population in CMS SAP estimate, 2002 EU SAP, Country (singing (singing (singing males), 1998- males), 2003- males), 1993 2002 2007 (2000 for Russia) Poland 3,500–4,500 2,800-3,000 2,700-3,460 New counts, underlying slow decline Germany 40–50 9-25 10 Real decline Hungary 400–425 386-700 132 Real decline Latvia 10–50 1-10 0-3 Irregular breeding occurrence Lithuania 50–200 225-280 150-309 Real decline since 2004 Ukraine 1-10 2,100-3,540 3,500-4,000 additional sites discovered, and real increase, recent decline at Upper Pripyat since 2006 Belarus 1,500-5,000 6.600-12,500 5,840 Unknown sites discovered, later adjustment of estimate, fluctuating or slow decline Russia 100-500 50-500 0-500 Adjusted estimate, presumed decline, no records since 2000 TOTAL 5,600-10,700 12,171-20,555 12,182-14,254 New sites discovered, adjusted estimate, overall trend: fluctuating, possible underlying slow decline

Targets (for EU and CMS plan) In the short term, to maintain the current population of the Aquatic Warbler throughout its range. In the medium to long term, to promote the expansion of the breeding population to other suitable areas.

Evaluation against target The dramatic decline of the world population could be stopped since the late 1990ies due to effective conservation work at the species most important breeding sites. However, there still is a possible overall slow decline. Countries with small national populations show clear declines with extinction of the species immanent in Germany, Latvia and Russia. Hence, it can be concluded that important progress has been made towards achieving the short-term aim, while the medium to long-term aims have not yet been achieved.

Protection Status The species is fully legally protected in all EU member states save for Belgium, where the species has only been given general protection. Outside the EU, the species is fully protected in

231

Belarus, but not in the Ukraine, Russia and Senegal. In Senegal, efforts are underway to arrange full protection for the species by the end of 2008.

National and regional species action plans The UK and Belgium (Flanders) have a fully approved National Species Action Plan. There are draft action plans in Poland, Lithuania, Belarus and the Ukraine, covering 95% of the world population, which have not been formally adopted. There are plans to develop Action Plans in France, in the German Land of Brandenburg and in Senegal. All other countries are unlikely to develop National Action Plans, either because the species is rare or irregular or because targeted conservation work is being undertaken without the need for a National Action Plan. No separate National Wetland Conservation Strategies have been developed in any country, and they are not considered necessary with other tools being available.

Site protection Within the EU, c. 90% of the breeding population is covered by national protected areas, even 98% are covered by Special Protection Areas (SPAs). Across the whole breeding population, c. 86% is located within either a national protected area or an SPA. About 80% of the known stopover sites are nationally protected areas and SPAs (all within the EU), but two out of the three key sites in Belgium remain unprotected. Less than 50% of the known wintering population in Senegal occurs within a nationally protected area (national park), the remainder just outside in the buffer zone of this park. The network of protected areas covering the breeding sites can be assessed as coherent, with room for improvement in the Ukraine. It has to be noted that many countries report that the formal protection of sites alone is not sufficient to maintain the populations due to implementation deficits or the lack of active protection measures. Projects likely to damage Aquatic Warbler sites are subject to environmental impact assessments in all EU countries and all non-EU countries but Russia. However, there are doubts about the efficiency of the system in the Ukraine, Bulgaria and Latvia, and to a lesser extent in Lithuania, Portugal and Poland.

Management plans Site management plans with specific focus on the Aquatic Warbler have been developed for half of the key breeding site of the species in the Ukraine, all key sites in Belarus and are being developed for nine key sites in Poland (covering c. 80% of the national population). The management plan for the key site in Hungary is suitable for the protection of the species, although long-lasting spring floods or fires can still negatively influence the local population. In all other EU countries general site management plans exist or are being developed for most SPAs with Aquatic Warbler occurrence during breeding or migration. These plans are deemed insufficient for the only German breeding site and for the Lithuanian sites.

Habitat conservation As there are virtually no 100% pristine and self-sustaining habitats left, maintaining the species’ breeding habitat requires the conservation of appropriate hydrological conditions and active management of the vegetation by conservation managers or farmers in order to prevent overgrowth with reeds, bushes or trees. To a lesser extent, this equally applies to stopover sites. For wintering sites, these aspects are again crucial. While changes of the hydrological regime (drainage) have been the reason for most of the rapid historical decline of the species, further drainage of major Aquatic Warbler sites has been

232

stopped since the late 1990ies. Restoration of water conditions has been implemented in Belarus and Hungary, and to a smaller extent in the Ukraine and Poland. Today, drainage continues to be a problem, but only locally: Ongoing river deepening work at the upper Pripyat in the Ukraine potentially threatens the habitat of 1,000 singing male Aquatic Warblers, while river deepening works in the Ner Valley in Poland might bring the extinction of the small local population. Proper water management is needed to maintain the declining Lithuanian population. Within the EU, incentives for the maintenance of extensive land use on wet meadows within the breeding range of the species have been created through agri-environmental schemes in Poland, Germany, Hungary and Lithuania. They aim to prevent both, abandonment and intensification of land use. However, only the new scheme in Poland is specifically targeted at the Aquatic Warbler and is likely to be the only one creating a measurable positive impact, while in Lithuania non-specific schemes for extensive use of meadows are even likely to be damaging to the local population of Aquatic Warblers. No such incentives exist outside the EU, but in those countries the decline of traditional extensive land use is slower. Only Hungary, the Netherlands, France and Senegal report more than half of their Aquatic Warbler sites to be covered by suitable vegetation management (grazing or mowing). In Poland, Germany, Lithuania and Belarus, suitable active vegetation management is being implemented, but currently on much less than half the area of the sites, in Poland and Germany mainly as part of a recent EU LIFE Project. A low level of active management is reported for the Ukraine. Fire is now being used as a targeted active management tool in Belarus and Senegal. In other countries, this tool is not used, mainly due to legal obstacles. In Germany, a burning experiment is planned to restore vegetation suitable for the Aquatic Warbler. Uncontrolled fires are not a major problem any more in any of the range states. Today, the lack of suitable vegetation management is the main reason for population declines across the breeding range. In most cases, the problem is abandonment leading to overgrowth, but locally it is too intensive land use with too early mowing, especially in the Nemunas Delta, the main breeding site in Lithuania. Habitat restoration is currently mainly confined to the re-introduction of extensive land use on recently abandoned land near existing Aquatic Warbler breeding sites. This type of activity is implemented in those countries that conduct active vegetation management for the species (see above). The restoration of former breeding sites, which had been completely destroyed through historical drainage, is being attempted only in Belarus. Here, an ongoing GEF Project is restoring about 20,000 ha of degraded fen mires, with another project being developed to target another 150,000 ha in the medium-term future. It is too early yet to expect the re-colonisation of these sites by the Aquatic Warbler.

Research and Monitoring In 1998, BirdLife International has set up the Aquatic Warbler Conservation Team (AWCT), a working group of national Aquatic Warbler experts. This group is coordinating research and monitoring on this species, and has developed standard methods. Reliable estimates for the whole breeding population are assembled annually, with full counts conducted regularly in all countries (in some countries even annually). The extent of the breeding range has now been fully clarified, and the first major wintering site in Africa has been found, with further research being undertaken to identify other key wintering sites. Thanks to EU LIFE Projects in Spain and France, more key stopover sites have been identified.

233

Thanks to the AWCT and their members, there is now a very good understanding of the species’ habitat requirements at the breeding and stopover sites. Current research is focusing on the habitat requirements at the wintering sites, and the effect of different habitat management techniques (mainly within the Polish-German EU LIFE Project, but also in Belarus).

Networking and awareness raising Since the preparation of the EU action plan, a strong network committed to the conservation of the species has developed. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB, BirdLife in the UK) financially supports the work of the AWCT and of national BirdLife organisations in the range states. A Memorandum of Understanding for the Conservation of the Aquatic Warbler under the Bonn Convention (CMS) has been signed by all CMS-recognised range states apart from France (signature upcoming), the Netherlands and Russia and a secretariat has been set up at APB-BirdLife Belarus in Minsk. A number of donor organisations is supporting Aquatic Warbler conservation across its range. Awareness for the conservation of Aquatic Warblers and its habitat has been raised successfully amongst land users, stakeholders and the public in France, Spain, Germany and especially Poland, largely thanks to EU LIFE Projects. Outside the EU, educational activities have been particularly successful in Belarus, where the bird is now a well-known symbol for nature conservation as a whole and a flagship species for fen mire protection in particular. In other countries, publicity has been less, largely because of the scarcity of the species, which does not make it a suitable candidate to be a flagship for conservation. However, local publicity has been provided in all countries but Portugal, Bulgaria, Netherlands, Belgium and Russia.

Community financial support The EU LIFE Programme has to date supported five projects targeting the species’ conservation. The overall EU contribution to these projects is 6.9m €, but only three of these projects (EU contribution: 5.7m €) focus mainly on Aquatic Warblers: one in Spain (LIFE02 NAT/E/008616, Conservation of the aquatic warbler in the ZEPA 'La Nava-Campos'), one in France (LIFE04 NAT/FR/000086, Conservation of the Aquatic Warbler in Brittany) and one in Poland and Germany (LIFE05 NAT/PL/000101, Conserving Acrocephalus paludicola in Poland and Germany). Other community funding contributing to the conservation of the species are Rural Development Funds used to finance agri-environmental schemes. A specifically targeted scheme is due to commence in Poland in 2009.

Conclusions There has been significant progress in the implementation of the action plan. The average National Implementation Score (NIS) for the EU member states increased from 2.4 in the 2004 review to 2.7. The NIS for all range states including the four non-EU member states is 2.6. If weighting the NIS according to the percentage of the species population occurring in each country during breeding, migration and wintering, the scores increase further, being 3.1 for the EU, and 2.9 for all range states. This shows, that both within the EU and outside, far better implementation of the action plan could be achieved in those countries that are especially important for the species. This is different to the findings of the 2004 implementation report, when a particularly low score was reported from Poland, the country that holds 82% of the EU population. The highest NIS were achieved for France (3.3), UK (3.2), Hungary (3.1), Poland (3.0) and Spain (2.9), and outside the EU for Belarus (3.0).

234

Actions relating to formal protection, monitoring and research reached very high implementation scores between 3.0 and 4.0, while action relating to active targeted habitat management scored much lower between 1.0 and 2.9. This can probably explain why large- scale habitat destruction could be stopped since the publication of the EU action plan, but not yet the existing or possible slow decline of most populations due to land use and habitat changes. The target has not yet been fully reached, and further efforts have to be made, especially on the following priority actions: • develop National Species Action Plans • improve formal species protection outside the EU, especially in the Ukraine and Senegal • prevent the implementation of projects and programmes that could harm the breeding, stopover and wintering sites of the species, e.g. the deepening of the Upper Pripyat River in the Ukraine or programmes supporting early mowing in Lithuania’s Nemunas Delta. • create financial incentives to maintain suitable extensive management of wet meadows • implement regular targeted vegetation management (mowing, grazing, fire) • restore degraded or destroyed sites through the restoration of natural hydrological conditions and subsequent vegetation management

Contributors Prepared by Lars Lachmann, OTOP, with contributions from: Martin Flade, Franziska Tanneberger, Jaroslaw Krogulec, Zsolt Végvári, Oskars Keišs, Zydrunas Preiksa, Leigh Lock, Arnaud Le Neve, Carlos Zumalacárregui, Bernd de Bruijn, Petar Iankow, Jose Tavares, Viktar Fenchuk, Anatolij Poluda, Mikhail Kalyakin, Cosima Tegetmeyer, Ibrahima Diop

235

Appendix: Table 54 Aquatic warbler SAP Implementation scores (2008) COUNTRY WEIGHTING RE. POPULATION IMPACT EU only 100% 82% 2% 13% 1% 2% 2% 2% 5% 6% 6% 40% 40% all range countries 100%25%1%4%1%1%1%1%2%2%2%25%25%

EU CMS SAP SAP Target UK SAP Action Action SAP Spain Latvia (AWCT) for EU for France Poland Belgium Hungary Bulgaria Portugal (EU plan) (EU Germany Lithuania

No. No. non country- AIS forAIS EU EU for API Priority EU Priority CMS Netherlands specific actions weighted AIS AIS weighted countries only countries only countries only countries 1.1.1 1.1.2 Incentives are available to maintain the 33 traditional farming practices at breeding 0334000130000 2.8 3.1 1.2 sites. 1.1.2a 1.1.1 a The species is fully protected. 3 4 0444444444343 3.8 3.8 0.2 1.1.2b 1.1.1 b National action plan developed. 3 4 0321141131421 2.0 2.2 2.0 1.1.2c & 1.1.1 c & All activities likely to damage the species' 34 2.1.2 2.1.2 habitat are subject to environmental impact 0344243234443 3.3 3.3 0.7 assessment. 1.1.2d 1.1.1 d Insecticide use in water catchments is 34 3.3 3.8 0.8 regulated and limited. 0044100004000 1.1.2e 1.1.1 e National wetland strategy, taking into 34 consideration the species' needs developed. 0003101102001 1.5 1.5 2.5

2.1.1 & 2.1.1 & All sites regularly holding breeding Aquatic 33 2.1.2 2.1.2 Warblers are protected and has management 0333000330000 3.0 3.0 1.0 plan 2.2.1 2.2.2 Traditional agriculture practices preventing 34 habitat succession are maintained. 0334101120102 2.0 2.6 2.0

2.2.2 2.2.3 Properly applied hand scything and mowing 2.5 3 covers all habitats on rotational basis 0203000122030 2.2 2.3 1.5

2.2.3 2.2.5 Appropriate level grazing is maintained. 2.5 2 0204000110000 2.0 2.2 1.7 2.2.4 2.2.4 Fire applied as part of management where 2.5 3 appropriate, but uncontrolled fires are 0120100110001 1.2 1.0 2.4 prevented 2.2.5 2.2.1 Natural water conditions are restored, where 1.5 4 this is not possible water level controlled. 0334200112033 2.4 3.0 0.8

2.2.6 2.2.6 Land managers informed about best habitat 31 2.4 2.7 1.6 management techniques 0224121330134 2.3.1 2.3.1 All sites in Europe used by the birds on 33 3.2 3.0 0.8 passage are effectively protected. 0030344304233 2.4.1 2.4.1 In areas no longer used for agriculture 32 habitat restoration carried out. 0123001130002 1.9 1.5 2.1

3.1.1 3.1.1 Census methodology developed and 33 regularly applied throughout the species 3444141441343 3.1 3.4 0.9 range. 3.1.2 3.1.2 All potential breeding sites located and 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.8 0.7 surveyed 0433000430000 3.1.3 a 3.1.3 Regular data collected at major passage 22 sites and further passage sites identified. 0002143302243 2.7 3.1 0.9

3.1.3.b 3.1.4 Major wintering sites identified. 2 3 3000000000000 3.0 3.0 0.7 3.1.4 3.1.5 Habitat requirements at passage and 22 2.1 3.1 1.3 wintering sites understood. 3000111002234 3.2.1 3.2.1 Variation in breeding density and success 23 understood through comparative studies. 3312000010000 2.0 2.9 1.3

3.2.2 3.2.2 Effect of different habitat management 33 techniques and water conditions on breeding populations assessed. 3332000020004 2.8 3.1 1.2

3.2.3 3.2.3 Collaborative research and monitoring 33 2.9 3.7 1.1 developed. 4423143431243 4.1 4.1 A strong network of committed organisations 3.5 3 and individuals developed. 4423233440234 3.2 3.7 1.0

4.2 4.2 The species is used as a flagship for the 33 conservation of lowland marshes and wet 0413020040024 2.9 3.4 1.1 meadows. 4.3 4.3 Educational material on the species 33 2.8 3.3 1.3 produced and distributed. 0322020320044 Additional measures taken at national level, but not related to any of the targets defined in the action plan:

N.A. N.A. Investigate and implement sustainable use of biomass produced during AW habitat management 2

236

Spanish Imperial Eagle Aquila adalberti

European Action Plan Implementation Report 2004-2008

Coverage This report evaluates the implementation of the EU Species Action Plan from 2004 to 2008 in the EU range states of the species. It covers the entire breeding population of the species in Spain and Portugal, the only EU countries where the species breeds. Replies to the evaluation questionnaire were received (how many?) from national experts.

Status The Spanish Imperial Eagle is classified as “Vulnerable” on the IUCN Red List of globally threatened species due to the small size of its population (fewer than 1,000 mature individuals).

Since the previous evaluation in 2004 (Nagy and Crockford, 2004) the species has continued to increase in numbers. It returned as a breeding breeding species to Portugal in 2002. In 2007, the EU breeding population was 235 breeding pairs, divided in 5 sub-populations.

The current breeding population is larger than at the time of writing the 1996 EU action plan and it has increased fivefold over the last thirty years. The area of occupancy has grown from the nuclei of the beginning of the 70s (contagious model) and all nuclei have increased their area except the Doñana one. New nuclei have formed in Cáceres, Badajoz, Ciudad Real and the south of Portugal.

Table 55 Trend in the size of the breeding population of the Spanish Imperial Eagle Populatio Last SAP n at the Current review in Country time of the Year Year population Year 2004 1996 SAP (pairs) (pairs) (pairs)

Portugal 0 1994 1-3 2003 2 2007

Spain 150 1994 187 2003 232 2007

237

Table 56 Regional distribution and trends of the Spanish Imperial Eagle population Country Region Year Pairs Trend Spain Andalucía 2007 50 Stable Castilla-La Mancha 2007 73 Increasing Castilla y León 2007 33 Slowly increasing Extremadura 2007 49 Increasing Madrid 2007 27 Slowly increasing Portugal 2007 2 Slowly increasing

Targets To increase the population and range to a degree that will allow its reclassification as ”Least concern”.

Evaluation against target The species is currently listed as Vulnerable under criterion D1 (IUCN, 2008) because its population is smaller than 1,000 mature individuals and on the grounds that it is dependent on ongoing intensive management measures to mitigate the impact of threats such as poisoning, electrocution and insufficient food availability.

Although increasing steadily for the last 8 years the long-term target has not yet been reached and conservation measures needs to continue. However, taking into account the sustained increase of the population, the development of the population is heading towards that aim.

Protection Status

The Spanish Imperial Eagle is legally protected in Spain and Portugal. It was classified as “Endangered” in National Catalogue for threatened species.

Law 42/2007, on Natural Heritage and Biodiversity, introduced several legal dispositions that identify Engangered species as the Spanish Imperial Eagle as “priority” and provide for their increased protection, special protection for the their habitats and requires greater coordination in conservation efforts.

Regional Governments have drawn up a series of sectoral laws and strategies that have benefited the Spanish Imperial Eagle, (biodiversity and habitats conservation, Environmental Impact Assessment, power lines, ban on use of poison).

National and regional species action plans

Since 1987, the Ministries of Environment in Madrid, Castilla y León, Castilla-La Mancha, Extremadura and Andalusia Regional Governments have been carrying out a Coordinated Plan of Action for Imperial Eagle Conservation which, in general terms, consists of the monitoring and censusing of the breeding population, identification of limiting factors and causes of mortality, the promotion of measures to improve the status of the species and the coordination of the bodies and groups involved in its study and conservation.

238

In 2001, the National Commission for the Nature Protection approved the National Strategy for the Conservation of Spanish Imperial Eagle which contains guidelines for the protection of the species and basis for the autonomous regions recovery plans. The autonomous regions of Castilla y León and Castilla-La Mancha approved their species recovery plans in 2003 and also Extremadura did in 2004. Both Andalusia and Madrid have a draft of the plan but have not yet approved. According to Law 42/2007, they should do it before the end of 2010.

Portugal has not adopted a National Species Action Plan yet.

Site protection There are 24 Important Bird Areas identified for the species, 22 in Spain and 2 in Portugal. All of them are designated as Special Protected Areas. There are 17 national protected areas containig the species and 90 EU Special Protected Areas, (4 of them in Portugal). Altogether, there are 107 areas protected by Law containing 70,56% of the total breeding population. Therefore all IBAs holding the species in globally significant numbers are protected. The total area of SPAs designated for the species has increased considerably and it´s about 3.8 million hectares now (in comparizon, 2.9 million hectares are included in IBAs for the species).

In recent years, due to the population increasing, several new breeding pairs have established themselves outside of protected areas.

Still unprotected remain the dispersal, temporary staging areas and recolonisation areas. As these are stable in time and relatively well known, it is desirable to designate them as protected due to the critical ecological function they play for the population.

Management plans 61% of the protected areas (only 40% of SPAs) in which the species lives have management plans and these in general take into consideration the ecological needs of the Spanish Imperial Eagle.

Since 2004 Doñana National Park has a special plan for the Spanish Imperial Eagle (Plan de Actuaciones Urgentes para la Conservación del Águila Imperial Ibérica en Doñana 2004-2008), which has delivered good results.

In Portugal only 2 of the 3 most important areas for the species have management plans, but these do not take into consideration the habitat requirements of Spanish Imperial Eagle. The third one will be aproved soon and it will take into consideration the species´ requirements.

Habitat conservation

Regional Governments have drawn up a series of sectoral laws and strategies that have benefited the Spanish Imperial Eagle, biodiversity and habitats conservation, and Environmental Impact Assessment.

239

In some protected areas as Doñana, Cabañeros and Monfragüe National Parks, restoration projects are being carried out in order to improve Spanish Imperial Eagle habitats. In Castilla y León, afforestation and restoration of holm, cork oak and pine are promoted with other objectives, but also benefit the eagles. In other cases, however, the ecological needs of the species are not taken into account by forestry and agricultural planning.

Other conservation, research and public awareness measures

Agriculture

Integrating the species requirements into agricultural plans continues without receiving much attention although most feeding and dispersal areas are generally located in agricultural areas. In 2008 the Regional planning on Rural development for 2007-2013 has been approved. Only the programmes of Castilla-La Mancha & Extremadura have specific measures for the Spanish Imperial Eagle. In Castilla-La Mancha there are measures to support the recovery of endangered species through the construction of beetle banks in the breeding, dispersal and important zones of the Recovery Plan of the species. The Rural Development Programme in Extremadura establishes annual financial grants to land owners in Natura 2000 or protected areas or priority habitats in order to pay for improvement measures for the habitats of endangered species or their prey and for direct conservation measures such as improving the safety of electric pylons.

One of the subsidies within the new rural development programme is again the “reforestation of agriculture fields”, which are intended to compensate farmers’ income losses. The result is a loss of suitable hunting habitat for the species.

Forestry The basic legislation on forestry has as one of it principles the conservation and restauration of biodiversity of the of forest ecosystems and stablish incentives to the restauration, conservation and improvement of biodiversity. In general also the regional legislation on forestry also takes into account biodiversity. In the practice these provisions start to bear fruit , for example in Extremadura agreements between forestry and environmental administrations have been stablished recently and there are good results.

Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Impact Assessment procedures are binding for many major projects, but there are many other of smaller magnitude that does not qualify. Although many major projects in critical areas for the species have been avoided thanks to EIA, the experience gained during the past years show that many damaging projects that affect dispersal and recolonization areas are not adequately valued. In many cases evaluations are not correctly done (for example, fragmentation of projects), so the evaluation procedures do not always guarantee the protection of the species. In Portugal there is a different situation and many projects have not been evaluated due to the lack of knowledge on the species and the fact that was considered as extinct until a few years ago.

240

Improving food availability This measure is mainly directed to the recovery of rabbit populations. It has invested a great deal of effort and budget in implementing habitat management measures to increase rabbit populations (improving feeding and shelter conditions, and increased availability of places for reproduction, etc.).

Most of this management, together with restocking, is carried out in protected areas (Monfragüe, Doñana and Cabañeros National Parks) or in private lands under agreements established between landowners and public administrations or NGOs. In some protected areas, such as Doñana National Park, some targeted habitat measures have been taken (such as reforestation) and as a result rabbit population is increasing. We are so far unable to assess whether the population increase is due to the re-stocking or habitat management measures. In Castilla y Leon re-stocking has been done in various areas, with uneven results. To facilitate the rabbit population recovery in several places, leasing of rabbit hunting by public adminsitrations or custody entities has been developed instead of rabbit hunting restrictions, a very complex and delicate measure.

Prevent electrocution

The Andalusian, Extremadura, Madrid, and Castilla-La Mancha Regional Governments passed Decrees to protect birds from high voltage electrical installations in protected natural areas. These regulations require that new lines fulfil some technical requirements to be considered safe for birds.

In February 2008 the central government has passed Royal Decree 268/08 for the protection of birds from power lines, which sets technical standards to abide by lines of new construction to avoid electrocution of birds and promote the correction of dangerous lines in the Protection Areas (SPA and priority areas of the recovery plans). It establishes a two five-year period for the correction of all dangerous lines for birds in the Protection Areas (SPA and priority areas of the recovery plans for threatened species) and provides funding to carry out corrections. This is a very important development since the decree has substantial funding to correct powerlines.

In general there have been significant efforts in locating dangerous lines in all territories with the presence of Imperial Eagle, both through monitoring that the autonomous communities carry out and as part of conservation projects developed by NGOs.

Many of the corrections made in the 90´s have lost their effectiveness, so the number of cases of electrocution has increased in the last years. The electricity companies are well aware of the problem. They employ technicians and advisors dealing with the issue. Information is provided at any time if it is requested, or if NGO or governments seek to correct any dangerous power line.

Studies to design harmless electricity pylons are being carried out. Lot of work has been done in this matter and there are several publications and studies available (national and international level). The rules adopted for the protection of birds from electrocution establish technical conditions that aim to make new power lines to be harmless for birds.

241

Prevent poisoning

A National Strategy on the Illegal use of poison in the natural environment was approved in 2004, a Regional Plan on the illegal use of poison in the natural environment in Castilla-La Mancha (2005) and a Strategy for the eradication of the illegal use of poison in Andalusia.

Some progress has been made, although the situation is uneven in different regions and even at the provincial level. Only effective measures have been taken in Andalusia and Castilla-La Mancha, nothing so far in the provinces of Huelva and Jaén in the first and Ciudad Real and Albacete in the second. In Castilla y Leon in some game reserves in which poisons have been used hunting was closed in order to restore the affected game populations to the original levels.

It has increased surveillance with the staff of the autonomous communities. The two bodies involved are the environmental and forestry agents and Seprona (Nature Protection Service of Civil Guard) and also the technicians who perform the monitoring of species. However, there is still no effective monitoring and specialized work done.

Increasing productivity of breeding pairs

Supplementary feeding is provided every year at feeding stations for pairs that often have problems with sibling aggression or whose young suffer nutritional deficiencies. This measure involves an increase in productivity in the territories in which there is shortage of food.

Also, in recent years, and in order to improve the availability of natural food for some pairs, experimental restocking with rabbits in the home-ranges of breeding pairs in all population range has been carried out by providing protected burrows or by setting up release enclosures. Most of this restocking is carried out in protected areas (Monfragüe, Doñana and Cabañeros National Parks) or in private lands under agreements established between landowners and public administrations or NGOs.

All autonomous regions allocated personnel and resources to survey the breeding population and most breeding pairs are monitored during breeding period. Several nests in problematic zones are guarded every year. The monitoring of the species has improved in recent years and equipments have specialized.

Potentially disturbing human activities in the vicinity of nests are restricted, such as forestry, livestock and beekeeping. Some regional governments have established a "sensitive period" in which some activities are not allowed near the nests.

Whenever it looks as if a nest is unstable or has fallen, the nest is either reinforced or an artificial platform in the form of a replacement nest is installed. High occupation rates have been achieved in Extremadura, Guadarrama and Doñana (Cadenas, 1995).

In Castilla-La Mancha there is equipment for repairing nests formed by guards and technicians.

242

Surveys and monitoring

Since 1994 there is a Working Group for the Spanish Imperial Eagle which functions are to elaborate the annual summary for its dissemination and the census and distribution of the species, to identify the conservation problems, to evaluate the results of the actions of conservation undertaken and the level of fulfilment of the National Strategy.

This Group is formed by technicians of the Ministry of Environment and Crown Heritage, and representatives of the autonomous communities, and hold annual meetings in which the situation of the species is revised. The Group prepares an annual summary of the situation of the population.

Not enough effort is made to survey for new breeding pairs and effort differ between the autonomous communities and even provinces. In Portugal systematic surveys and monitoring is not taking place.

Every year around 30-40 chicks are tagged and tracked using radio transmitters or satellite- transmitters in order to find out about their dispersal routes, temporary dispersal zones, survival and causes of death. This is a measure that gives a lot of information on the species, but it’s necessary to improve coordination between different teams in order to bring results, e.g. protection of important temporary settlement areas.

Awareness-raising and publicity

In recent years a number of awareness campaigns have been carried out. SEO/BirdLife is developing a campaign within the framework of its “Alzando el vuelo” programme in the five regions where the species lives. Some educational materials have been edited and activities with schoolchildren have been carried out with the collaboration of regional administration in Castilla-La Mancha. One specific material for the first cycle of secondary school students have been edited and sent to all schools situated across the species´ range.

Regional government of Castilla y León developed a campaign during 2006 y 2007 with specific materials and activities for schoolchildren.

Also WWF/Adena has edited some material and done activities with schoolchildren in Doñana and Valley of Tiétar.

Community financial support

No additional community financial support for the conservation of the species has been received since 2004 but a project for has recently been approved in Castilla-La Mancha for the conservation priority species in the mediterranean (LIFE 07 NAT/E/00742), with a Community contribution of 1.625.400 €.

243

Conclusions

There has been some progress in the implementation of the species action plan. The average National Implementation Score (NIS) (weigthted according to the percentage of the species population ocurring in each country) for both Spain and Portugal, the only EU countries where the species inhabit, increased from 2,37 in 2004 to 2,40 in 2008.

The fact that the difference in the implementation is so little reflects, on the one hand, that many of the actions where already in progress in 2004, when the previous review was done and, secondly, the slower progress of the implementation of the Plan in Portugal. Thus, the NIS for Spain is significantly higher (2.41) than for Portugal (1.79), what reflects that conservation efforts in Portugal are recent, mainly due to the species was considered extinct.

Some important efforts have been made, especially in relation to habitat management and legal measures. Important legislation was passed since 2004: Law 42/2007, which will increase the protection of endangered species as Spanish Imperial Eagle and its habitats and Royal Decree 268/08 for the protection of birds from power lines, which will allow the correction of dangerous power lines in next years and sets technical standards to abide by lines of new construction to avoid electrocution of birds and promote the correction of dangerous lines in the Protection Areas.

However, the long-term target has not reached yet and species recovery still depends on conservation measures. Efforts need to continue, especially on the following priority actions:

- Protection of new breeding areas, dispersal and recolonisation zones. - Extension of appropiate habitat management in order to recover rabbit populations. - Improve human attitudes towards the species. This measure should be extended to new breeding, dispersal and recolonisation areas. - Promote that the agricultural planning instruments take into consideration the ecological needs of the species. - Correction of dangerous power lines and monitoring its effectiveness and avoid the construction of new power lines in breeding, dispersal and recolonization zones. - Improve the effectivenes of the measures to avoid the use of poison, trhough the specialization of equipments and the control of substances.

Contributors

A. Aranda (Environmental regional administration, Castilla-La Mancha, Spain), A. Balmori (Environmental regional administration, Castilla y León, Spain), B. Barov (BirdLife International), C. Cano (WWF/Adena, Spain), J. Caldera (Environmental regional administration, Extremadura, Spain), J.P. Castaño (Spain), C. Dávila (SEO/BirdLife), L. M. González (SG. of Biodiversity, Directorate-General for Natural Environment and Forest Policy, Spain), J. Guzmán (Castilla-La Mancha, Spain), J.J. Negro (EBD-CSIC), J. Oria (Spain), C. Pacheco (Portugal), S. Pacheco (Environmental regional administration, Andalucía, Spain), B. Sánchez (SEO/BirdLife), R. Sánchez (Tragsa-Ministry of Environment).

244

Appendix: Table 57 Spanish imperial eagle SAP implementation scores (2008)

245

246

Red-breasted Goose Branta ruficollis

Implementation of the International Single Species Action Plan

November 2009

Coverage The report covers the implementation between 2004 and 2009 of the International Species Action Plan developed in 1995 and adopted by the Ornis Committee, Bern Convention and the Convention on Mirgatory Species. The SAP envisaged a 5 year review cycle and/or update when significant changes in the agricultural policies of Romania and Bulgaria do occur. The geographic scope of the review covers the entire range of the species in Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Greece, Kazakhstan, Romania, the Russian Federation, Turkey, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. Currently three of these key range states are EU members. Data was received from all range states, except Turkey and Uzbekistan whose importance for the species is marginal. Countries where the species occurs in insignificant numbers as a rarity or a vagrant – i.e. Hungary, Netherlands, UK were not included in this review.

Current Population Status In 2007 the species was up listed from “Vulnerable” to “Endangered” on the IUCN Red List due to a “significant decrease of the numbers registered in the last 5 years of coordinated monitoring of the species at the wintering grounds in Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine” (BirdLife International, 2009). The population at the time of the drafting of the SAP in 1995 was estimated at 70,000 to 74,000 birds, while the current population is considered to about 40,000 – 44,000 birds (Dereliev in litt.). The estimate based on the coordinated counts in the three countries was lowest in 2005 - 32, 000 birds (Fig. 1) which would represent more than 50% decrease over 10 years period since the drafting of the action plan (BirdLife International, 2009). Despite that there is some uncertainty to what extent such a large scale decrease is due to actual decline or some of the birds are short stopping further north in Ukraine or even Russia. Nevertheless it seems very unlikely that as large a group as 15,000 or 20,000 red-breasted geese could be staging during winter time undetected along the migration route. Up to 90% of the registered wintering population may occur within EU range countries (Bulgaria and Romania and sometime Greece) in cold winters. There is clear tendency as in number of other Arctic breeding species to short stop and overwinter further to the east due to mild winters, which makes the assessment and monitoring of the population more difficult.

247

Figure xxii Counts of the wintering population of red-breasted geese as result of coordinated monitoring scheme in Ukraine, Romania and Bulgaria (data from: www.brantaruficollis.org)

Table 58 Population estimates of the red breasted goose, based on winter counts (individuals)

Average Population size in Country 2000 2006 2009 Europe 1992-1994 Bulgaria 44,000 50,119 28,248 18,965 Romania 15,290 5,375 1,531 10,371 Ukraine 1,012 14,605 2,896 14,942 Greece 3 16 7 0 Other European 3 84 1,510 12 countries (Russia 1,500 birds) TOTAL 59,398 70,199 34,191 44,290

Evaluation against targets

Following a dramatic decline in the 1970s and 1980s the global population in the 1990s was clearly stabilized at about 70,000 – 80,000 birds. Maintaining that level of the population was the short term aim of the SSAP (Hunter and Black, 1996). However since the late 1990s and early 2000s a new decline has been registered in the wintering population which reached its lowest numbers of 34,000 birds in mid 2000s. Currently there is an indication of slight recovery of the population with recent counts of up to 44,000 birds (in January 2009 –

248

www.brantaruficollis.org). Thus based on the population figures, it could be concluded that none of the targets of the action plan have been met.

Evaluation of the implementation of conservation actions

Species Protection (action 1.2) The species is fully legally protected throughout its range including all EU range states. However the overall average implementation score is 2.4 (3.0 for the EU), which indicates problems with enforcement of the protection status. According to wardens in Kustanay region in Kazakhstan about 3000 RBG might be killed on an annual basis deliberately or accidentally (C. Mitchell in litt.). Cases of shooting at and killing of RBG do occur on a regular base in EU range countries and has been well documented for example in the main wintering areas in Bulgaria at Shabla and Durankulak lakes (BSPB in litt.). The fact that at many sites it mixes with quarry species like the Greater White-fronted Goose leads that shooting at the huntable species results in mortalities of RBG and disturbs them during foraging time. According to the local experts in Bulgaria about 3 to 5 % of the wintering Red-breasted Geese are being impacted every winter, incl. killed and injured. This assessment does not take into account the impact on the physical condition of the birds caused by disturbance by shooting and how does it affect their fattening process. The Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds, supported by WWT is working with the regional authorities in the main wintering area to reduce poaching and illegal shooting on the species and promote better enforcement of the legislation. Another problem for securing sufficient protection for the species in its wintering grounds comes from the almost annual attempts in Bulgaria to prolong the hunting season for waterfowl beyond 31 January. This in combination with the current lack of secure foraging grounds where the species could feed undisturbed by hunters could be detrimental for the survival of large part of the population and impact the species as it is widely accepted to be a capital breeder and depends on the fattening and resource storage before heading north for breeding season. As a result, the implementation score for this action is “2” in Bulgaria.

National and regional species action plans The two main wintering range countries Bulgaria and Romania have developed National Species Action plans. However they are not officially adopted by the relevant national authorities. No other range country has developed a national species action plan.

Site protection (action 2.2.1 and 2.2.2) Within the EU, up to 90% of the wintering population is covered by national protected areas and SPAs (action 2.2.1, AIS=3.0) but problems with ineffective enforcement and inefficient protection regimes remain. Usually strictly protected areas cover the roosting sites and include very limited foraging areas in the immediate vicinity. Sufficiently large buffer zones to prevent disturbance around the roosting lakes are not ensured, thus protection from disturbance by shooting is not provided. Another problem is the continuous pressure for urbanisation and windfarms in and around the SPAs along the Black Sea coast, including the immediate surroundings of the coastal lakes used for roosting (esp. in Bulgaria). Therefore, the evaluation of action 2.2.2 “Development proposals likely to affect the species and its habitat are subject of Environmental Impact Assessment” has received lower scores (AIS=2.0, and 2.3 in the EU only).

249

Identification of staging areas has continued steadily in Central Asia. The recent publication of the IBA books of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan has put on the map the key sites for the conservation of the species in these countries which filled in a significant gap. In Kazakhstan much larger numbers of migrating RBG are found in IBAs which are not legally protected. This often leads to problems with illegal shooting of the species. In Russia the main site for migration in the Kuma-Manych area is protected, however the distribution of the RBG roosting areas is influenced by the water level. During low water levels the geese spread outside the protected area and are exposed to hunting pressure. Within the breeding range, due to the dispersal in enormous area, site based conservation is not feasible.

Management plans of important sites Although there is no specific action for management plans in the SAP, appropriate site management is of key importance for such a congregatory species, especially outside of the breeding season. Management plans with specific focus on the Red-breasted Goose have been developed for some of the key wintering roosting sites which require active implementation of conservation measures. For example the Shabla and Durankulak lakes in Bulgaria have management plans since 1997, but they were only recently officially endorsed. However, the financial and institutional capacity for their implementation is still very limited. In addition the plans do not cover the foraging areas. A management plan was developed within a LIFE Nature project (04NAT/RO/000220) for Techirgol Lake (SPA) in Romania. Protected area zonation is in place for the Kuma-Manych area in Russia and pilot habitat measures have been developed and implemented to improve foraging areas for migrating geese. In Greece, management activities were implemented in the Evros Delta Drana Lagoon (SPA), which in a peak year has sheltered up to 2,400 birds. The breeding areas in Arctic Russia are not subject of active conservation management. An essential gap is that the existing site management plans do not address the need to ensure favourable grazing conditions in the foraging areas. To meet the species needs, the plans must be complemented with targeted agri-environmental schemes in the areas surrounding the roosts. Reduced disturbance and avoidance of displacement by infrastructure at the feeding grounds should also be provided.

Habitat conservation As the species is too dispersed at its breeding grounds it is difficult to ensure site based protection. General precautionary policy is required to ensure that natural gas, oil and other natural resources exploration do not degrade significantly the species’ breeding habitats. The expected impact of climate change on the tundra is unfavourable to the species. Reliable prediction modelling for the breeding habitat in the Arctic is yet to be made. The habitat use of the species in the main wintering areas in Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine has two components –wetlands used for roosting during the night and the foraging habitat – in the predominant part arable land with winter cereals. The key elements of effective habitat management are engaging the farmers in producing suitable crops (e.g. agro-environmental schemes), eliminating disturbance at the roosting and foraging areas (regulating hunting) and preventing destructive developments to both (site protection and EIA). Incentive measures for the maintenance of goose friendly agriculture have been developed in Bulgaria and Romania through the agri-environmental measures. However these are still not

250

implemented. The Romanian scheme, result of a special project, is not yet included in the National Rural Development Programme. The Bulgarian agro-environmental scheme, is based on expert proposals, has not been implemented yet. Unfortunately no legal and financial mechanisms for such incentives exist outside the EU. In Russia, for example the Kuma- Manych depression, land abandonment leads to deterioration of the foraging area for the species. In this specific area the problem is tackled by pilot activities on local level, but larger scale state supported programmes are needed to expand the coverage. Therefore the implementation of the SAP measure “Management of feeding habitat carried out at staging and wintering areas as a result of specific researches” (AIS=2.0) is assessed with the score “2” for the EU MS Bulgaria, Romania and Greece. The effect other threats causing loss of foraging habitat have not been taken into account in evaluating this measure, but under ‘Site protection’.

Research and Monitoring The bulk of research on the red-breasted goose, especially in the breeding grounds was done in 1980s and 1990s. Unfortunately, much of the published results are not in widely available international journals or remain in the grey literature. Monitoring of the breeding population is taking place in a small sample area in the Taymirski biosphere reserve (“Distribution and numbers of breeding Red-breasted Goose monitored”, AIS=2.0). Efforts to improve monitoring of the red-breasted goose population along its flyway have increased considerably since the adoption of the action plan. Actions in the wintering and staging areas were boosted with the International Red-Breasted Goose Working Group’s Common Monitoring Programme (CMP) in 2003/2004. It includes coordinated counts once a month from November till March at key sites in Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine and supplemented by counts during the autumn and spring migration from Russia in the Kuma- Manych area and additional autumn counts from Kazakhstan. The operation of the CMP supplied data for annual population estimates for the species for the last 5 years. Within the assessment questionnaire this action received the high scores (“Population size and structure monitored annually at wintering grounds”, AIS=2.8 and 3.3 in the EU). The species is also comparatively well covered by the International Waterbird Census coordinated by Wetlands International and implemented by all range countries. Inventories for new IBA designation have resulted in new and updated information for key sites for the species since the 1990s. Action “All staging and wintering areas identified and monitored; their status and threats evaluated” is therefore evaluated particularly well (AIS=3.0 and 3.7 in the EU). In Bulgaria regular monitoring of the phenology of the Red-breasted Goose has been implemented by the BSPB since 1995 and is currently the longest running single species monitoring programme in the country. It has allowed in some years data on the age structure, foraging distribution and concentrations, abdominal profiles and physical condition related to breeding success to be collected. Action “Understanding of feeding and behavioural ecology provides useful information for management planning” is therefore evaluated as partially successful, because it is not done systematically (AIS=1.7 and 2.0 in the EU). It is important that this monitoring informs management measures for the habitats of the species and does not remain only a scientific exercise (Action “Changes in land use in wintering areas monitored”, AIS=1.8 and 2.7 in the EU).

251

The highest priority for monitoring outside the current census work at the wintering sites should be given to satellite tracking to identify possible new staging areas or wintering grounds to ensure that the population is sufficiently covered by the census efforts in winter or if unknown migration concentration do occur. There is a need of improving the information on the breeding grounds and to give light on the condition and extent of the breeding range, impact of climatic change in the breeding habitats. Much more robust assessment of the impact of hunting on mortality and the physical condition of the birds is needed to inform and support conservation management decisions, especially in the staging areas (Action “Effect of hunting (mortality and disturbance) assessed”, AIS=1.6 and 3.0 in th EU).

Networking and awareness raising International cooperation in conserving the species has been actively promoted within the AEWA, however not all range countries have joined the agreement yet (Action “AEWA signed and ratified”, AIS=2.5 and 4.0 in EU). There haven’t been any additional initiatives on governmental level targeted at the species among the involved range states (Action “Specific inter-governmental agreement developed for the conservation of the species”, AIS=1.0). The conservation work on the Red-breasted Goose has been coordinated by the International Red-breasted Goose Working Group www.brantaruficollis.org. It was first established as part of the WI-IUCN SSC Goose Specialist Group and later re-launched as independent experts group in 2004 with a full time staff coordinator whose position is funded jointly by AEWA, RSPB, WWT and BirdLife Netherlands. Since then several workshops aiming at updating the current SAP and re-engaging the network of experts across the range have taken place. This concerted effort on the species and keeping a live network of contacts has resulted in better knowledge of the population status and trends. In recent years many efforts and activities have been launched to promote and boost the species conservation through awareness and education work. In the Romanian wintering grounds workshops for farmers, hunters and fishermen were organised to improve the cooperation and awareness amongst stakeholders. In Bulgaria concerted efforts have been targeted in the area of Shabla and Durankulak lakes since the 1990s. Permanent work in the region is carried out by BSPB in close cooperation with WWT. It includes regular awareness activities and lectures, meetings with local authorities’ representatives and even including twinning between the village schools in Durankulak, Bulgaria and Callaeverock in Dumfries and Galloway region in Scotland. In Ukraine various awareness materials have been produced and distributed. Cooperation with the local hunters and fishermen is established also making them part of the census teams for the RBG counts. In Russia the Russian Working Group on Geese has worked actively with hunters in Kuma-Manych area along with the wardens of the protected area (Action “Education/awareness programmes targeted at hunters, fishermen and farmers carried out”, AIS=2.0 and 2.7 in the EU).

Community financial support Only one LIFE project targeted at the species has been implemented since the previous evaluation in 2004. The beneficiary was the National Administration of Romanian Water – Department of Water Dobrogea Littoral . The aim was to ensure safe roosting conditions at the key roost site Lake Techirghiol and suitable feeding grounds on 30 ha in the vicinity of the lake. On average about 17% of the world population (information provided by SOR) has benefited. The total project budget was € 657,028.00 (€ 492,771.00 as EC contribution).

252

Conclusions As the species population has dropped dramatically in the past 10 years, despite of some recent signs of recovery, none of the SAP objectives have been achieved. The average implementation score for the action plan is 2 for the whole range and 2.7 for the EU part. The National Implementation Score is highest in Greece (3.2), where only a very small proportion of the population occurs, while implementation is still weaker in Bulgaria (2.3) and Romania (2.6) hosting up to 97-99% of the population of the EU. This clearly shows the positive potential of the EU legislative framework for the species, especially if a number of key conservation measures be more effectively implemented in Bulgaria and Romania. The lowest scores are assigned to Ukraine (1.5) Russia (1.6) and Kazakhstan (1.6) where the key challenges continue to be weak law enforcement and low priority of biodiversity on the national governments agenda. Further concerted efforts have to be made, especially by key countries Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan in order to: • Develop, adopt and finance the implementation of National Species Action Plans. • Improve the legal enforcement for full protection of the species. • Prevent harmful projects and programmes in the stopover and wintering sites, e.g. tourist development in or at the protected area borders through rigorous implementation of EIA. • Create and make operational the available financial incentives to maintain suitable foraging areas especially the ago-environmental schemes in the EU members Bulgaria and Romania. • Develop and implement a satellite tracking programme to establish stop-over sites and wintering areas are well known and adequately covered by monitoring efforts. • Ensure that national governments give high priority to the species and its protection, along with its key sites are well protected and monitored with sufficient financial and human resources in place for conservation and monitoring work

Contributors Nicky Petkov, Sonya Rozenfeld, George Handrinos, Lavinia Raducesku, Dimitar Georgiev, Ivan Russev, Sergey Yerokhov, Marina Koshkina, Vladimir Morozov, Eldar Rustamov, Elchin Sultanov, Oleg Dudkin, Boris Barov, Sergey Sklyarenko Additional Sorces of information: http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/ www.brantaruficollis.org

253

Appendix: Table 59 Red-breasted goose ISSAP Implementation scores (2009)

Action Target No. AIS Russia Greece Ukraine Bulgaria Romania Azerbaijan Kazakhstan Priority score AIS in the EU Turkmenistan

1.1 Agricultural policies in the wintering countries maintain 4 1 2 2 3 0 0 3 1 favourable feeding conditions for the species 2.0 1.7 1.2 The species is fully protected and 4 2 4 3 2 2 1 2 3 protection is effectively enforced 2.4 3.0 1.2.1 The hunting season ends at the end 2 3 1 2 1 0 0 2 4 of January in wintering countries. 2.2 2.0 1.3 AEWA signed and ratified. 3 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 4 2.5 4.0 2.1 Hunting bans established at all key sites and in their buffer zones when 4 2 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 the species is present. 2.0 2.7 2.1d Poisoning prohibited at key sites. 4 2 0 4 1 2 4 1 1 2.1 3.0 2.2.1 All internationally important sites 2 4 3 2 2 4 are designated as protected areas 2.8 3.0 2.2.2 Development proposals likely to affect the species and its habitat are subject of Environmental Impact 3 1 4 2 1 1 0 1 4 Assessment

2.0 2.3 2.3 Use of rodenticide is controlled where it is a problem for the 2 2 0 4 1 1 0 1 1 species. 1.7 3.0 2.4 Management of feeding habitat carried out at staging and wintering 2 2 2 2 3 1 0 1 1 areas as a result of specific researches. 1.7 2.0 2.5 Specific inter-governmental agreement developed for the 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 conservation of the species. 1.0 1.0 3.1a Population size and structure monitored annually at wintering 4 3 4 3 2 2 1 3 4 ground 2.8 3.3

254

Action Target No. AIS Russia Greece Ukraine Bulgaria Romania Azerbaijan Kazakhstan Priority score AIS in the EU Turkmenistan

3.1b, Distribution and numbers of 3.2.3 breeding Red-breasted Goose 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 monitored. 2.0 0.0 3.2.1, All staging and wintering areas 3.2.2 identified and monitored; their 4 4 4 3 1 3 4 4 1 status and threats evaluated. 3.0 3.7 3.3.1 Research on the relationship between spring fattening and i.e. 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 breeding success carried out. 1.0 1.0 3.3.2 Understanding of feeding and behavioural ecology provides 2 2 3 1 2 1 0 0 1 usefuls information for management planning. 1.7 2.0 3.3.3 Feeding ecology of breeding 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 females studied. 1.0 0.0 3.3.4 Changes in land use in wintering 4 3 4 1 1 0 0 1 1 areas monitored. 1.8 2.7 3.5 Effect of hunting (mortality and 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 disturbance) assessed. 1.6 3.0 3.6 Impact of the use of rodenticides 2 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 2 understood. 2.0 2.5 4.1.1 Public awareness on the importance of the species 3 2 3 2 2 1 1 2 increased. 1.9 2.5 4.1.2 Education/awareness programmes targeted at hunters, fishermen and 3 2 3 3 1 - 1 1 3 farmers carried out. 2.0 2.7 4.2 Red-breasted goose used as a flagship for the conservation of its 3 3 3 2 2 - 0 1 1 habitat. 2.0 2.7

National Implementation Scores 2.3 3.2 2.5 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.5

AIS 2.0 AIS EU 2.7

255

Azores bullfinch Pyrrhula murina

Implementation Report 2004-2009

Coverage This report evaluates the implementation of the EU Species Action Plan222 for the Azores bullfinch Pyrrhula murina from 2004 to 2009. It covers the entire population of the species limited to the Eastern part of the São Miguel Island, Azores, Portugal.

Status The Azores bullfinch is included in Annex I of the EU Wild Birds Directive and its native habitats, the Laurel forests of Madeira, are listed as a priority habitat in Annex I of the EU Habitats Directive (45.61 to 45.63 Macaronesian Laurel Forests). This species has an extremely small population and is restricted to an small range on one island, within which habitat quality is declining due to the spread of alien invasive plants. For the above reasons in 2005 the species was listed as Critically Endangered on the Red List (BirdLife, 2009).

The current breeding population is certainly larger than at the time of writing the 1996 EU action plan but it is difficult to distinguish the real increase from the improved accuracy of the counting methods due limitations of the available census data, available for statistical analysis. The area of occupancy has clearly grown in the most recent years and it is easier now to find birds in areas were they were not seen in the past decades. Implemented conservation measures contributed for this recovery although it is difficult to quantify to what extent each of the measures has contributed.

Table 60 Trend in the size of the population of the Azores bullfinch 1st review of 2nd review of Most Population in the SAP (2004) the SAP recent Country current SAP Year Year (individuals) (2009) estimate (individuals) (individuals) (Year)

Portugal 120 - 400 1993 238 2002 1000-1600 2008

Targets To increase the Azores bullfinch population to 150–200 pairs by the year 2010 and to extend the area of Laurel forest by 80 ha, reversing its continuing large-scale deterioration through the invasion of exotic flora.

Evaluation against target Both targets have been achieved and exceeded.

222 Ramos, J. (1995) Action Plan for the Azores bullfinch Pyrrhula murina. Adopted by the EC ORNIS Committee in 1996.

256

After the implementation of conservation projects (particularly the LIFE Priolo 2003-2008) it was possible to recover more than 230 ha of native forest and plant more than 60,000 native plants in the SPA, this certainly contributed to promote an increase of the population size mainly since 2006. The distribution area also showed an increase, crossing the limits of the Special Protection Area. Even if the numbers of the population were slightly underestimated between the 1990s and 2004 (due to lack of access to the core areas and some constraints of the census methods) it is certain that the Azores bullfinch population has recovered in the last three to four years.

Population size and trend According to the transects made in a standard way (annual census) the population size seems to be higher in the period from 2006-2008, in spite of the apparent decrease in 2007, when comparing to 1991-1996 and 2002-2005. Thus it is very unlikely that the population should now be facing a decline. Based on the resighting probabilities of marked birds, the number of adult Azores bullfinch in the population was calculated for 25 months. Monthly abundances varied between 296 individuals in June 2006 and 6983 individuals in January 2007; however, apart from these two outliers, the estimates ranged from 500 to 2000 individuals in all other months, and overall, the mean population size (mean ± SE) was 1608 ± 326 individuals, i.e. 804 pairs considering an unbiased sex-ratio. In 2008 the first Priolo Atlas was organised in order to fully assess the extent of occurrence and the total area of occupancy of the Azores bullfinch, as well as to estimate population size using distance sampling methods. This study presented a population size estimate of 1064 (608-1824) individuals (95% Confidence Intervals). An improved annual monitoring scheme began in 2009 based on the same point counts stations from the Priolo Atlas. The Atlas study will be repeated every four years, for monitoring the trend of the population and range size. The distribution area also increased spreading outside the limits of the SPA.

Figure xxiii Study area of the 2008 Priolo Atlas over Pico da Vara/Ribeira do Guilherme SPA boundaries. Dark-green is the colour for the square units where Azores bullfinches were detected.

257

Objectives Evaluation

1. Policy and Legislation

The species is protected under the Portuguese law and regional specific legislation in the Azores. Pico da Vara/Ribeira do Guilherme has been designated as a Special Protection Area, and this was enlarged to 6,067 ha in 2005, including all the range known from the data available till 2003 (beginning of the LIFE Priolo).

Pico da Vara/Ribeira do Guilherme SPA has been included in the Parque Natural de Ilha de São Miguel (Decreto Legislativo Regional n.º 19/2008/A, 8th June) the new regional framework for protected areas. Beyond the SPA, the active raised bogs area of Planalto dos Graminhais and the hydrological basin of Furnas Lake, were also included in this natural park, and constitute two adjacent areas to the SPA which recently have been identified as important areas for the Azores bullfinch population. Specific management of this area is now under the responsibility of Secretaria Regional do Ambiente e do Mar, the official governmental agency for Environment in the Region.

A new legislation for the use of alien invasive species in the Region is being finalized and will be probably published in 2010.

A SPA management plan was created and implemented along with the LIFE Priolo project (2005-2010) and it will be revised and incorporated in the future São Miguel Natural Park management plan.

2. Species and Habitat protection

Conservation actions have been possible due to the implementation of LIFE projects (with support from regional authorities), and some smaller grants. Exotic plant control was the main actions of the LIFE projects carried out in the SPA. As a result around 230 ha were restored in the last 5 years. A new LIFE project, Laurissilva Sustentável, was launched in 2009 and is about to recover more 50 ha of suitable habitat in the next four years. More then 60,000 plants of several native species were planted since 2003 which were produced by the Regional Forestry Services. The new project is establishing nurseries for production of native species and will be an important contribution for continuous growing of available plants for habitat restoration. Other actions developed by the LIFE Priolo project included the plantation of orchards with traditional fruit trees at lower altitudes, the conversion of a 14 ha area of Cryptomeria forest into native forest, testing of chemical methods for the eradication of Hedychium gardneranum and training of workers in the different duties related to the process of removing exotic vegetation and plantation of native species. Artificial feeding was tested but proved to be unnecessary and no effective as seeds deteriorated quickly and were not used by birds other than chaffinches.

258

3. Monitoring and Research

As referred above the first complete geographic range evaluation took place in 2008 (1st Priolo Atlas), involving 48 volunteers surveying all suitable habitat in a single day. Bird ringing and observations of ringed birds were done from 2006 to 2008 resulting in population estimates.

Annual census will be continued in the framework of the Preventing Extinctions campaign of BirdLife International, with the financial support of private donors. An improved annual monitoring scheme will be conducted from 2009 onwards and future changes in Azores bullfinch range will be monitored. Every four years the Priolo Atlas will be repeated for evaluating changes and update the distribution range of the species.

Monitoring of the native forest and exotic plants have been conducted by the LIFE Priolo team by mapping the main vegetation types in the SPA and with more detail for the core area of the Serra da Tronqueira. These vegetation maps will provide a useful tool to follow up the spread of the main invasive plants. Other research has taken place on the impact of invasive alien species allowing the production of PhD and MSc theses in subjects like food-webs, vegetation mapping, native plants production, etc. Genetic studies were conducted over the last two years to gather taxonomic information on the genetic variability of the species. Results will be published in 2010 and confirm the Azores Bullfinch as full species and its genetic variability processes.

4. Public Awareness and Training

Several activities were implemented mostly by the LIFE Priolo project. More than 100 activities were directed to schools; more than 3000 people visited the SPA with the conservation team; dozens of articles were published in regional, national and international media; a comprehensive website, CD-ROM, brochures and school kits were made available, and through collaboration with the regional Tourism Director information about the Priolo at nature fairs and tourist offices were also made available. A study evaluating the social and economic benefits of the project and the ecosystem services offered by the protected area, etc. were a crucial tool for having decision makers and public aware of the importance of the investment on projects for protecting the Priolo.

The more important one was the establishment of an interactive Environmental Interpretation Centre with displays about the species, native laurel forest and the threats that both face. This Centre, developed by SPEA with support from the Azores government opened to the public in the end of 2007, works with students, tourists and local visitors.

259

Financial support LIFE Projects (European and Regional Funding):

• 2003-2008 by the LIFE Priolo project “Recovery of Azores bullfinch’s habitat in the Special Protection Area of Pico da Vara/Ribeira do Guilherme” (LIFE NAT/P/000013), with a total budget of 2.843.728 €. • 2007-2009 funding from the Azores Government to the establishment and maintenance of the Priolo Interpretation Centre with a total budget of 150.000 €. • 2007-2008 LEADER funding for the displays and equipment to the Interpretation Centre. • 2009-2012 by the LIFE Laurissilva Sustentável project “Recovery, conservation and sustainable management of priority habitats in Serra da Tronqueira/Planalto dos Graminhais” (LIFE NAT/P/000630), with a Community contribution of 2.186.607 €.

Private funding: • Species Guardian (SPEA) funding by the 2007 & 2008 British Birwatching Fair (Species Guardian: SPEA; Species Champion: BIRDWATCH magazine) and funding by LUSH in 2008 • BES Biodiversidade conceded commendations by the judges for its work restoring Bullfinch habitats on the Azores and won a prize of 3.000 €. • RSPB-08-03 project “Final countdown: Priolo world census”, corresponding to an appliance for the Priolo Atlas 2008 was awarded by Disney Worldwide Conservation Fund with an amount of 11.274 € ($ 17.500). • Additional fund-raising was promoted by BIRDWATCH magazine at the site www.justgiving.com/priolo.

Conclusions

The increase of the national implementation score from 2.00 (in 2004) to 3.13 reflects some of the significant progress made to achieve the targets established for the SPA. Both targets (population and habitat) were clearly exceeded largely due to the implementation of the LIFE projects and many other supporting actions and smaller projects. Implemented conservation measures, and possibly a better adaptation of the species to the surrounding environment, contributed for the recent increase of the species total population numbers and distribution area. However, it must be stressed that areas where invasive species were removed have to be to be continuously prevented from re-invasion otherwise they will deteriorate quickly.

The SPA has been increased from roughly 2,000 ha to 6,000 ha and includes now most of the distribution range known until 2002 and most of the favourable habitat still existing in the region. A management plan was created and implemented under the LIFE Priolo project.

260

Although the targets were achieved, some actions such as more strict legislation for the use of invasive alien plants and the long-term sustainability of the Natural Park and SPA, are still unaccomplished. It is expected that these actions will be completely implemented till the end of 2010 with the establishment of a Park’s management body, a management plan, adequate regulations and continued funding. This will be most crucial due to the degree of threats to the Priolo’s survival. Long-term habitat conservation will be needed because of the huge level of exotic vegetation invasion at the SPA and at the island.

Without the contribution of the LIFE funding from the EC since 1994 most of these results would have been impossible to reach.

Since the previous evaluation in 2008 new important biological data have been obtained and a 500-800 pair population is now accepted as species’ global estimate. Known current breeding population is larger than at the time of previous evaluation. Also, the area of occupancy has basically grown and population trend is now considered not to be under a decline. Therefore, a Red List Criteria re-evaluation may be needed for this species.

Contributors Ricardo Ceia (SPEA), Carlos Silva (SPEA), Rui Botelho (SPEA), Jaime Ramos (Universidade de Coimbra), Luís Costa (SPEA), Hugo Laborda (SPEA), Boris Barov (Birdlife), José Pedro Tavares (RSPB), Frederico Cardigos (SRAM), Nelson Santos (SRAM), Catarina Quintela (DRRF), Paulo Amaral (CMN), Ruben Heleno (Bristol University), Paulo Cabral (CMN), Miguel Ferreira (SPRA), Cheila da Luz (UAç), Carlos Pato (DRT), Sérgio Timóteo (SPEA), Joaquim Teodósio (SPEA).

261

Appendix: Table 61 Azores bullfinch SAP Implementation scores (2008)

OBJECTIVES And actions Progress with implementation What part of the What was the response of the population was affected? population to this measure?

(API) Action Priority

Score (PS) on score (IS) on score (IS) Implementati priority index 1. POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE 1.1. To ensure the adequate legal protection of the Azores Bullfinch and its habitat 1.1.1 Increase the area of the 2 4 The total area of the SPA increased from Near 100% (recent data This action will have direct 0.00 Natural Forest reserve and ca. 2000ha to ca. 6000ha, including all shows that the distribution effect in the future with the Special Protection Area the range known from the data available area is now larger than the implementation of the Natural till 2003 (beginning of the LIFE Priolo). present SPA, but is Park management plan and the The SPA was included in 2008 in the probable that all the increase of suitable habitat new São Miguel Natural Park. individuals use the SPA area)

262

OBJECTIVES And actions Progress with implementation What part of the What was the response of the population was affected? population to this measure?

(API) Action Priority

Score (PS) on score (IS) on score (IS) Implementati priority index 1.1.2. Legislate on the 3 2 The publication of the Azores Natura N/A This action will have direct 2.00 planting of exotic species 2000 sectoral plan included some points effect in the future with the about controlling the use of exotic implementation of the Natural species. Is almost concluded a new Park management plan and the legislation to control the use and import increase of suitable habitat of invasive alien species. The future after forest cutting management plan to the São Miguel Natural Park will need to include specifically the areas to recover and the areas suitable for production. This plan will be implemented in 2010.

1.1.3. Incorporate Species 1 2 The future management plan to the São N/A This action will have direct 0.67 Recovery Plans into regional Miguel Natural Park will need to include effect in the future with the and national legislation specific conservation actions included in implementation of the Natural the Azores Bullfinch Action Plan Park management plan and the increase of suitable habitat

263

OBJECTIVES And actions Progress with implementation What part of the What was the response of the population was affected? population to this measure?

(API) Action Priority

Score (PS) on score (IS) on score (IS) Implementati priority index 1.1.4. Review international 2 4 The Azores Bullfinch is included in 100% 0.00 and national legislation in Annex I of the EU Wild Birds Directive. light of taxonomic research Laurel forest, the habitat of this species, is listed as a priority habitat in Annex I of the EU Habitats Directive (45.61 to 45.63 Macaronesian Laurel Forests). Listed in National Red Book.

1.2 To ensure an adequate 3 3 Conservation actions have been possible Near 100% (recent data This action will have direct 1.00 framework for the due to the implementation of LIFE shows that the distribution effect in the future with the management of the Natural projects (with support from regional area is now larger than the implementation of the Natural Forest Reserve authorities), and some smaller grants. present SPA, but is Park management plan and the The new Natural Park will have a probable that all the increase of suitable habitat. management body, a management plan, individuals use the SPA adequate regulations and funding. A area). first SPA management plan was made included in the LIFE Priolo project.

264

OBJECTIVES And actions Progress with implementation What part of the What was the response of the population was affected? population to this measure?

(API) Action Priority

Score (PS) on score (IS) on score (IS) Implementati priority index 2. SPECIES AND HABITAT PROTECTION 2.1. To control the expansion 4 3 Exotic plant control constituted the main The recovered area is the The habitat response was very 1.33 of exotic flora and promote actions of the LIFE projects carried out core of the species' significant. Several important the regeneration of Laurel in the SPA. As a result around 230 ha distribution. A very plant species (part of the forest were controled in the last 5 years. A new significant proportion of Bullfinches diet, like Ilex and LIFE project, Laurissilva Sustentavel, the population uses this Prunus) showed a major started this year and intends to recover area along the year. recuperation that was more 50ha of suitable habitat in the next measured in area covered and four years. seed production. This result is directly link to the recent increase of the Bullfinch population but difficult to say to which extent.

265

OBJECTIVES And actions Progress with implementation What part of the What was the response of the population was affected? population to this measure?

(API) Action Priority

Score (PS) on score (IS) on score (IS) Implementati priority index 2.2. To protect and increase 4 3 More then 60,000 plants of several The recovered area is the There was a increase of the 1.33 the population of plants that species were planted in the since 2003. core of the species' food availability for the provide key food sources These plants were produced by the distribution. A very Bullfinches. Several important Regional Forestry Services. These will significant proportion of plant species (part of the continue with the LIFE Project and by the population uses this Bullfinches diet, like Ilex and other actions of the local authoritie and area along the year. Prunus) increased their density the new plant nurseries being established and area covered. This result is by SPEA. directly link to the recent increase of the Bullfinch population but difficult to say to witch extend.

2.3. To provide 3 4 The feeders were established but 0% action abolished as 0.00 supplementary feeding monitoring studies conducted showed unnecessary and non effective that Bullfinches don't used this kind of structures so they were removed. 2.4 To supplement the wild 1 0 This isn't an option for the moment according to all entities and experts consulted 1.33 population with captive bred individuals

266

OBJECTIVES And actions Progress with implementation What part of the What was the response of the population was affected? population to this measure?

(API) Action Priority

Score (PS) on score (IS) on score (IS) Implementati priority index

3. MONITORING AND RESEARCH 3.1. To continue the 3 3 Annual census since 2002. 1st Atlas done Total 1.00 monitoring of population size in 2008. Census will be continued with and reproduction the support of The Species Champions initiative of BirdLife International. Missing breeding success.

3.2. To study the large-scale 2 3 Some work done, including a PhD about food webs and the impact of habitat restoration, vegetation 0.67 invasion of the Laurel forest maps, and techniques to control exotic vegetation. by exotic flora

3.3. To promote studies of 2 4 At least three separated studies were done for clarifying this subject. They all show the significant 0.00 taxonomy difference between Azores and Iberian Species. We are now awaiting the publications.

267

OBJECTIVES And actions Progress with implementation What part of the What was the response of the population was affected? population to this measure?

(API) Action Priority

Score (PS) on score (IS) on score (IS) Implementati priority index 4. PUBLIC AWARENESS AND TRAINING 4.1. To provide information 2 4 Public awareness actions promoted by 100% 0.0 about the Azores Bullfinch local authorities and SPEA during and and its habitat to the local post- the LIFE Priolo project. The Priolo people of São Miguel and to Interpretation Center was built and visitors opened in 2007 by SPEA with support from the Azores government.

National Implementation Score (NIS) 3.13

NIS=SUM(PS*IS)/SUM(PS)

268

269