Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

COMPOSITE EUROPEAN COMMISSION REPORT ON DEROGATIONS IN 2007 ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 9 OF DIRECTIVE 79/409/EEC ON THE CONSERVATION OF WILD BIRDS

DECEMBER 2009

1 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

CONTENTS

Introduction...... 3 1 Methodology...... 4 2 Overview of derogations across the EU...... 7 3 Member State reports...... 12 3.1 Austria...... 12 3.2 Belgium...... 14 3.3 Bulgaria...... 15 3.4 Cyprus...... 16 3.5 Czech Republic...... 17 3.6 Denmark...... 18 3.7 Estonia...... 19 3.8 Finland ...... 20 3.9 France...... 22 3.10 Germany...... 23 3.11 Greece ...... 24 3.12 Hungary...... 25 3.13 Ireland ...... 26 3.14 Italy ...... 27 3.15 Latvia ...... 29 3.16 Lithuania ...... 30 3.17 Luxembourg...... 31 3.18 Malta ...... 31 3.19 Netherlands ...... 33 3.20 Poland ...... 34 3.21 Portugal...... 35 3.22 Romania ...... 37 3.23 Slovakia...... 37 3.24 Slovenia...... 38 3.25 Spain ...... 39 3.26 Sweden...... 41 3.27 United Kingdom...... 43 ANNEX A...... 45 ANNEX B...... 46

2 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

Introduction According to Article 9 of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC), the EU Member States (MS) may derogate from the provisions of Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8. Derogations may be issued provided that there are no other satisfactory solutions.

Every year Member States (ref Art. 9.3) forward to the European Commission a specific report on the implementation of Art.9.

This composite report provides an analysis of the EU Member States annual reports covering the year 2007 and an assessment of the conformity of the derogations issued with the protection measures of the Birds Directive.

The report is based on the national reports submitted to the EC Commission from all of the 27 EU Member States.

3 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

1 Methodology Twenty-seven national reports on derogations issued in 2007, according to Art. 9 of the Birds Directive, have been assessed. All derogations have been systematically scrutinised looking for high numbers of licenses, species, country specific reasons or methods, allowed activities. The evaluation has been carried out in different steps:

a) checking of the completeness of the national reports submitted A formal check of the reports has been carried out in order to verify whether all the needed information, specified in Art. 9.2, was provided.

b) checking of the number of derogations and of licenses issued The control has been carried out to evaluate how often each MS has used this prerogative. The historical trend of the derogations issued has also been taken into consideration. When a national report does not include information on the number of licenses issued per derogation, it was assumed that only 1 license is covered by each derogation (i.e. 1 derogation = 1 license).

c) checking of the reasons for which the derogations have been issued Derogations under art. 9 of the Birds Directive can be granted only for specific reasons, listed in table 1 and, more in detail, in annex A. The consistency with provisions of the Birds Directive has been verified. Derogations issued for scientific research and educational purposes and to protect wild flora and fauna and natural habitats were a priori considered as compatible with the Directive since they usually do not affect the conservation status of the species population. Only in very few cases, when the derogation included killing of individuals, they were analysed in more detail.

Table 1. Main standardised codes for derogation reasons

Code Reasons reported in art. 9.1 of the Birds Directive

10 (a) in the interests of public health and safety 20 (a) in the interests of air safety 30 (a) to prevent serious damage, in particular to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water 40 (a) for the protection of flora and fauna 50 (b) for the purposes of research and teaching, of re-population, of reintroduction and for the breeding necessary for these purposes 60 (c) to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers

d) checking of the alternative solutions Derogation may be granted provided that no alternative solutions exist. When the national report does not provide this information, it was assumed that no alternative solutions exist.

e) checking activities and methods permitted Derogations can allow only some activities, specified in arts. 5 and 6.1, listed in table 2 and, more in detail, in annex B. Derogations allowing impacting activities, such as killing of individuals, destruction of breeding sites places, were analysed in more detail in order to establish the eventual impact on the conservation status of the species concerned.

4 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

Table 2. Main standardised codes for authorized activities.

Code Main permitted activity 10 Sale 20 Deliberate capture by any method 30 Deliberate killing by any method 40 Hunting 50 Keeping Deliberate disturbance of these birds, particularly during the period of breeding 80 and rearing 100 Taking of eggs in the wild and keeping these eggs even if empty Deliberate destruction of, or damage to, birds nests and eggs or removal of birds 120 nests Transport for sale, keeping for sale and the offering for sale of live or dead birds 130 and of any readily recognizable parts or derivatives of such birds

Table 3. Standardised codes for methods.

Codes Method

BTH1 Firearms BTH Traps BTH Nets BTH By hand BD2 Lime BD Cages BD Snares BD Poison and poisoned or anesthetic bait BD Pricking of eggs BD Decoys BD Falconry BD Tape recording BD Bird calls BD Ringing BD Scaring devices BD Electrical devices capable of killing or stunning BD Artificial light sources BD Mirrors and other dazzling devices BD Devices for illuminating targets BD Sighting devices for night shooting comprising an electronic image magnifier or image converter BD Explosives BD Gassing and smoking out BD Semi-automatic or automatic weapons with a magazine capable of holding more than two rounds of ammunition BD Aircraft BD Motor vehicles in motion BD Hooks BD Boats driven in excess of five kilometers per hour

1 BTH means that the activity can be used for derogations under the Birds and Habitats Directives. 2 BD means that the activity can only be used under the Birds Directive.

5 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

Article 9.2 of the Birds Directive requires a derogation report to specify the means, arrangements or methods authorised for capture or killing. Member States may derogate from the provisions of prohibited methods listed in the Birds Directive (Annex IV) and reported in table 3.

f) checking the species and the number of individuals affected All the species affected by derogations have been analysed in order to establish the eventual impact on their conservation status. Where significant areas of concern were identified, risking that the species conservation status might be put into question, for instance exceptionally large number of derogations for one particular species, detailed analysis of the dimension of the population, of its numerical trend and of the area of distribution at national and EU level has been carried out. For this analysis, recognised sources of information (IUCN database, Member State population assessments and action plans, scientific publications) have been used. Derogations on species for which a MS has been already warned have been examined with greater detail. In some cases there is an ambiguity on whether the data provided relate to the number of individuals actually taken, or to the maximum numbers allowed for taking. In these cases, it was assumed that data referred to individuals actually taken.

6 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

2 Overview of derogations across the EU A comparison of derogations across the EU has been made in order to draw an overall picture of the derogations granted. However, this overview should be interpreted in close connection with the analysis of the individual MS reports as often special national conditions strongly affect the overall picture and/or information on specific issues is not provided precisely.

The Member States’ reports are very variable both in terms of the ease of understanding of the reports (format, language and readability) and the quality of the data provided. For example, an official standard model is not always used, the different standard codes for “reasons”, “activity” and “method” are in some cases not applied but explained in sentences of varying precision and often information on the number of individuals affected is missing.

In a number of cases data provided on the species are too generic to allow for a sound assessment of the derogation. For instance, it is not uncommon that a single derogation covers several species and in some cases even a whole taxonomic group vaguely defined as e.g. “Aves”, or “songbirds”, or “crows”. In other cases the species are not indicated using the Latin name but with common national names. Finally some derogations concern species that are not covered by the Directive or even alien species.

In total 5.047 derogations were issued at EU level in 2007, an average of 187 derogations per country.

The distribution of the derogations issued by the Member States is shown in Chart 1. As evident their number varies considerably country by country, from less than 10 derogations, as in the case of Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Luxemburg, Malta and Slovenia, to several hundreds in others, such as Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain. With 2.247 derogations the United Kingdom is the country that issued the highest number of derogations in 2007, as in the previous biennial. On the contrary Romania did not grant derogations in the year of reference.

Chart 1. Number of derogations issued by each MS in 2007 in comparison with the average of derogations issued at EU level (EU).

Number of derogations

618 365 2.247 350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0 AT BE BUCYCZDEDKEE EL ES FI FRHU IE IT LTLULVMTNLPL PTRO SE SI SKUK EU

7 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

The number of derogations granted by MS from 2001 to 2007 varies considerably (Charts 2 and 3). Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg and Slovenia, issued almost the same number of derogations, while other countries show very different numbers.

Italy gradually increased the number of derogations during the seven years period and slightly decreased this number in last biennial. Spain follows a similar trend until 2004 and then it decreased significantly the number of derogations issued from 657 to about 300 in the last three years.

Germany shows a pattern wave, maintaining an average of 518 derogations per year. A similar trend with very different numbers is shown by the United Kingdom. It follows an increasing trend until 2002, when it granted 716 derogations, then decreased significantly the number of derogations issued to 205 in 2004, re-increased substantially the number of derogations to about 2.000 in 2005 and in 2007.

Chart 2. Number of derogations issued by old 15 MS during the period 2001-2007.

Derogations trend old 15 MS

AT

2000 BE DE DK EL 1500 ES

FI FR 1000 IE IT LU 500 NL PT SE 0 UK 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

No information is available on the Italian 2004 number of derogations, therefore the datum reported is an estimation.

France in 2005 and 2006 increased ten times the number of derogations: from an average of 26 derogations issued each year until 2004, to 249 derogations in 2005 and 280 in 2006, then drastically decreased the number of derogations in 2007 to 81.

The Netherlands substantially increase the number of derogations from 1 issued in 2001 to 270 issued in 2007.

8 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

Austria gradually decreased the number of derogations from 2001 to 2006/2007. On the contrary, Finland, Portugal and Sweden slightly increased the number of derogations from 2001, with a peak in 2007.

Slovakia gradually increased the number of derogations during the four years period. Hungary and Poland follow a similar trend but whit higher number of derogations issued per year.

The Czech Republic, after an initial increasing of derogations from 2004 to 2005, drastically reduced the number of derogations granted in the last biennial.

Malta granted a relatively high number of derogations only in 2004 (96) and afterward it grant an average of 3 derogations per year.

Chart 3. Number of derogations issued by new 10 MS during the period 2004-2007.

Derogations trend new 10 MS

400

CY 300 CZ

EE

HU LT 200 LV

MT PL

100 SI

SK

0 2004 2005 2006 2007

The MS that acceded to the EU in 2007, Bulgaria and Romania, have not been considered due to the lack of information relative to the period 2004-2006.

There is a considerable difference between the number of derogations and the number of licenses issued per derogation and sometimes a single derogation covers several licenses. The main difference between the two indicators is evident in the Belgian, Cypriot, Italian, Maltese and Spanish reports. Moreover, some countries do not provide the number of licenses issued per derogation. For instance, Cyprus states “individuals that were holders of a renewed hunting license for the period 2006 – 2007, or Greece states that licenses were granted to two rehabilitation centres for keeping and caring for more than 1.000-1.500 wounded birds and this activity requires derogations (how many? One for each animal or one for each rehabilitation centre?). Other countries,

9 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

such as Hungary and Poland seem to indicate, even though never stated clearly, that one license per derogation has been issued.

A great part of derogations was issued “in the interest of protecting wild fauna and flora” (code 40), allowing killing or scaring away of different species all over Europe.

According to the data provided by the national reports, the derogations issued “for research and education purposes, of repopulating and re-introducing these species and for the breeding operations necessary for these purposes” (code 50) mostly concern inventories or study on population dynamics to increase the knowledge on species listed in the Birds Directive. The main activity carried out in the framework of this reason is the ringing of birds, carried out, for instance by Belgium, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Finland, Italy, Malta, etc.

The derogations connected with the “prevention of serious damage, in particular to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water” (code 30) were issued for species with significant impact on different sectors, such as Phalacrocorax carbo selectively eliminated by shooting and scared away, in order to prevent damages to fish farms in some countries such as France, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, etc.

Another substantial number of derogations was issued “in the interests of public health and public safety” (code 10). This reason is mainly used by Poland and Germany to destroy bird nests.

Derogations “to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers” (code 60) have been issued in Belgium to the holders of 16 species of songbirds among which Fringilla coelebs and in Spain to develop canary breeding and to guarantee the feasibility of recreational activities such as traditional training in singing and participation in competitions of different passerine songbirds.

Only a minor part of derogations has been issued “in the interests of air safety” (code 20), mainly to scare away birds, in particular Larus species from the fly fields.

Among the reasons listed above, there are some derogations in a number of Member States, which seems issued with the purpose of extending the hunting season during sensitive periods for the survival of birds populations (i.e. breeding season, prenuptial migration, etc.). For instance, Malta allowed the spring hunting of Streptopelia turtur and Coturnix coturnix, Cyprus of Streptopelia turtur and Finland of Somateria mollissima, Fuligula clangula (Bucephala clangula), Mergus serrator, Mergus merganser, Melanitta fusca and Aythya fuligula. They seem to be inconsistent with Art 9 according to the European Court of Justice and the Commission has further investigated these derogations.

The use of reason 50 (for research and education) is broadly distributed among the MS whereas the use of reason 10 (in the interests of public health and public safety) is more country specific and especially used in Poland. Most of the derogations issued for research and education purposes allow capture of specimens followed by immediate release for species identification and ringing activity, but also DNA analysis, taking of blood samplings and other studies have been carried out. Germany includes a very high number of derogations, which allow stuffing of birds found dead.

10 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

Non-destructive and/or reversible activities such as capture, disturbance, keeping, and transport are broadly applied among the five main reasons for derogation.

Killing of specimens is mainly applied to prevent serious damage, in particular to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water. A great part of the derogations granted for killing all over Europe concerns the so called pest species and, in particular, crow species such as Corvus corone, C. frugilegus, C. monedula, Pica pica and Garrulus glandarius, as well as Turdus ssp., Sturnus vulgaris, Phalacrocorax carbo, Larus ridibundus and L. argentatus.

11 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

3 Member State reports A summary of the analysis of the Member States derogation reports is provided below.

3.1 Austria In 2007, the nine Austrian Landers have granted a total of 41 derogations. However it is to be noted that sometimes the number of derogations is not indicated. In these cases, it is assumed that each derogation covers only one species (i.e. 1 derogation = 1 species).

The reasons for granting derogations most frequently used are: - to prevent important damages to crops, livestock, forests and water (21 derogations). For the most part the activity connected with this reason is killing, hunting and scaring away of different species: Ardea cinerea, Phalacrocorax carbo, Corvus corone, Pica pica, Garrulus glandarius, Columba palumbus, Streptopelia decaocto, Accipiter gentilis, Cygnus olor, Anser anser. - for the purpose of research and teaching (10 derogations). For this reason the activities allowed are ringing, capture and killing.

6 derogations do not indicate the reason. In some cases the number of licences is not indicated; and when it is, each derogation often grants more than one license.

Most of the derogations affect several bird species. According to the data provided a total of 13.348 individuals were killed, a number greater than the previous biennial (8.312 in 2005 and 9.309 in 2006). Moreover this figure remains partial, since two derogations do not provide the number of individuals killed. In particular: - a total of 27 derogations were granted for killing or hunting 12.177 individuals of several species to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fishery and water:

• 5.055 individuals of Corvus Corone and C. corone cornix (3 derogations),

• 3.676 individuals of Columba palumbus (1 derogations),

• 1.090 of Garrulus glandarius (2 derogations),

• 830 of Ardea cinerea (7 derogations),

• 614 of Streptopelia decaocto (1 derogation),

• 553 of Pica pica (4 derogations),

• 339 of Phalacrocorax carbo (7 derogations);

• 16 of Anser anser (1 derogation),

• 4 of Cygnus olor (1 derogation); - One derogation was granted for killing 10 individuals of Acrocephalus melanopogon for the purposes of research; - 4 derogations were issued for hunting for undefined reasons 171 individuals of Tetrao urogallus, 872 individuals of Tetrao tetrix, 53 individuals of Mergus merganser and 16 individuals of Anser anser. According to the report the figure of 171 shot individuals of Tetrao urogallus represents 64% of the authorized shootings and about 9% of the population in the Lander (1994 individuals); similarly the figure of 827 shot individuals of Tetrao tetrix corresponds to 64% of the authorized shootings and around 10% of the respective population (8585 individuals). - One derogation was granted for hunting an undefined number of specimens of Anser albifrons for undefined reason for eight years (from 2007 to 2015) from 1st August until 15th January;

12 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

- One derogation is given to allow the spring hunting of 110 individuals of Scolopax rusticola under the reason “to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on selective basis, other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers”;

One derogation was granted in the Federal State of Carinthia for the capture of 3 individuals of Accipiter gentilis to prevent serious damage to domestic chicken flocks that are kept in free-range for eggs production.

The Federal State of Vienna reports that one derogation was granted “for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature”, which is a reason listed in the Habitats directive, but not in the Birds Directive. The derogation specifies that such a reason relates to the construction of the highway S2 Umfahrung Süßenbrunn and gives a list of the seven species affected, but no indication is given about the activities permitted and the number of affected specimens.

Another derogation was granted to allow in the Federal State of Lower Austria the capture and for keeping in captivity of 11 specimens of the songbirds Linaria cannabina, Carduelis carduelis, Fringilla coelebes, Coccothraustes coccothraustes, Carduelis spinus, Pyrrhula pyrrhula, Sylvia atricapilla, in order “to preserve traditional customs”.

Furthermore, as in the previous biennial one derogation was given in the Federal State of Upper Austria for the “traditional bird-catching” of 457 individuals of the songbirds Carduelis carduelis, Carduelis spinus, Pyrrhula pyrrhula and Loxia curvirosta. The number of individuals captured is slightly decreasing compared with the 2005 and 2006 years (respectively 494 and 462 individuals).

Not all the sections of the Austrian report follow the EU Commission format, as the different Landers have compiled different derogations forms in different ways. The degree of detail in providing information varies from Lander to Lander and, at level of Lander, from district to district. Moreover, different categories are given in words and not by mean of standard codes, increasing the risk of misinterpretations. However, the report is quite complete, excepting some Landers, which do not provide all information needed.

None of the Austrian derogations is in conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive, with possible exception of the following derogations: - The derogation granted in the Federal State of Burgenland for hunting Anser albifrons, which is listed in the Annex II/2 of the Birds Directive as not huntable in Austria. The derogation covers five years and does not give any indication about the reasons and the number of individuals affected; - The derogations given in the Federal State of Salzburg to allow the hunting of 110 individuals of Scolopax rusticola “to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on selective basis, other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers”. The hunting of woodcocks is allowed during the spring season, which corresponds with the period of reproduction and the period of return to the rearing grounds (prenuptial migration) of the species. The number of hunted individuals represents approximately 2/3 of the individuals totally hunted during 2007 (167).

13 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

The Salzburg’s report does not make clear the need to allow hunting during periods in which the Directive aims to provide particular protection, and moreover for hunting a number of individuals which is grater than during the rest of the year; nor explains whether alternative solutions were sought, nor indicates whether the number of hunted individuals doesn’t exceed more than 1% of the yearly death of the species, neither the annual rate of increase in population size.

This lack of information, in combination with other missing data (the strictly supervised conditions, the circumstances of time and place), makes it difficult to judge whether there is a risk for the concerned birds population status and whether derogations are adequately justified.

3.2 Belgium A total of 49 derogations were issued in 2007 (in line with those granted in the previous year), mainly to prevent serious damages to crops, in the interest of air safety, for the protection of flora and fauna and for the purpose of research and education.

The most frequent permitted activity is killing. The most derogated species, which are killed, are Corvus corone (94.549 specimens), Pica pica (64.830) and Garrulus glandarius (8.316). According to the Flemish report, the three species are subject to “regular suppression/control” inside the Flemish district, while in the Walloon district they were killed in order to prevent damages to crops. The number of killed birds is substantially higher in comparison with the previous year. The derogation on Garrulus glandarius seems not to have an impact on its population, which is of 30.000-40.000 pairs.

Other 8 species are subject to “regular suppression” in the Flemish district. They are Anas platyrhynchos, Anser anser, Branta canadensis, Columba palumbus and Sturnus vulgaris, for the protection of flora and fauna, and Vanellus vanellus, Larus ridibundus and L. argentatus, to guarantee air safety inside airports and in the interest of public health. For all these species no information on the number of individuals killed are provided and no specific request of permits are needed, according to Flemish authorities. Only reporting on the activity to the competent authority is required. For all these species it is not possible to evaluate the impact of the actions on the birds populations.

Other permitted activities are keeping in captivity birds (more than 50.000), capture for ringing (about 100.000 birds belonging to all species), capture of wounded birds and successive releasing (14.520 birds).

Each derogation concerns only one species, with only five exceptions: four derogations, which cover all/various bird species and one derogation covering three bird species. Often the derogations cover more than one license. For instance, one derogation grants more than 10.000 licenses to the holders of the songbird Fringilla coelebs.

The following species were object of derogations: Annex I: Fringilla coelebs, Buteo buteo, Sterna hirundo, Pelecanus onocratulus, Grus grus, Phoenicopterus ruber roseus Annex II/1 Anas platyrhynchos, Branta canadensis, Anser anser, Columba palumbus

14 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

Annex II/2 which may not be hunted in Belgium Sturnus vulgaris, Larus fuscus, Corvus monedula, Haematopus ostralegus, Numenius arquata, Turdus philomelos, T. pilaris, T. viscivorus Annex II/2, which may be hunted in Belgium Corvus corone, Pica pica, Garrulus glandarius, Larus ridibundus, L. argentatus, Vanellus vanellus Not listed in the Birds Directive: Parus major, Falco tinnunculus, Phalacrocorax carbo, Ardea cinerea, Tyto alba, Accipiter gentilis

The Belgian Federal authorities have granted the Flemish Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) a derogation for the collection and transport of deceased marine protected bird species in view of scientific research in the Belgian part of the North Sea, which is under federal jurisprudence, from 2004 to 2012.

During the last three years derogations from Belgium are aimed at the same species, with very few differences among the years.

The derogation report is composed of two different documents: one relative to derogations issued by the Walloon Authority (20) and the second relative to those issued by the Flemish Authority (28). The two documents do not follow the EU format and they are very different in terms of format and information provided. Moreover, both reports do not include the standard codes for reasons, activities and method: this increases the risk of misinterpretations.

Several fields are missing in both Flemish and Walloon the reports, e.g. specific allowed activity (it is confused and mixed with the methods used), number of derogated individuals, number of individuals affected, number of licenses granted, alternative solutions.

In conclusion according to the information provided, it seems that the derogations granted are not as a whole in conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive. However high numbers of some species need further investigation.

3.3 Bulgaria Only seven derogations have been issued in 2007 for research and education purposes.

The means (activity) allowed are mainly capture of birds for ringing or placing radio- transmitters. Only in one case is the destruction and relocation of nests of Ciconia ciconia permitted while in another case the collection of dead birds and abandoned eggs are permitted.

The derogations concern the following species: Aquila chrysaetos, Aquila heliaca (6 individuals), Buteo rufinus, Ciconia ciconia (2 individuals), Falco cherrug (10 individuals), Falco peregrinus, Gyps fulvus and Neophron percnopterus, all listed in the Annex 1 of the Birds directive.

None of the individuals derogated has been killed.

The report does not follow the European Commission’s format, but is structured as a table, which does not include all the foreseen fields. The missing information is: - in two derogations the species is not specified as Aves and Passeriformes spp. are indicated.

15 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

- number of licenses issued: it seems that there is a confusion between derogation and license. - permitted activity: there is a confusion between means and authorised activity. - follow up. Moreover, the reasons are indicated in words and not using the standard codes, increasing the risk of misunderstanding.

In conclusions, based on the information provided by the report from Bulgaria, none of the derogations granted seems to be in conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive.

3.4 Cyprus Only three derogations have been issued in 2007.

Two derogations allow hunting with firearms of Pica pica, Corvus corone cornix and Streptotelia turtur to prevent serious damage to crops and to livestock and for the protection of wild fauna. Hunting “took place in areas/regions where the highest densities of these species occur”. All three species are listed in Annex II of the Birds Directive and may be hunted in Cyprus.

Hunting of Pica pica, Corvus corone cornix was permitted on June 3 and 10, during the nesting period. These species have been recorded as secure by Birdlife (2008) and are considered as “pest species”. According to a 2002 study3, magpies and hooded crows are common residents and shooting them poses no real threat to their current population. However, the study shows that old nests of magpies and hooded crows are used for nesting by the long-eared owl Asio otus, which is a rare resident breeder. The shooting of magpie and hooded crow nests in Cyprus has most probably contributed to the reduced numbers of breeding long-eared owls on Cyprus, and also to the reduction of the populations of other species such as the Cyprus scops owl Otus scops cyprius and the kestrel Falco tinnunculus, which also nest in old nests of Corvidae.

Hunting of Streptopelia turtur has been allowed on May 6 and 9, during the prenuptial migration period and at the start of the reproductive season in Cyprus. The turtle dove has been recorded as a declining species by Birdlife (2008). According to the European management plan of the species 1. Cyprus is one of the most important areas for the migration of the species, 2. the “prenuptial migration in Europe [….] reaches its climax during the first 20 days of May”, 3. Cyprus is a reproductive area of the turtle dove: the first active nests have been recorded at the beginning of May. The impact on bird numbers is therefore more significant in this period than it would be in autumn or winter, after the breeding season (when the hunting season is open).

The two derogations allow an unspecified number of licenses, i.e. “individuals that were holders of a renewed hunting license for the period 2006 – 2007” (Birdlife estimates that there are more than 45.000 licensed hunters in southern Cyprus), and do not indicate how many birds have been killed. In the field “remarks”, the report states that the “hunting of the specific species was not permitted in Wildlife Conservation Areas”.

3 E. Hadjisterkotis (2003) “The effect of corvid shooting on the populations of owls, kestrels and cuckoos in Cyprus, with notes on corvid diet”. Z. Jagdwiss. Blackwell Verlag, Berlin 49: 50-60.

16 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

On controls carried out, it states that “the staff of the Game Fund Service exercised regular checks in all areas where hunters were allowed to shoot the specified species”.

The report does not clear whether alternative solutions were sought to derogations, nor does the report clear the connections between the need to derogate and the activity allowed. Given the lack of the total amounts of licenses granted and number of individuals affected it is not possible to assess if the derogations are consistent with the objectives of the Birds directive.

In June 2007 the Commission sent a first written warning to Cyprus regarding the two days derogation to hunt the turtle dove and warned that any future derogation would constitute a generalized practice of bad application of the Birds Directive. The Cypriot authorities agreed not to renew the derogation, and the Commission has decided to close the case, although it will continue to monitor the situation in the future to ensure that any derogation comply fully with the Birds Directive.

The third derogation allows the scaring away with firearms of Merops apiaster, to prevent serious damage to agricultural stockbreeding of bees. Licenses (number not specified) have been granted to all “registered beekeepers from the records of the Agriculture Department who are also holders of hunting licence for 2006-2007”.

According to the introduction to the report, research activity on birds is usually carried out. However, no derogations have been issued for this reason.

The report from Cyprus uses the Commission’s format, and all the fields requested have been filled.

The derogations have been further investigated by the Commission.

3.5 Czech Republic A total of 69 derogations were submitted in the year 2007, a figure lower than the one in the previous years, showing a decreasing trend from the 365 derogations issued in 2005.

The most frequent reasons are: - for the protection of wild fauna - for the purposes of research and teaching - to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers - to prevent serious damage to water

The reason “for the protection of wild fauna” is often used together with the reason “for the purposes of research and teaching”, both of which are frequently related to the activities of “keeping in captivity” and “breeding”.

When the reason is “to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers” the most frequent permitted activity is the deterioration of the breeding sites, while when the reason is to prevent serious damage to water the permitted activities are mostly hunting and falconry.

17 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

Each derogation grants one single license, with the exception of two derogations, which grant respectively 3 licenses and “unspecified persons with authorisation for ringing”.

Frequently derogations cover more than one species, up to at least 38 (it seems that the report does not show all the species present in this specific cell, probably due to a not correct transposition from an excel file). The most derogated species are: - Accipiter gentilis: 7 derogations concern this species frequently kept and cared for wounded birds or kept in captivity for falconry - Apus apus: 7 derogations, six of which permitting the destruction of the nesting sites (the number is not indicated) outside the breeding season in the city of Prague - Ardea cinerea: 7 derogations granted for killing mainly to prevent serious damage to water - Phalacrocorax carbo: 6 derogations, granted for killing a maximum of 210 birds mainly to prevent serious damage to water

Many derogations were issued for an unlimited period of time or for more than one year.

The report does not use the official reporting format, but a table that does not include information relative to the alternatives assessed. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the number of individuals refers to the number licensed or taken and the validity is often not precise. On the other hand the table includes the “Time conditions” and “The controls which have been carried out” fields in addition to the requested ones.

In conclusion, the report from Czech Republic is quite complete and none of the derogations granted seem to be in apparent conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive.

3.6 Denmark The derogations granted for 2007 are 61; each one is linked to a license issued from January 1st to December 31st.

The reasons furnished are: Art. 9.1a - in the interest of air safety - in the interest of public health and safety - to prevent serious damage to fisheries - to prevent serious damage to livestock - to prevent serious damage to crops - for the protection of wild fauna Art. 9.1b - for the purposes of restocking

The activity allowed is almost always killing with firearms. The most affected species are Pica pica and Corvus corone (listed in Annex II/2 among the species which may be hunted in Denmark) and Phalacrocorax carbo (not listed in any Annex). Other affected species belong to the so called “pest species”, such as Larus argentatus, Corvus monedula and Corvus frugilegus. Also raptors species, Falco tinnunculus (48 individuals), Buteo buteo (68 individuals), Buteo lagopus (42 individuals), Accipiter nisus (3 individuals), etc, were killed with firearms in the interest of air safety. All these derogations do not include information on alternatives assessed. Therefore it is not clear

18 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

whether, for instance, devices to scare away the birds have been tested and with which results.

Only in two cases the activity allowed is taking of eggs by hand followed with the release, for the purposes of restocking: the total of eggs collected amounts to 25.615 all belonging to Phasianus colchicus (listed in Annex II/1, as species which may be hunted in the European territory, and in Annex III/1). This type of derogation is present each year.

Each derogation allows only one license and covers only one species.

The derogation report from Denmark uses a format similar to the Commission’s one, but without some fields such as the derogation number and alternative solutions. Moreover all information relative to the conditions of risk considered, the circumstances of time and places, under which the derogation was granted and the controls carried out are missing.

Even though some information is missing, none of the Danish derogations seem to be in apparent conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive.

3.7 Estonia The total number of derogations granted is four. The report for 2007 seems to be similar to those relative to the preceding two years in reasons, activity, method and species affected.

The reasons for derogation are to prevent serious damage to crops and to fishery and water and, in one case, in the interest of public health. The activity allowed is in all cases killing with firearms.

The total number of killed individuals amounts to 972: Species listed in annex I: - Branta leucopsis: 462 individuals Species not listed in the annexes: - Phalacrocorax carbo: 345 individuals - Ardea cinerea: 27 individuals - Corvus corax: 209 individuals

A total of 24 licenses were granted.

The report from Estonia uses the Commission’s reporting format but some information is missing, such as derogation number and the remarks. Moreover, the information provided does not cover the conditions of risk, the circumstances of time and place under which derogations were granted.

On the base of the information provided, the derogations granted in Estonia do not seem to be in contradiction with the conservation of the species.

19 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

3.8 Finland In Finland 141 derogations were issued in 2007, showing an increasing trend from 2005, when 67 derogations were issued.

The Finnish derogation report is composed of two parts: one by the Ministry of the Environment, is related to the “Protected species under the Nature Conservation Act”, while the other one, by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MMM), concerns the “game species and unprotected species under the Hunting Act”. The Nature Conservation Act protects all species of birds and mammals not specifically listed as game species or unprotected species in the Hunting Act. 126 derogations involve the species legally protected in Finland, while the remaining 15 derogations concern the ‘game and unprotected species’.

All derogations issued by the Ministry of the Environment cover only one licence, while those issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry cover up to 366 licenses.

The great part of derogation aimed at the “protected species” is granted “for the purposes of research and education” and “in the interest of public health and safety”. The most frequent activities for these reasons are killing and capture. The capture for ringing concerns the following species: Grus grus, Bubo bubo, Pandion haliaetus, Falco subbuteo, Pernis apivorus, Accipiter gentilis, Accipiter nisus, Buteo buteo and Stix aluco. Only one derogation was granted “for the protection of wild fauna” to allow the destruction of one nest of Pandion haliaetus which was then replaced by a new one.

The reasons for granting derogations aimed at the “game species” are mainly “in the interest of public health and safety”, “to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water” and “in the interests of protecting wild fauna and flora and conserving natural habitats”. The most frequent activities are killing and destruction of nests. Only one derogation grants the capture using traps of 56 individuals of Phasianus colchicus, for research and education reasons.

All derogations cover a single species.

A total of 108.985 individuals were killed, of which 157 belonging to the ‘protected species’ and 108.738 belonging to the ‘game and unprotected species’. To be noted that the number of protected species killed could be underestimated due to lack of data in the national report.

The protected species more frequently killed are Passer domesticus (concerned by 34 derogations), Parus major (30 derogations) and Corvus monedula (8 derogations).

A total of 108.738 birds belonging to the ‘game and unprotected species’ have been killed (to be noted that the numbers are quite the same of the two previous years). The reiterated recourse to derogation for killing these species could mean that this kind of activity is not effective and durable for their control. The correct use of derogations, which should be used as an exception, will be further monitored.

20 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

The affected ‘game and unprotected species’ are reported in the following table:

Species Killed Individuals 2005 2006 2007 Turdus pilaris 64.863 61.883 60.771 Corvus cornix 22.434 22.437 22.455 Larus argentatus 11.269 13.577 16.691 Clangula hyemalis 5.761 3.076 3.183 Pica pica 5.545 5.646 5.527 Larus marinus 1.832 1.665 1.458 Columba livia domestica 833 1.235 923 Columba palumbus 845 1.024 717 Anser anser 131 56 131 Tetrao tetrix 30 68 53 Branta canadensis 9 -- 4 Anas platyrhynchos 3 7 4 113.555 110.674 111.918* *In 2007, also 1 individual of Anas crecca has been killed.

One derogation was given to allow the capture through shooting of 3.183 individuals of Clangula hyemalis during the spring (mainly between April and May), under the reason “to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in a small number”. The derogation includes an incongruity: it seems that it allows the capture of dead (shot) animals. It is “repetitive”: the same permission was given in 2005 and in 2006 (see the table). For the same type of derogations issued in 2005 and earlier, the European Court of Justice in case C-344/03 had ruled that Finland had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Wild Birds Directive because the hunting of Eider (Somateria mollissima), golden-eye (Fuligula clangula), red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), goosander (Mergus merganser), velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca) and tufted duck (Aythya fuligula) is allowed in Finland during spring, i.e. prior to their breeding season. Apparently the same problem is still present in spite of the fact that in December 2007, Finland has informed the Commission that legislation complying with the directive had been adopted.

The report by the Ministry of the Environment does not use the Commission’s format, but a database form, which follows a clear and easy tabular structure. Reason and activity are given in words and not by mean of standard codes, increasing the risk of misunderstanding. The report does not include all the requested information, in particular no data are provided in relation to the Region concerned, the controls carried out and the alternatives assessed. Moreover, the Ministry of the Environment did not include information on the number of individuals affected in some of derogations.

In conclusion the Finnish report is quite complete and none of the derogations seem to be in apparent conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive, with the possible exception of the derogation given to capture/kill individuals of Clangula hyemalis. Furthermore, this derogation is similar in reason, activity, region concerned, period and species to derogations given in the previous years. The derogation is further investigated by the Commission.

21 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

3.9 France

In France 81 derogations were issued in 2007, about 1/3 of the number issued in the previous two years, when 249 (in 2005) and 280 (in 2006) derogations were granted.

Each derogation concerns a single species and it is granted under a single reason. The most frequent motivations are: - to permit under strictly supervised conditions and on selective basis, other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers (45 derogations) - for the purposes of research and teaching (27 derogations) - in the interest of public safety (3 derogations) - for the protection of wild fauna (3 derogations) - to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the keeping of certain birds in small numbers (2 derogations) - to prevent serious damage to fisheries (1 derogations)

The great part of derogations has authorized capture (56 derogations) of different bird species.

The 45 derogations granted “to permit under strictly supervised conditions and on selective basis, other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers” have been issued during the hunting season. A total of 510.593 individuals (mainly passerine birds listed in Annex II/2, as species which may be hunted in France) were caught (hunted) under this reason by different methods (hunting with traps, nets, snares and, lime).

Species Captured individuals 2005 2006 2007 Alauda arvensis 493.340 505.288 450.910 Turdus iliacus 18.828 12.456 18.893 Turdus philomelos 14.647 14.759 18.390 Turdus pilaris 15.728 3.391 13.443 Turdus merula 4.716 3.539 5.241 Turdus viscivorus 1.790 1.302 2.586 Vanellus vanellus 204 1.470 1.121 Pluvialis apricaria 9 Total 549.253 542.205 510.593

Five derogations were issued for killing a not specified number of Buteo buteo, Falco tinninculus and Milvus migrans.

Two derogations were granted for killing a total of 30.592 specimens of Phalacrocorax carbo of which 17.653 in order “to prevent serious damage to fishery and water” and the remnant 12.939 for “the protection of wild fauna”. This number falls within the annual harvesting quota, which corresponds to 33.784 and 39.905 individuals for 2006- 2007 and 2007-2008, respectively, decided on the base of the dimension of the cormorants wintering population.

18 derogations were issued to transport birds by different means for research purposes.

Most of derogations cover only one licence, but in more than half of the derogations the number of licences issued is not indicated at all and in only one case one derogation grants 97 licences to kill cormorants.

22 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

The French report does not follow the EU Commission format, but a tabular form which does not include some of the requested fields (the “region concerned” and the “remarks” are missing), while some of the present fields (i.e. “number of license granted or authorized persons”, “authorized method”, etc.) were often left empty. Information about the number of individuals affected is often missing. Moreover, reasons and activities are given in words and not by mean of standard codes and this increases the risk of misinterpretations.

The validity of some derogations is extended over more than one calendar year. In some cases, only the date for the beginning of the licence validity or only the end of the validity is stated. In other cases only the number of months covered by the licence is indicated. Since in these latter cases the dates of beginning and end for implementing the licence is omitted, it is not possible identify whether those periods overlap with the migration/breeding ones.

In conclusion, even though the report provides only part of the information needed, none of the French derogations seem to be in obvious conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive. However, few derogations (in particular those granted to kill prey birds without any indication of number and those granted regularly each year to kill passerines) should be better documented.

3.10 Germany A total of 618 derogations were issued in 2007 from different authorising local authorities in Germany. This figure is slightly higher than the previous biennial.

The great part of derogations were issued for the purpose of research and education and in most cases to allow stuffing of animals found dead, in particular Tyto alba, Accipiter nisus, Alcedo atthis, Falco tinnunculus, Ciconia ciconia, Asio otus and Strix aluco. One derogation allows the reintroduction of an unspecified number of individuals of Strix uralensis in Freyung-Grafenau.

Another reason frequently used is in the interest of public health and safety, followed by the prevention of serious damage, in particular to crops and fisheries.

In most cases derogation grants a single licence, with few exceptions. The duration of the licenses is often more than one year, in some cases five or six years. Some licenses were granted for an unlimited period of time mainly for research and education purpose and to scare away bird species for the protection of flora and fauna.

Usually each derogation concerns only one species, with few exceptions, among which there are some derogations covering “all bird” species, or “song birds” or other generic categories of birds, such as “Strigiformes”. One example could be a derogation issued by the Regierungsprasidium Tubingen which allows disturbance and capture by nets of 44 different species for research purposes (mainly DNA analysis and study of parasites) or three derogations issued by the Regierung von Mittelfranken, which allow the disturbance of a long list of bird species in the interest of public health and safety.

One of the most allowed activity, together with stuffing, is the destruction of nests in the interest of public safety mainly of Passer domesticus, Apus apus and Delichon urbica.

23 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

The most derogated species for killing is Phalacrocorax carbo, 15.050 individuals killed to prevent damages to fisheries and for the protection of wild fauna . The number of derogations corresponds to the registered increase of conflicts with this economic sector. Considering the population size of the cormorant in Germany and in Europe and the results of a recent study, according to which shooting in wintering areas is not sufficient to threaten the overabundant cormorant population in Germany, it seems that the number of killed individuals could be acceptable.

Other derogated species for killing to prevent serious damages are Corvus frugilegus, Corvus corone Columba palumbus, Branta leucopis, Ardea cinerea, Corvus corax, Garrulus glandarius, Buteo buteo and Accipiter gentilis.

The Thüringen region issued 15 derogations to allow the fight against the infestation of field mouse, a major problem in the area. The administration gave specific permissions of 120 days to farmers to use poisons that could also affect birds. The derogations do not specify the bird species nor the number of affected individuals, but the surface of the field where the use of poison was permitted.

9 derogations were issued to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping and use for falconry of 17 individuals of Accipiter gentilis.

The report follows the EU standard model. The document includes almost all the obligatory fields but most of the time they have not been filled in. The fact that derogations have not been numbered and that a considerable number of them is hand written does not facilitate the assessment. Moreover, different regions compile different derogations forms in different ways. The most frequent field left empty are: - derogation number - reason for derogation - permitted activity - methods - species Latin names - number of derogated individuals - number of individuals affected - period allowed

In conclusion, none of the German derogations seem to be in apparent conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive, with the possible exception of the hunting of Buteo buteo and Accipiter gentilis.

3.11 Greece In 2007 a total of 12 derogations were granted to control pest species or for scientific purposes.

The two derogations granted to control pest species allow respectively the destruction of 300 eggs of Larus cachinnans and the shooting of 43 individuals of Corvus corone and of Pica pica. Killing was permitted to avoid the predation of protected species.

The activity most allowed for scientific purposes is ringing, which was granted through five derogations and which interested generic birds, Loxia curvirostra, Sitta krueperi,

24 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

Falco eleonorae and Gyps fulvus for studies on populations. Two derogations allow monitoring of birds in the Parnis National Park and pelican cononies in Prespa National Park. Falco eleonorae was object of ringing and monitoring in the framework of a LIFE Nature project.

The remaining three derogations permitted studies on the biology of Aquila chrysaetos, taking of blood samplings of Gyps fulvus and Aegypius monachus for DNA analysis and the collection of 100 Turdus philomelos for stomach content analysis.

According to the introduction to the reports, derogations were also granted to rehabilitation centres for keeping and caring for 1.000-1.500 wounded birds each year, but additional data related to this kind of derogation is missing. Further derogations were granted for allowing the import of game birds such as Phasianus colchicus, Columba palumbus, Coturnix coturnix, Streptopelia turtur, etc., hunted by Greek hunters in foreign countries (mainly Romania and Bulgaria). Information on the reason under which these import-licences were issued or whether the birds species are imported dead or alive is totally missing;

The report does not follow the Commission’s format, but a rather generic descriptive approach. It is hard to interpret because important information is missing (i.e. number of licenses, reasons, activities, methods, species, number of individuals, etc.), while data furnished are generic and misinterpretable.

In conclusion based on the scarce information provided, none of the Greek derogations seem in conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive.

3.12 Hungary 214 derogations were issued in 2007, about double of those issued in 2006, when 118 derogations were granted, indicating a growing trend in comparison with the previous years.

Most of derogations (124) were issued to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, fish farms and water in case of substantial economic damage. These derogations allow in particular scaring away or killing Phalacrocorax carbo (60), Sturnus vulgaris (26), Corvus frugilegus (10), Ardea cinerea (8), Anser fabalis (6), A. albifrons (6), Anser anser (5) and Larus cachinnans (3), under a strict control of guards from the hunting authority.

Other frequent reasons to grant derogations are in the interest of public health and safety and for the protection of wild flora and fauna. Only three derogations aimed at Remiz pendulinus, Ficedula albicollis and Sturnus vulgaris were issued for research and education purposes.

Two derogations have been issued to allow under strictly supervised conditions the capture of 12 specimens of Accipiter gentilis to be used for falconry.

Only one species per derogation is reported, with the exception of a few derogations.

Killing and scaring away are the most frequent activities allowed. In several derogations, the number of individuals taken is “0” or “undefined”. 104 derogations

25 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

were issued without any quantitative limit. According to the data provided, the most killed species are: - 8.145 Pica pica (Annex II/2, H), about three times those killed in 2006, 14 derogations allowed between March 1 and July 1, for the protection of wild flora and fauna. - 6.578 Scolopax rusticola (Annex II/1) all allowed with one single derogation, from March 1 to April 10, allowing for the hunting with firearms. The derogation was granted according to the Hungarian hunting law, during the breeding period of this species. For this reason the European Commission already sent two warning letters, one in 2006 and the second in 2008. As a result the Hungarian legislation was changed in 2008. - 3.435 Corvus corone cornix (Annex II/2, H), 14 derogations granted to different bodies, between March 1 and June 30, for the protection of wild flora and fauna. - 792 Garrulus glandarius (Annex II/2, H), 13 derogations granted between March 1 and July 31, for the protection of wild flora and fauna.

As regards the three crows, Pica pica, Garrulus glandarius and Corvus corone cornix, it is to be noted that derogations allowed their hunting during the spring season, which corresponds to their breeding period and, for Garrulus glandarius and Corvus corone cornix, also with the prenuptial migration period. The report does not indicate whether hunting doesn’t exceed more than 1% of the yearly death of that species and/or whether other satisfactory solutions could be applied. However, considering the population sizes of these birds, it seems that the number of hunted individuals is acceptable.

25 derogations were issued for the relocation of nests of Ciconia ciconia in the interest of public safety and health. Detailed prescriptions on the rules to be followed during this activity are provided.

The Hungarian report follows a format similar to the one of the EU Commission, and the following inconsistencies are present: - Different categories, such as the reason for derogation and the authorised activity, are given in words and not by means of standard codes. This increases the risk of misinterpretations. - The permitted activity is missing even though some information can be obtained from the field “methods” allowed. - Information about the number of individuals affected is missing in most cases. - Alternative solutions are not indicated. - The number of licenses granted is not indicated. However, it seems that one derogation grants only one license.

Except for the derogations relative to Scolopax rusticola, which were stopped in 2008, none of the other Hungarian derogations seem to be in apparent conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive

3.13 Ireland 18 derogations have been granted in Ireland during the year 2007. All of them have been granted for research purposes allowing capture of 7 species: Tyto alba, Anser anser, Circus cyaneus, Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax, Falco peregrinus, Larus fuscus, Perdix perdix and Phalacrocorax carbo.

26 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

Each derogation includes one licence. Information relative to the number of individuals affected is missing in all cases.

The report is composed of an explanatory note and a table (Annex I) reporting the derogations granted. According to the explanatory note, a not specified number of derogations have been granted to control pest species and other to control protected species but these derogations have apparently not been inserted in the Annex I.

The report does not use the EU Commission format, but a format that does not include all the information required. Information concerning number of individuals allowed and affected, regions, period and date are missing.

None of the Irish derogations is in apparent conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive, but it is not clear why the derogation issued (reported in Annex I) concerns neither the killing or capture for the reasons mentioned in the explanatory note to the report, nor the species listed. It is bizarre that both in the cover letter and in the annex the “pest species” are mentioned or the reasons for which they can be killed or captured when, on the basis of the report, none of such species have been concerned or none of that kind of reasons have been used. So one could deduce that some derogations are missing.

3.14 Italy The number of Italian derogations issued in 2007 is 365.

The motivations furnished are in most cases to permit under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis the capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers (132 derogations) and to prevent damages to crops (121), followed by the reason to protect wild fauna (77), which is often associated to the previous motive, and for the purpose of research and teaching (68).

Permitted activities are mainly killing, hunting and “capture for using birds as a call”. Killing was allowed to prevent damages to crops and to protect wild fauna. In most cases these derogations are issued in the framework of pluri-annual plans of species containment, ignoring the exceptional nature of the derogation regime. Moreover, they allow killing of birds outside the hunting season (in spring-summer), in particular those referring to Corvus corone and Pica pica. In other cases they allow killing of Annex II/1 species, such as Columba livia, or Annex II/2 species which may not be hunted in Italy, such as Sturnus vulgaris.

Hunting in some regions is allowed to permit under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis the capture, of certain birds in small numbers, and in others to prevent damages to crops. The first reason is clearly wrong as all birds have been killed and not captured. Derogations for hunting allow the killing of species that, according to Annex II/2 of the Birds Directive may not be hunted in Italy, such as Sturnus vulgaris and Streptopelia decaocto, or species not listed in the directive, such as Fringilla coelebs, Fringilla montfringilla and Passer domesticus. In relation to the above, a number of infringement procedures are open concerning the use of the derogation in several regions. The Commission is also undertaking further investigation on trapping practices.

27 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

The “capture for using birds as a call” is justified with the motive “to permit under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis the capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers”. It seems that this activity is used to facilitate hunting. It interests, in particular, species belonging to the genus Turdus and Alauda. It is not clear whether the concept of “small numbers” has been respected as thousands of birds of the different species have been affected. The following figures have been extracted from the report: Turdus philomelos (28.534 birds), T. iliacus (17.217) and T. pilaris (16.511).

According to the Commission’s Guidelines "Guidance document on hunting under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of wild birds", when a derogation is authorized under art. 9.1c, the condition of “small quantities” can be satisfied when any taking is around 1% of the annual mortality of species. Furthermore, the principle of “strictly supervised conditions and selective basis” implies that any use of this type of derogation must involve clear authorizations that must be related to particular individuals, places, times and quantities.

The protocol signed by the regional administration and the National Wild Fauna Institute (INFS) is the procedure established in Italy to determine each year, on the basis of verified scientific data, the maximum amount of species that can be taken, on a national and regional level, for derogations under art.9.1c. Even though the report does sometimes mention the “basis of selection” when dealing with “small quantities”, when mentioning derogations under art.9.1c the report states that arrangements are made without taking account of the protocol, as in the case of the Toscana region. Moreover, in some cases the number of individuals killed or captured often does not comply with the opinion of INFS or does not satisfy the condition of “small quantities”, such as in the Veneto region.

Research activities mainly include the capture for ringing, the blood analysis and the successive release of birds. One derogation was issued to allow the reintroduction of Cygnus olor in Lombardy.

Often one derogation includes more than one license, usually tens of licenses, but in some cases they grant hundreds and in one case up to 3.015 licenses.

Most of the individuals derogated were killed. Some of the species for which derogations have been granted are not listed in the annexes (among these Fringilla montifringilla 51.218 individuals killed and Passer domesticus 2.843 individuals killed).

The most derogated species are (the figures are underestimated): Annex II/1: - Columba livia, 97.326 individuals killed. Annex II/2 which may not be hunted in Italy: - Sturnus vulgaris, 538.157 individuals killed (hunting of 337.739 individuals was granted through only one derogation by the Marche region). - Streptopelia decaocto, individuals killed. Annex II/2 species that can be hunted in Italy: - Corvus corone, 56.268 individuals killed. - Pica pica, 17.253 individuals killed.

28 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

In addition, 270.929 individuals of Fringilla coelebs have been killed. It is to be noted that hunting of 163.081 individuals was granted through only one derogation by the Veneto region.

The report from Italy does not cover the conditions of risk, the circumstances of time and place under which derogations were granted and the controls carried out. The report does not clear whether alternative solutions were sought to derogations, nor does the report clear the connections between the need to derogate and the activities allowed. The report does not clear how and who used the means, arrangements and methods authorised. Only in exceptional cases there is a reference to the specific person authorised to hunt, furnishing general categories (all those who have a pass, or that request it etc). All data collected come from the numbers indicated by the hunter in his personal pass. Without an effective control it is difficult to know whether the number of individuals killed corresponds to reality. Moreover not all the passes were delivered and often Regions have furnished an indicative total figure, based on a “projection” of the actual passes granted.

Some of the Italian derogations raise concern as regards a compliance with provisions of the Birds Directive, in particular derogations issued for hunting/killing several species of birds in different Italian Regions. For this issue, from April 2006 Italy is under infringements procedure. The derogations granted under Art.9 seem to be used to grant an almost permanent hunting season, which is not in line with the Birds Directive provisions.

3.15 Latvia A total of 9 derogations were granted in 2007.

Six derogations were issued for research and education purposes, allowing the taking of eggs from the wild of Delichon urbica (5), Erithacus rubecola (1), Anthus trivialis (1), Parus major (2), Sylvia communis (1) and Ficedula hypoleuca (2). A seventh derogation is specifically aimed at the re-introduction of three individuals of Aquila pomarina.

One derogation was granted to kill 149 individuals of Phalacrocorax carbo to prevent serious damage to fishery.

The last derogation was issued to allow recreational hunting of Capercaillies (Tetrao urogallus) with the reason “to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers”. It covers 142 licences, an increasing number in comparison with the preceding years, when 75 and 114 licences were issued. The permissions are granted from April 20 to May 10 for hunting 68 males. In the “Remarks” field it is stated that “single use permit is based on annual census data issued for each bird harvest in concrete leks. Harvest is in accordance with Species Management Plan.”

Tetrao urogallus is a species listed in Annex I of the Birds directive, but which may be hunted in Latvia. According to the Latvian Hunting Law, its hunting season is in spring, from April 10 to May 10, when it is possible taking the rooster of capercaillie during its mating season. By tradition, the shooting is at dawn, with the hunter sneaking up on the prey when the bird is clucking. According to Birdlife (2004), the Latvian breeding population is stable, and amounts to about 1.500-2.500 pairs, while the winter

29 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

population amounts to about 5.000 individuals (Tetrao urogallus management plan in Latvia). While Hofmanis, one of the major expert of the capercaillie in Latvia, states that hunting less than 100 individuals per year has not yet a significant impact on the bird population, he has demonstrated that spring hunting has a higher effect on the birds population than the winter hunting, in particular the specific type carried out in Latvia. It is not clear why spring hunting is carried out even though an alternative exist (winter hunting), and why derogations are needed during the open hunting season. The Commission has undertaken further investigating on this case.

The report follows the official format. Information furnished are complete, except for the controls carried out, which are not specified. Moreover, in all cases the permitted methods are indicated with the alphabetic code which does not specify which method (ie firearms, traps, net etc), but indicates only if the activity can be used for derogations from provisions of prohibited methods under the Birds and Habitat directives (code BTH) or only under Birds Directive (code BD).

None of the Latvian derogations seem to be in apparent conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive

3.16 Lithuania 22 derogations were granted in 2007. 21 of them are issued in the interest of public health and safety and the last one, aimed at Phalacrocorax carbo, to prevent serious damages to crops, livestock, forest and fisheries.

All derogations were issued to allow hunting. Twenty of these were issued for hunting a total of 63 specimens of different species listed in Annex II of the Directive, most of them belonging to the so-called ‘pest species’ (Anas querquedula, A. penelope, Anser fabalis, A. albifrons, Larus ridibundus, Corvus sp., etc.) in the interest of public health and safety.

The remaining two derogations have been granted for hunting 615 of Anas platyrhynchos (on an estimate population of 70.000-100.000 breeding pairs) and 807 individuals of Great Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo). The number of cormorant killed is lower than the previous year. The serious economic and ecological damages to fishery caused by the increasing numbers of Phalacrocorax carbo constitute a common problem in all the European breeding range of the species. According to Birdlife, the breeding population size of Phalacrocorax carbo in Lithuania between 1999 and 2001 was of 2.500-3.000 pairs. Recent studies estimate the population to have increased to around 3.700 pairs in 20064. In Lithuania single permits issued by the Ministry of Environment for cormorants shooting, are used as a population management tool for cormorant damage control in the inland fisheries pond farms, in order to reduce the conflict between cormorants and fisheries5. Data from the Lithuanian reports of recent years (2004 and 2005) show that one derogation for cormorants killing is granted every year. Considering that the population is grown despite the number of individuals yearly killed, and that the magnitude of the population growth is more than 80% (Birdlife), it seems that the number of killed individuals in 2007 could be acceptable.

4 Review and discussion on draft contributions for the HELCOM BIO report - Chapter 4, Birds. Christof Herrmann, Germany. 2008 5 Reducing the conflict between cormorants and fisheries on a pan-European scale. Summary & National Overviews. Edited by: D N Carss & M Marzano (2005)

30 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

Each derogation covers only one species and a not provided number of licenses.

The report does not use the official reporting format, but a table that does not include some of the requested fields, while it includes an additional “Impact on population” column. The missing fields are: - Derogation number - Number of licenses, empty in all cases - Region concerned - Period for which licenses are granted - Alternative solutions - Remarks

In conclusion, in absence of further information, none of the Lithuanian derogations seems to be in apparent conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive.

3.17 Luxembourg Only four derogations have been issued in 2007, concerning the disturbance of one species: Corvus frugilegus, listed in Annex II of the Birds Directive and which may not be hunted in Luxembourg.

The activity allowed is the deliberate destruction of 380 empty nests in the interests of public health and safety. The method used is always generically indicated as BTH, activity that can be used for derogations under the Birds and the Habitats Directives.

None of the individuals derogated has been killed.

The report from Luxembourg uses the Commission’s format, and all the fields requested have been filled with the only exception of “remarks”.

In conclusions, based on the information provided by the report from Luxembourg, none of the derogations granted seems in conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive.

3.18 Malta In 2007, the Maltese government issued 5 derogations.

The first derogation grants 18 licenses for the capture for ringing of 14.127 individuals belonging to “all species of wild birds occurring in the Maltese islands”. The number of individuals concerned for each species is listed in a specific annex. The methods allowed for the capture are “nets” and/or “bird calls”. The motivation furnished is for “the purpose of research and teaching” and the period is the whole year.

The most derogated species are not listed in the Birds directive annexes: - Erithacus rubecula 2719 individuals - Phylloscopus collybita 1738 individuals - Passer hispaniolensis 1091 individuals - Sylvia borin 978 individuals

31 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

- Phylloscopus sibilatrix 922 individuals - Sylvia atricapilla 891 individuals - Hirundo rustica 601 individuals - Sylvia melanocephala 564 individuals.

The second derogation allows the hunting of quails Coturnix coturnix and of turtle doves Streptopelia turtur during the spring season (from 10 April to 20 May). This derogation, issued under Art. 9.1 (c), “to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small number”, grants 11.961 licences.

The number of specimens of the two hunted species in 2007 is remarkably higher than in the previous years, notwithstanding the Commission’s warning letters, asking for the ban of spring hunting of these species.

Species 2004 2006 2007

Coturnix coturnix 2.544 15.115 24.675 Streptopelia turtur 10.911 33.205 45.290

The third and the fourth derogations allow the capture of quails and of turtle doves during spring (from 26 March to 20 May) and autumn (1 September to 31 December) respectively. These derogations, issued under Art. 9.1 (c), “to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small number”, grant each 4.399 licences. 18 quails and 115 turtle doves were captured during the spring and 3 quails and 2 turtle doves during the autumn.

These two migratory birds return from Africa during spring to breeding grounds in Europe, and hence the period indicated in the derogation, according to BirdLife International, overlaps with the pre-nuptial migration season of the two species. The Birds directive prohibits hunting in this period, because it takes place before birds have had a chance to reproduce. The impact on bird numbers is more significant than it would be in autumn or winter, after the breeding season. Those derogations have been subject to legal proceedings – see below.

The remarks’ field is filled out but it does not indicate the conditions of risk considered, the circumstances of time and places under which derogations may be granted and the controls carried out. It is only limited to a statement that the Birds Directive foresees a derogations regime (“this activity has been permitted by derogating from Articles 5(a), 5(d), 8(1) in connection with Annex IV (a) of the Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds”).

It is to be noted that exceptionally Member States may allow the capture or killing of birds covered by the Directive outside of the normal hunting season for a limited number of reasons, but such derogations are to be granted only where the strict conditions set out in the Wild Birds Directive are met, first of all when there is no alternative solution.

The fifth derogation allows the capture of Pluvialis apricaria and of Turdus philomelos during autumn (20 October to 31 December) respectively. The derogation, issued under

32 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

Art. 9.1 (c), “to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small number”, grants 4.399 licences. 44 Pluvialis apricaria and 10 Turdus philomelos were captured.

The report from Malta uses the Commission’s format.

Two out of the five derogations issued by the Maltese government could have a negative impact on the birds population of Coturnix coturnix and of Streptopelia turtur. The European Commission started legal action against Malta in 2006, sent the final warning letter on October 2007 and took Malta to the European Court of Justice on January 2008 for allowing the hunting of quails and turtle doves during spring (Case C- 76/08). The Court gave its ruling on 10 September 2009 concluding that the derogations for the spring hunting of the two species, Coturnix coturnix and Streptopelia turtur, were in breach of Article 9 of the Birds Directive in that they did not constitute an adequate solution strictly proportionate to the Directive's objective of conservation of the species. The Court noted that spring hunting would be possible where the requirement of proportionality and the other requirements laid down in Article 9 (1) were met.

3.19 Netherlands The 11 Provinces and the Dutch Ministry for Nature issued a total of 270 derogations. The great part of these was issued to prevent important damages to crops, to wild flora and fauna and in the interest of public safety. 38 derogations have been issued for research purposes.

37 derogations have been issued for “other imperative reasons overriding public interest, including those with an economic nature”, a reason not included in the standardised codes. They grant mainly the disturbance of bird nests. According to the report no impact on the bird populations (Tyto alba, Athene noctua, Dendrocps major, Falco tinninculus, etc.) was detected.

Often more than one species per derogation are reported. Moreover, several derogations do not include the number of licenses granted and in some cases derogations allow licenses for more than one year.

The most derogated species are Anser anser, Anser albifrons, Anas Penelope, Anas platyrhynchos, Sturnus vulgaris, Corvus frugilegus, Larus argentatus, Pica pica, Garrulus glandarius and Corvus monedula.

According to the Ministry, killing of birds in the Netherlands is allowed for various reasons related to hunting and management/damage control. 159 derogations allow killing of different bird species, of which 49 allow specifically hunting with guns. The derogations do not report the number of individuals killed, with very few exceptions. However, the national report includes in the introductory section a table, indicating the total number of birds killed (independently from the reason) in the Netherlands in 2006, which amounts to 1.317.633 individuals.

33 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

According to the introduction to the report, annually approx. 5.000 - 6.000 wildfowl, 1.000 - 1.500 birds of prey, 12.000 songbirds and 15.000 remaining birds are caught, cured and released in 150 specific relief asylums. Birds that cannot be recovered are killed. These are however not included in the total furnished in the table above. According to the Dutch Ministry no specific derogations were granted for these.

The Dutch report follows a format similar to the one of the EU Commission to which two fields are added: impact on population and reference documentation. However, most of the fields are empty; in particular: - Number of individuals allowed and taken (these fields are not inserted in the derogations format) - Reason (in some cases) - Number of licenses (in some cases) - Impact on the population (in many cases) - Alternative solutions - Follow up - Remarks - Permitted activity (in some cases) - Permitted method (in some cases)

Moreover, different categories, such as the reason for derogation and the authorised activity, are given in words and not by means of standard codes. Moreover descriptions of reasons not foreseen in the Birds Directive are included. This increases the risk of misinterpretations.

In conclusion the report does not provide all information needed. Therefore it is not possible to evaluate the impact of derogations on the conservation status of the species.

3.20 Poland In 2007 a total number of 198 derogations were issued in Poland, more than double of the previous year, showing an increasing trend from 2004.

Derogations are based on the following motivations: - for the purposes of research and teaching, - to prevent serious damage to fishery - in the interest of public health - for the protection of wild fauna

The most frequently authorized activity is scaring away several bird species for in the interest of public health and for the protection of wild fauna. Other frequent activities are keeping in captivity, transport and stuffing, usually allowed for research motives. Four Ciconia ciconia nests and unlimited number of Corvus frugilegus, Pica pica and Delichon urbica nests have been destroyed in the interest of public health and safety.

Three derogations have been issued to allow falconry and breeding of Falco peregrinus, Falco cherrug, Accipiter gentilis.

Often derogations cover more than one species (up to 42), and in a few instances the species is generically indicated as “birds”.

34 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

The species object of killing are the great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), affected by 15 derogations, and Corvus corax affected by 2 derogations and Ardea cinerea object of one derogation. In particular: - Phalacrocorax carbo (not listed in the Annexes of the Birds directive): 1.318 individuals were killed in order to prevent serious damage to fishery. - Corvus corax (not listed in the Annexes): 19 individuals were killed for the protection of wild fauna. - Ardea cinerea (not listed in the Annexes): four individuals killed to prevent serious damage to fishery.

It is to be noted that the number of cormorants killed represents less than 5% of the Polish population (the breeding population size in Poland amounts to 12.500 pairs) and the 0,3% of the European winter population size (more than 420.000 individuals). The Phalacrocorax carbo population has increased during 1990–2000 and the actual trend shows an increase in Poland and in the rest of Europe. In particular, the mean annual growth rates in Poland are in the order of 14%. The serious economic and ecological damages to fishery caused by this increasing numbers of Phalacrocorax carbo constitute a common problem in all the European breeding range of the species. None of such derogations seems to jeopardize the actual status of conservation of this species in Poland.

Derogations are sometimes granted for more than one year, up to three years.

The report does not follow the European Commission’s format, but is structured as a table, which includes a “Follow-up” column in addition to all the requested fields, but not the number of licences granted or the alternative assessed.

In conclusion, the Polish derogations as a whole do not seem to be in apparent conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive. However, it is not possible to assess whether the three derogations issued to destroy unlimited number of Corvus frugilegus, Pica pica and Delichon urbica nests have a significant impact on their populations. The correct use of derogations, which should be used as an exception, will be further monitored.

3.21 Portugal The total number of derogations for 2007 amounts to 80, almost double of the previous report, showing an increasing trend in the last three years.

The most frequent motivations furnished are: - for the purpose of research - to prevent serious damage to crops - in the interests of public health and safety/public interest

None of the individuals concerned has been killed. The activities allowed are capture, deliberate disturbance or deliberate destruction of nests.

Derogations issued for research always allow the capture of birds for ringing “by hand” or “nets”.

35 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

The prevention of serious damage to crops usually corresponds to the scaring away of birds, and/or to the use of “firearms and gas machines”.

Derogations issued in the interests of public health and safety allow both the deliberate destruction of nests and the scaring away using “hand” or “firearms and gas machines” method.

Only data on the number of birds captured have been provided (888). No information is included on the number of nests destroyed.

A total of 937 licenses were granted. Often one derogation includes more than one licence: the number varies from 1 to 250.

Each derogation includes one single species. However, in some cases the name of the species is indicated using generic terms, such as Laridae, Passeriformes or Aves.

Among the derogated species are: Annex I species: - Aegypius monachus (scared away) - Aquila adalberti (captured) - Ardea purpurea (ringing) - Bubo bubo (ringing) - Calonectris diomedea (captured for ringing) - Charadrius alexandrinus (ringing) - Ciconia ciconia (destruction of nests, ringing and scared away) - Cicoria nigra (captured for ringing) - Falco naumanni (captured for ringing) - Gyps fulvus (scared away) - Hieraaetus fasciatus (captured) - Tetrax tetrax (captured) Annex II: - Anas platyrhynchos (scared away) - Corvus corone (scared away) - Garrulus glandarius (scared away) - Pica pica (scared away) - Turdus merula (scared away) Species not listed in the annexes: - Apus apus (scared away) - Apus pallidus (ringing) - Ardea cinerea (nests destruction) - Bubulcus ibis (scared away) - Buteo buteo (scared away) - Cyanopica cyana (scared away) - Delichon urbica (destruction of nests) - Merops apiaster (scared away) - Oriolus oriolus (scared away) - Passer domesticus (scared away) - Sturnus unicolor (scared away) - Tyto alba (captured for ringing)

36 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

The report from Portugal does not use the Commission’s format, and the information provided covers only few of the requested fields. Information relative to the Licensing Authorities, the conditions of risk, alternatives assessed and the circumstances of time and place under which derogations were granted (such as regions concerned and periods for which licence is granted) and controls carried out are totally missing. Moreover, the standard codes have not been used, increasing the risk of misunderstanding.

None of the Portuguese derogations seems to be in conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive.

3.22 Romania The Romanian authorities have not granted derogations under the article 9 of the Birds Directive during the year 2007.

3.23 Slovakia In Slovakia 71 derogations were granted in 2007, showing a growing trend from the18 derogations in 2004, 24 in 2005 and 33 in 2006.

Most derogations were given for research and monitoring of bird species (43 derogations), in particular by birds ringing (32 derogations).

13 derogations were granted in the interests of public health and safety, authorizing the capture or, in two cases the destruction of nests “on theatre entrance hall” and “on flats”, elimination using nets from inside of warehouses and commercial centers. The species concerned by this kind of derogations are Aves in general, Hirundo rustica, Delichon urbica and Corvus frugilegus. Only Corvus frugilegus is present in the Annexes of the Birds Directive, in particular in Annex II/2 as species which may be hunted in Slovakia.

Five derogations have been granted to guarantee air safety inside airports. The derogations allow scaring away, falconry and killing of various bird species, such as Turdus vulgaris, Turdus pilaris, Corvus corone, Corvus frugilegus, Delichon urbica, Hirundo rustica, Sturnus vulgaris, Anas platyrhynchos and Alauda arvensis.

Five derogations were granted for scaring away and for hunting individuals of Phalacrocorax carbo in order to prevent serious damage to fisheries and water bodies. Hunting is allowed all year round. In this instance, it serves a non-recreational objective (to prevent damage), but the report does not indicate the location where the damage occurs, nor demonstrate the absence of other available satisfactory solutions (i.e. non- lethal anti-predation measures have either been tried and found to be ineffective at the site, or are impractical), nor the need to regulate ‘damage-causing’ Cormorants (i.e. the extent of the damage in absence of action, the strong likelihood that the damage will take place in the absence of action).

In general, one derogation covers more than one licence (up to 47), but this field is not always filled.

37 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

Rarely, one derogation concerns only one species. In some cases the species concerned are identified in a generic way (i.e. “aves in general”, “migrating birds in general” or “raptor and owl species”).

The number of individuals taken is “0” or not specified with the only exception for one derogation that authorized killing of max 150 individuals of Phalacrocorax carbo and the taking of eggs of 2 individuals of Passer domesticus, Passer montanus, Sturnus vulgaris and Parus major for the purposes of research.

The report follows the Commission’s format and, with few exceptions, all the requested fields are filled, but information relative to the conditions of risk considered, the circumstances of places under which derogations are granted and the controls carried out, are missing. Moreover, it seems strange that the actual number of individuals affected is always “0”.

In conclusion the report is easily comprehensible and indicates that none of the derogations is in apparent conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive.

3.24 Slovenia According to the derogation report a total of 10 derogations have been granted in 2007.

Seven derogations have been issued for research purpose, one for education, one to prevent damages to livestock and the last one to protect wild fishes.

The allowed activities are mainly linked with the capture and release of specimens using standard trapping methods. One derogation allows for the holding of one dead individual of Asio otus.

The only individuals that have been killed are 152 specimens of Phalacrocorax carbo for the protection of wild fauna and two specimens of Corvus corax to prevent serious damage to livestock. The number of individuals captured is not available. According to the report, the derogation for the withdrawal of the Cormorant has been granted having regard to the dynamics of the natural occurrence of this species in Slovenia and the one on the Corvus corax, on the basis of hunting legislation.

One derogation sometimes concerns more than one species (up to 5). Four derogations concern generically Aves and a fifth one Strigidae. The derogated species are: Annex I species: - Ciconia cicoria - Sterna hirundo Annex II-2 species which may not be hunted in Slovenia: - Larus ridibundus Species not listed in the annexes: - Phalacrocorax carbo - Corvus corax - Passer italiae - Passer domesticus - Asio otus - Charadrius dubius - Saxicola rubetra

38 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

Sometimes permissions are granted for more than one year.

On the contrary of the previous years, the report does not follow the European Commission’s format: each derogation is described in different paragraphs reported in tens of pages. Some information is missing; in particular: - number of derogation. - in five derogations the species is not specified as Aves and Strigidae. are indicated. - number of individuals affected in most cases is missing. - number of licenses is missing in most cases. - permitted activity: it seems partly included in the description of the species and partly in means authorised. - alternative solutions. Moreover, the reasons are indicated in words and not using the standard codes, increasing the risk of misunderstanding.

The conditions of risk and the circumstances of time and place under which a derogation has been granted and the controls carried out are very detailed and complete. The report furthermore, indicates the authority empowered to carry out the controls to guarantee that all the required conditions have been observed, but not the number of authorised persons. A report to be submitted by the authorised persons two months after the end of the period concerned, specifying results obtained, suggestions and conclusions on eventual important findings is also foreseen.

In conclusions, based on the information provided by the report from Slovenia, none of the derogations granted seems to be in conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive.

3.25 Spain

A total of 315 derogations were submitted in the year 2007, a figure similar to those granted in the previous biennial.

The most frequent reasons used are: - for the purpose of research and teaching, sometimes together with the protection of wild fauna or flora reason. The main activity connected with this reason is the capture for ringing for scientific purposes. 23 derogations were granted for the purposes of restocking, reintroduction and for the breeding of several species (Hieratus fasciatus, Pandion haliaetus, Gypaetus barbatus, Oxyura leucocephala, etc.); - to prevent serious damage to crops, fishery and water (27 times); the activities allowed under this reason are killing, hunting and scaring away of “pest species” (Columbidae, Corvidae, Sturnus spp., Turdus sp., etc.). - for the protection of wild fauna. The activities authorized under this reason address the conservation and protection of the derogated species (i.e. keeping and caring for wounded birds in rehabilitation centers, ringing, capture and following release to avoid the accidental killing of young birds by harvesters and other agricultural machineries) or, on the contrary, they are needed to control the populations of the derogated species “to reduce the predation of other species” and “to avoid damage to nesting of big or small game birds”. In these last cases the allowed activities are killing and destruction of nests of so-called “pest species” (i.e. Pica pica, Corvus monedula, Corvus corone, Sturnus unicolor, Larus michahellis etc.) or falconry in

39 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

order to train birds of prey. One derogation granted under the reason of the protection of wild fauna, allowed the destruction of nests of Monk Parakeet (Myiopsitta monachus), an exotic species, in order to decrease the displacement effect on other native species. The Monk Parakeet originates from the temperate to subtropical areas of Argentina and the surrounding countries in South America, while in Europe, it is an alien species included in the “Global Invasive Species Database”. As this bird species does not occur naturally in the wild in the European territory, it is not covered by the system of protection set out in the Birds Directive. Therefore its killing does not fall within the derogation regime.

A total of 30 derogations were granted for killing or hunting 49.568 individuals of several “pest species” (Streptopelia turtur, S. decaocto, Pica pica, Turdus philomelos, Sturnus vulgaris, S. unicolor, Columba palumbus, Corvus corone, C. monedula, etc.), to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fishery and water and/or for the protection of wild fauna. The total number of individuals killed could be only a small part of the actual number of the individuals affected, since half of these derogations do not provide this information. The derogations concerning the pest-species do not show that killing is an effective and durable solution for the control of these species. On the contrary it is stated: in spite of this measure, the species maintains large populations.

A total of 25 derogations were issued to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, the keeping, or other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers (Art. 9.1c). Of these derogations: - 8 have authorized the falconry or the keeping in captivity of several species of birds of prey; - One has authorized the hunting of 100 individuals of Alectoris rufa in order to control the male population. - 16 have allowed the capture by hunting with nets, the capture for keeping in captivity, the breeding and the marketing, in order to develop canary breeding and to guarantee the feasibility of recreational activities such as traditional training in singing and participation in competitions of the following passerine songbirds: Carduelis carduelis, C. cannabina, C. chloris, Serinus serinus, Fringilla coelebs, Carduelis spinus, Bucanetes githagineus, Carduelis citrinella, Pyrrhula pyrrhula. With the only exception of Bucanetes githagineus, which is listed in the Annex I, the other passerine birds are not listed in any Annex to the Birds Directive. Two of these derogations have issued the catch for keeping in captivity by “arbolillo”, a method that implies the use of the lime and alive decoys. The total amount of individuals belonging to the Fringillidae family affected by these activities is 104.384 a figure that is much lower than previous years (302.266 in 2005 and 328.110 in 2006). However this figure remains partial, as the data related to the number of birds are not always available.

In general one derogation covers more than one license (up to 12.715) and often involves more than one species. Even though falconry and canariculture are traditional activities in Spain, and the number of individuals of the song birds caught by hunting and keeping in captivity has decreased over the past years, it is not explained in the national report that there is “no other satisfactory solution” to derogation.

The report follows the Commission’s format. However, in some of these cases the number of individuals is given altogether and not for species, and thus it is not possible to know how many individuals were killed for each species (e.g. 18.900 specimens of Pica pica, Corvus corone and C. monedula). Sometimes the species is not identified,

40 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

reporting the family (i.e. “Anatidae”, “Rapaces”) or the number of species or the generic sentences “Passeriformes and not Passeriformes”, “several”. In many cases the number of individuals concerned is indicated as “undetermined”, other times as “several”, other times as “limited” or is not reported at all and other times it is furnished only the ceiling number. As several derogations do not provide the number of individuals affected, it is not clear how many individuals were actually affected. Moreover, when the permitted activities are more than one, it is not clear to which one the number of individuals is referred (i.e. killing and destruction of nests, capture and killing, or killing and scaring away, or moreover, ringing and killing).

On the basis of the information provided none of the derogations seems to be in apparent conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive. However, considering that derogation must be used as an exception where it is the only satisfactory solution to resolve a specific problem or situation, and that “another solution cannot be deemed unsatisfactory merely because it would cause greater inconvenience to or compel a change in behaviour by the beneficiaries of the derogation” (Guidance document on hunting under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds, The Birds Directive, European Commission 2008), the Commission will monitor, on the basis of future derofations reports, derogations granted “to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, the keeping, or other judicious use” of Falconiformes and Fringillidae and the method adopted to carry out the capture of passerine songbirds (arbolillo).

3.26 Sweden A total of 133 derogations were granted in 2007, a number significantly higher of those relative to the previous year, when 24 derogations were issued.

The most frequent reasons furnished for granting derogations are: - to prevent serious damage to crops and to fisheries - in the interest of public health and safety - in the interest of air safety

Five derogations have been issued to permit under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, other judicious use of certain birds in small number. Two of them are relative to Perdix perdix and the others to Phasianus colchicus, both species which may be hunted in Europe. The derogations allow killing of a not indicated number of birds outside the Swedish hunting season. In particular, one derogation, issued by the Örebro County, according to the specific note, allows a three days hunting of this species during the month of December (7, 19 and 27). For all these derogation it is not possible to assess the congruity with the indications of the Birds directive, due to the lack of important information on the “small quantity”, i.e. number of birds killed, and “strictly supervised conditions”, i.e. which type of control has been carried out.

Often one derogation covers more than one licences (up to 27). Moreover, in some cases the number of licences has not been indicated. In these cases, the report states that “Number licensed noted as "0" because licence is not limited”. Usually the validity of the same derogations is all year round.

The permitted activities are killing, capture, scaring away, taking of eggs and ringing.

41 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

4/5 of the derogations were issued for killing with firearms a relatively high number of birds, the major part of which belonging to the so-called ‘pest species’. To be noted, however, that the total figure could be very different from the actual number of individuals killed as, according to the report “number actually killed is an estimation” and some other times the number of individuals is not indicated at all.

Some of the derogations are identical to derogations issued in the previous years in species, number of individuals concerned, reasons etc. The number of individuals affected by each derogation (see below) according to the report is only an estimation: - estimated specimens killed in the interest of public health and safety, of which: 1) 30.000 individuals of Columba livia 2) 10.000 individuals of Corvus corone 3) 10.000 individuals of Corvus frugilegus 4) 8.000 individuals of Pica pica 5) 5.000 individuals of Passer domesticus 6) 5.000 individuals of Passer montanus 7) 4.000 individuals of Larus argentatus 8) 4.000 individuals of Larus canus 9) 2.000 individuals of Laurus marinus 10) 2.000 individuals of Larus ridibundus

- estimated specimens to prevent serious damage to crops, of which: 1) 10.000 individuals of Columba palumbus 2) 10.000 individuals of Corvus monedula 3) 4.000 individuals of Branta canadensis 4) 2.000 + 1.000 individuals of Anser anser 5) 1.000 individuals of Turdus pilaris 6) 500 individuals of Turdus merula 7) 500 individuals of Sturnus vulgaris

As “pest” species are usually problematic only in specific periods of time – e.g. sowing in autumn or spring -, the practice of granting derogations for the entire year should maybe be reconsidered. As stated in the European Commission’s “Guidance document on hunting under Council Directive 79/409/EEC”, “When devising pest control strategies, logic suggests that the first approach should be to make the control local in time and place to where the damage is occurring.” Moreover, as the report does not refer to verification of alternative solutions to derogations, nor does it clear the connections between the need of prevention and the activities allowed, the repeated need of killing the same number of individuals seems to mean that this kind of activity is not effective and durable for the control of the “pest-species”. In the above-mentioned European Commission’s document it is clearly noted, “As always with derogations it is necessary to consider the available solutions (…) Any control method is vulnerable to the removed birds being replaced from elsewhere and shot birds will, after some times, be replaced by other birds”.

All derogations aimed at Corvus corax (6) allow killing of “all birds except for eagles and 10 birds of each species” and do not report the number of birds actually killed.

A great part of derogations cover a period longer than one year and apply to more than one species. The most derogated species are Anser anser, object of 26 derogations, and Phalacrocorax carbo, object of 24 derogations.

42 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

The report does not use the Commission’s format, but a database form, which follows a clear and easy tabular structure. Reason and activity are given in words and not by mean of standard codes, increasing the risk of misunderstanding. The report does not include all the requested information, in particular no data are provided in relation to the Region concerned, the controls carried out and the alternatives assessed. Many derogations do not include the number of individuals affected.

In conclusion, none of the Swedish derogations seems to be in apparent conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive. The correct use of derogations, which should be used as an exception, will be further monitored.

3.27 United Kingdom A total of 2.247 derogations have been granted in 2007. According to the report, the validity of some derogation is extended over more than one calendar year and certain figures for the taking of birds are not available.

The motivations most used for derogations are: for the protection of flora and fauna (about 2/5 of derogations), to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping or other judicious use certain birds in small numbers (about ¼) for the purpose of research and teaching and for air safety (about 100 derogations each one).

A total of 4.673 licenses were granted. Most of derogation grants one single license, the others grant up to 307 licenses per derogation. Multi-licenses derogations have been granted in particular for killing birds to prevent serious damage to fisheries and crops and for disturbing birds for the purpose of research and teaching.

Each derogation concerns only one species.

A total of 44.900 eggs have been taken from the wild. A single derogation allows the taking of 28.555 eggs (on a total of 82.100 licensed) of Larus ridibundus (Annex II/2 species, which may not be hunted in the UK) for human consumption. According to Birdlife (2008), the UK breeding population of this species amounts to 138.000 pairs. Considering that each pair produces about 2-3 eggs and that they can replace lost eggs, even if recent studies6 demonstrate a negative effect of eggs harvesting of the Larus ridibundus, according to the UK government “numbers are taken at a low level and do not exceed the maximum sustainable yield”.

A total of 8.862 birds have been killed in the interest of air safety and to prevent serious damages. The most derogated species for killing are: Annex I species: - Branta leucopsis: 527 individuals killed and 292 eggs pricked in the interest of public health or to prevent serious damage to crops Annex II/1 species: - Anser anser: 896 individuals killed and 5.421 eggs pricked to prevent serious damage to crops or in the interest of public health and safety

6 Wood P.J., Hudson M.D., Doncaster C.P (2009) “Impact of egg harvesting on breeding success of black- headed gulls, Larus ridibundus”. Acta Oecologica, v. 35, iss. 1, p. 83-93.

43 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

Annex II/2 which may not be hunted in UK: - Branta bernicla 777 individuals to prevent serious damages to crops Annex II/2 which may be hunted in UK: - Anser brachyrhyncos: 474 individuals killed to prevent serious damage to crops - Corvus frugilegus 673 individuals in the interest of air safety Species not listed in the Annexes: - Larus michahellis 3.600 adults and chicks killed and 700 eggs taken in the interest of air safety - Phalacrocorax carbo: 1.493 individuals to prevent serious damages to fisheries - Sula bassana: 2.000 individuals (the same number of the previous year) killed to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping or other judicious use certain birds in small numbers.

At least ¼ of derogations have been issued for the disturbance of a number of birds of prey, among which Falco peregrinus (141 derogations), Circus cyaneus (121 derogations), Aquila chrysaetos (113 derogations) and Falco columbarius (112 derogations), for the protection of wild flora and fauna.

470 derogations allow the possession of dead birds belonging to several different species for taxidermy.

The UK government uses a form that does not include all the information required. In particular, derogation number, regions concerned, date and remarks are missing and, consequently, the conditions of risk and the circumstances of time and place under which derogations have been granted and the controls carried out are never specified. Moreover, the standard codes for derogation reason and activity have not been used, increasing the risk of misunderstanding.

In conclusion, even though the information provided is incomplete, none of the derogations granted seems to be in conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive.

44 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

ANNEX A Detailed table relative to the standardised codes for derogation motive (reason).

Code Reason

10 in the interests of public health and safety 11 in the interests of public health 12 in the interests of public safety 20 in the interests of air safety 30 to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fishery and water 31 to prevent serious damage to crops 32 to prevent serious damage to livestock 33 to prevent serious damage to forests 34 to prevent serious damage to fishery 35 to prevent serious damage to water 36 to prevent serious damage to agricultural stock-breeding 40 for the protection of flora and fauna 41 for the protection of wild flora 42 for the protection of wild fauna for the purposes of research and teaching, of restocking, of re-introduction and for 50 the breeding necessary for these purposes 51 for the purposes of research and teaching 52 for the purposes of restocking 53 for the purposes of re-introduction 54 for the purposes of breeding necessary for activities 51, 52, 53 to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, 60 keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture of 61 certain birds in small numbers to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the keeping 62 of certain birds in small numbers to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, other 63 judicious use of certain birds in small numbers

45 Report on derogations in 2007, Birds Directive 79/409/EEC Article 9

ANNEX B Detailed table relative to the standardised codes for authorized activity.

Code Activity 20 Capture 21 Capture for decoy use 22 Capture (ringing) 23 Capture /hunting with nets 24 Capture/hunting with snares 25 Capture/hunting with lime 26 Capture for keeping in captivity 30 Killing 31 Poisoned baits 40 Hunting 41 Falconry 50 Keeping in captivity 51 Keeping and caring for wounded birds 60 Releasing 70 Stuffing 80 Scaring away 90 Breeding 100 Taking of eggs 110 Marketing 120 Destruction of nests 130 Transport

46