Implementation in the European Union of species action plans for 23 of Europe’s most threatened birds

Report to the European Commission Contract No B4-3040/2003/362169/MAR/BZ

Prepared by Szabolcs Nagy and Nicola Crockford BirdLife International on behalf of the European Commission

July 2004 Wageningen, the Netherlands

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

Wellbrook Court, Girton Road, Cambridge, CB3 0NA, United Kingdom Tel: +44 1223 277318 Fax: +44 1223 277200 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.birdlife.net BirdLife International is a UK-registered charity.

What is BirdLife International? BirdLife International is a Partnership of non-governmental conservation organisations with a special focus on birds. The Birdlife Partnership works together on shared priorities, policies and programmes of conservation action, exchanging skills, achievements and information, and so growing in ability, authority and influence.

Each partner represents a unique geographic area or territory (usually a country). In addition to Partners, BirdLife has Affiliates and a flexible system of Working Groups (including some bird Specialist Groups shared with Wetlands International and/or the Species Survival Commission (SSC) of the World Conservation Union (IUCN)), each with specific roles and responsibilities. What is the purpose of BirdLife International? – Mission Statement The BirdLife International Partnership strives to conserve birds, their habitats and global biodiversity, working with people towards sustainability in the use of natural resources. Where is BirdLife International heading? – Vision Statement Birds are beautiful, inspirational and international. Birds are excellent flagships and vital environmental indicators. By focusing on birds, and the sites and habitats on which they depend, the BirdLife International Partnership is working to improve the quality of life for birds, for other wildlife (biodiversity) and for people. Aims BirdLife’s long-term aims are to: • Prevent the extinction of any bird species. • Maintain, and where possible improve, the conservation status of all bird species. • Conserve, and where appropriate improve and enlarge, sites and habitats important for birds. • Help, through birds, to conserve biodiversity and to improve the quality of people’s lives. • Integrate bird conservation into sustaining people’s livelihoods.

BirdLife International works with all like-minded organisations, national and local governments, decision-makers, landowners and managers, in pursuing bird and biodiversity conservation. The global work of the BirdLife Partnership is funded entirely by voluntary donations.

To find out more about how you could support this work and for more information on BirdLife in Europe please contact the BirdLife European Regional Office, Droevendaalsesteeg 3a, PO Box 127, NL-6700 AC, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Tel: +31 317 478831 Fax: +31 317 478844 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.birdlife.net

Table of Contents Introduction...... 3 Methods...... 3 Review process ...... 3 Evaluating the implementation and the effectiveness of the action plans ...... 4 Summary of results ...... 6 The conservation status of action plan species has generally improved...... 6 Overall there has been significant progress with plan implementation ...... 7 The EU’s role in implementing the action plans ...... 11 Other community funding...... 12 Species accounts ...... 15 Fea’s Petrel Pterodroma feae...... 16 Zino’s Petrel Pterodroma madeira ...... 18 Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus ...... 20 Pygmy Cormorant Phalacrocorax pygmeus...... 22 Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus...... 25 Red-breasted Goose Branta ruficollis...... 28 Marbled Teal Marmaronetta angustirostris ...... 30 White-headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala ...... 34 Cinereous Vulture Aegypius monachus ...... 39 Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca ...... 43 Spanish Imperial Eagle Aquila adalberti...... 47 Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni ...... 52 Corncrake Crex crex ...... 55 Great Bustard Otis tarda...... 59 Houbara Bustard Chlamydotis undulata...... 63 Slender-billed Curlew Numenius tenuirostris...... 65 Audouin’s Gull Larus audounii...... 67 Madeira Laurel Pigeon Columba trocaz...... 70 Dark-tailed Laurel Pigeon Columba bollii...... 72 White-tailed Laurel Pigeon Columba junoniae ...... 75 Aquatic Warbler Acrocephalus paludicola...... 78 Blue Chaffinch Fringilla teydea ...... 81 Azores Bullfinch Pyrrhula murina ...... 83 Annex...... 85 Summary tables of Action Plan Implementation...... 85

1 List of Tables Table 1. Recovery targets set in 1996 for the 23 species action plans...... 8 (S: short term = 1-3 years, M: medium term = 4-5 years, L: long term = 6-10 years)...... 8 Table 2 Achievement of aims set in the action plans and Average Implementation Scores by species in descending order of Average Implementation Score...... 9 Table 3 Overall evaluation of the coherence of the network for the 23 action plan species. See text for interpretation...... 13 Table 4 Number and budget of LIFE projects per species in descending order of Community contribution...... 14 Table 5 Implementation of the action plan for Fea’s Petrel...... 85 Table 6 Implementation of the action plan for Zino’s Petrel ...... 86 Table 7 Implementation of the action plan for Dalmatian Pelican...... 87 Table 8 Implementation of the action plan for Pygmy Cormorant ...... 88 Table 9 Implementation of the action plan for Lesser White-fronted Goose...... 89 Table 10 Implementation of the action plan for Red-breasted Goose...... 91 Table 11 Implementation of the action plan for Marbled Teal ...... 92 Table 12 Implementation of the action plan for White-headed Duck ...... 93 Table 13 Implementation of the action plan for Cinereous Vulture...... 97 Table 14 Implementation of the action plan for Imperial Eagle ...... 98 Table 15 Implementation of the action plan for Spanish Imperial Eagle ...... 100 Table 16 Implementation of the action plan for Lesser Kestrel...... 102 Table 17 Implementation of the action plan for Corncrake...... 104 Table 18 Implementation of the action plan for Great Bustard...... 107 Table 19 Implementation of the action plan for Houbara Bustard...... 110 Table 20 Implementation of the action plan for Slender-billed Curlew...... 112 Table 21 Implementation of the action plan for Audouin’s Gull...... 113 Table 22 Overview of the level of implementation of individual actions for Madeira Laurel Pigeon ...... 115 Table 23 Implementation of the action plan for Dark-tailed Laurel Pigeon ...... 116 Table 24 Implementation of the action plan for White-tailed Laurel Pigeon...... 117 Table 25 Implementation of the action plan for Aquatic Warbler...... 118 Table 26 Implementation of the action plan for Blue Chaffinch ...... 120 Table 27 Implementation of the action plan for Azores Bullfinch ...... 121

2

Introduction In 1995, the Ornis Committee approved 23 single species action plans produced by BirdLife International. These plans covered globally threatened bird species that were also defined as priority for LIFE funding. In October 2003, the European Commission commissioned BirdLife International to review the implementation of these 23 action plans exclusively in the 25 EU States that are now members of the EU. This review of the implementation of the species action plans aims to provide a basis for determining how successfully the plans have been delivered in different Member States, especially as regards priority actions, and to identify key gaps for future actions, including those related to completion of the network of Special Protection Areas (SPAs). The Commission also requested that indicators be developed to measure progress in implementing the action plans, especially regarding the following: • Protection status of the species; • Extent to which national and regional species action plans have been developed and implemented; • Suitability and extent to which the species population is in protected areas; • Existence of site management plans that have targeted the species; • Extent to which other habitat conservation measures have been taken; • Extent to which financial support has been given for targeted measures benefiting the species (e.g. LIFE Nature, etc.). Methods The review of the implementation of the species action plans have broadly followed the methodology already used in Saving Europe’s most threatened birds1 in order to obtain indices which can be aggregated across the EU.

Review process The review of the action plans has taken place in three stages. First, available information was collected for provision to national contacts (usually national BirdLife Partners). The main data sources at this stage were: • BirdLife International’s Birds in Europe 2 data which provided information on current population size and trend over the period of 1990–2000; • BirdLife’s World Bird Database which provided information on Important Bird Areas (IBAs) of global importance already identified for the species; • The European Commission’s Natura 2000 database, which provided information on Special Protection Areas; • LIFE Project Database, which provided information on LIFE projects. In the second stage, the available information was sent to the national contacts together with a questionnaire for each species relevant for their country. These questionnaires were based on

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

3 the recommendations in the relevant action plans. The actions from the action plans were converted into target statements to enable measurement of progress in implementation. The correspondents were asked to • Review and correct, if necessary, the already available information, i.e. information on population size, population in IBAs and protected areas, existence of management plans, LIFE and other Community funding; • Report on measures taken in relation to each action; • Evaluate distance to target by assigning an implementation score; • Estimate the size of the population affected by the measure and; • Estimate the response of the population.

Implementation scores ranged from 0–4 according to increasing level of progress towards the target: 0: Action not needed/not relevant 1: Little or no work (0-10%) carried out, (only piecemeal actions without being part of a strategic approach); 2: Some work started (11-50%), but no significant progress yet; 3: Significant progress (51-75%), but target still not reached; 4: Action fully implemented, no further work required except continuation of on-going work (e.g. in case of monitoring); In the third stage, the information was sent to the respective members of the Ornis Scientific Working Group (copies also sent to the national representative of the Ornis Committee) for checking. After receiving the reviewed answers, all of them were checked and some scores were corrected if there were inconsistencies between the answer and the score or if the action was not relevant for the particular country. When in doubt, replies were checked by consulting the compilers individually.

Evaluating the implementation and the effectiveness of the action plans The evaluation of the action plans is based on two questions: • To what extent have the recommendations of the action plan been implemented? • Have the short, medium or long term biological aims of the action plan been achieved? Implementation: Implementation was evaluated from the Implementation Scores assigned in the previous process. As explained above, these measure the distance to target. The overall level of implementation at national level was characterised by the National Implementation Score that combines for each country the priority of the actions with the level of implementation. The National Implementation Score ranges between 1 and 4 where 1 represents little or no progress while 4 represents full implementation. The overall implementation of the action plan was evaluated by calculating an Average Implementation Score from the National Implementation Scores2.

2 It is recognised that a simple arithmetic average of the National Implementation Scores does not take account of the relative importance of the species’ population in different countries. Taking into account both breeding and wintering populations and factors like Ruddy Duck range states, still require further development.

4 Effectiveness: The outcome of the implementation of the action plans was measured in relation to the short, medium and long term aims set in the action plan. On this basis the following categories were distinguished: • None of the aims were achieved; • Short term aims achieved; • Medium term aims achieved; • Long term aims achieved; • Status unknown.

5 Summary of results This chapter summarises the overall conclusions regarding the implementation of the 23 species action plans (this includes plans for 14 of Europe’s 20 Globally Threatened Birds (GTBs) and nine of Europe’s 16 Near Threatened Birds). Separate species accounts provide further details for each species.

The conservation status of action plan species has generally improved Assessment of the population size, distribution and trends in relation to the short (1-3 years), medium (1-5 years) and long term (1-10 years) aims set out in the action plans (Table 1) suggests that the status of the action plan species has generally improved since the drafting of the plans (Table 2). In the case of 15 species (10 GTBs) at least the short term targets have been achieved, eleven species (six GTBs) of which have achieved the medium term targets and six (three GTBs) even the long term ones (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Progress between 2002 and 2004 in achieving recovery targets set in the action plans The graph shows the number of action plan species which has suffered population decline (i.e. for which even the short term recovery targets were not achieved) and the number of species where the medium term and long term targets were achieved. The species where the population was simply maintained (i.e. short term target or where achievement of the short term target cannot be judged due to lack of data (three species) are not shown in order to emphasise the progress in attaining recovery targets between the two years. Achieving the long term targets means that that the medium and short term targets were also achieved. (The 2002 data are based on the information available from the national reports to the Bird Expert Group under the Bern Convention)

12

10

8

6

4 Further population decline 2 Long term recovery target also achieved Medium term recovery target achieved 0 Number of species Number 2002 2004

-2

-4

-6

-8

On the down side, however, six species have further declined. For two (all from the Canary Islands, including the globally threatened White-tailed Laurel Pigeon and Houbara Bustard) the evaluation was not possible due to poorly known status.

6 Two of the six species with worsening status, Lesser White-fronted Goose, Slender-billed Curlew, are migratory, their conservation depending on what happens outside the EU. The remaining four species (all GTBs) rely on specific management of their habitat.

Overall there has been significant progress with plan implementation The evaluation of the level of implementation can be generally characterized with the Average Implementation Score. As mentioned earlier, this ranges from 1 to 4 where 1 means no or very little implementation while 4 means complete implementation. Based on this, the progress with the implementation of the action plan was classified as: • Moderate: if the Average IS was between 1.00 and 1.99 • Significant: if the Average IS was between 2.00 and 2.99 • High: if the Average IS was between 3.00 and 4.00. There are three species where the Average Implementation Score was above 3.0, which represents an advanced implementation of the action plan. They are all GTBs: two of the four most threatened species in Europe, Zino’s Petrel and Slender-billed Curlew, plus Dalmatian Pelican. These three species, which were the subject of concerted conservation actions co- ordinated by the Madeira Natural Park, the CMS Slender-billed Curlew Working Group and Station Biologique de la Tour du Valat, underscore the important role ‘champions’ can play in the conservation of a species (Table 2). However, there are a number of actions that can be implemented only by governments, e.g. designation of protected areas, ensuring the management of statutory protected areas, integrating the species requirements into other policies such as agriculture, forestry and water management. Unfortunately, the policy integration and ensuring the management of SPAs are key areas where the implementation of the action plans is the least advanced despite all the commitments at Community level.

7 Table 1. Recovery targets set in 1996 for the 23 species action plans.

(S: short term = 1-3 years, M: medium term = 4-5 years, L: long term = 6-10 years) Species Name Aim of Action Plan Zino’s Petrel To increase the breeding population to at least 40 pairs by the year 2000. Slender-billed Curlew S: to prevent the extinction of the Slender-billed Curlew. M: to prevent any further decrease in the Slender-billed Curlew population L: to secure a significant increase in the number of Slender-billed Curlews. White-headed Duck S: to maintain the current population and area of occupancy of the White-headed Duck throughout its range. M: to promote population increase within its current range. L: to promote expansion of the breeding population to other suitable areas. To prevent hybridisation of the White-headed Duck by eradicating the introduced North American Ruddy Duck in the western Palaearctic. Spanish Imperial Eagle To increase the numbers and distribution of the Spanish Imperial Eagle to a degree that will allow its reclassification as a species of least concern. White-tailed Laurel Pigeon S: to conserve the population at no less than its 1985 level. M-L: to promote the expansion of its range. Azores Bullfinch To increase the Azores Bullfinch population to 150-200 pairs by 2010 To extend the area of the laurel forest by 80 ha, reversing its continuing large-scale deterioration through the invasion of exotic flora. Dalmatian Pelican S: to prevent any further declines below 1994 levels in the population size and distribution of the Dalmatian Pelican. M-L: to increase the population size of the Dalmatian Pelican to a level at which it no longer qualifies as a globally threatened species. Lesser White-fronted Goose S: to maintain the current population in known areas through its range. M-L: to ensure an increase in the Lesser White-fronted Goose population. Red-breasted Goose S: to maintain Red-breasted Goose numbers at no less than 70,000 birds. Marbled Teal S: to maintain the current population and area of occupancy of the Marbled Teal throughout its range (based on 1985-94 figures). M: to promote population increase of the species within its current range. L: to promote expansion of the breeding population to other suitable areas. Imperial Eagle S: to maintain the numbers of Imperial Eagle throughout its present range. M-L: to ensure range expansion. Lesser Kestrel S: to maintain all known breeding colonies at 1994 levels or larger. M-L: to increase the population size so that it no longer qualifies as a GTB. Great Bustard S: to maintain the populations of the Great Bustard throughout its range. M-L: to enable population growth and range expansion. Aquatic Warbler S: to maintain the current population throughout its range. M-L: to promote expansion of the breeding population to other suitable areas. Fea’s Petrel S: To protect and maintain the breeding population of Fea’s Petrel M: to promote its expansion to all available habitat on the island of Bugio L: to promote its expansion to all available habitat on Deserta Grande. Pygmy Comorant S: to prevent declines below 1994 levels of population size and distribution. M-L: to increase the population size to a level at which it no longer qualifies as near- threatened. Cinereous Vulture S: to maintain and enhance the existing populations in Europe. L: to encourage the recolonisation of the former range. Corncrake S: to prevent declines below 1994 levels in the population size and distribution of the Corncrake to enable it to be removed from the GTB list. M: to ensure recovery of small breeding populations at risk of extinction. Houbara Bustard S: to maintain the range and population of the Canary Island’s Houbara Bustard at no less than the 1994 levels. M-L: to promote an increase in the population and range expansion Audouin’s Gull S: to maintain the current population throughout its range. M-L: to ensure expansion of the species’ range and numbers particularly in smaller colonies. Dark-tailed Laurel Pigeon S: to conserve the population at no less than its 1993 level

8 M: to promote the expansion of its range. Madeira Laurel Pigeon S: to maintain the population at no fewer than 3,500 individuals M: to ensure its continued increase towards occupying all suitable habitats. L: to enable recolonisation of areas of its former range through habitat restoration. Blue Chaffinch S: to conserve the range and populations at no less than the present level. M-L: to increase the Gran Canaria population to a level at which it is no longer classified as a near-threatened species.

Table 2 Achievement of aims set in the action plans and Average Implementation Scores by species in descending order of Average Implementation Score Threat Short Medium Long Species name status3 term term term Avg. IS aims achieved Zino’s Petrel Pterodroma madeira CR 3 3 3 3.31 Slender-billed Curlew Numenius tenuirostris CR ² 3.21 Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus VU 3 3 3 3.05 Madeira Laurel Pigeon Columba trocaz NT 3 3 2.94 Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus VU ² 2.81 Cinereous Vulture Aegypius monachus NT 3 3 3 2.80 Marbled Teal Marmaronetta angustirostris VU ² 2.75 Great Bustard Otis tarda VU ² 2.55 Blue Chaffinch Fringilla teydea NT 3 2.51 Red-breasted Goose Branta ruficollis VU 3 3 2.47 Pygmy Cormorant Phalacrocorax pygmeus NT 3 3 3 2.44 Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca VU 3 3 3 2.39 Aquatic Warbler Acrocephalus paludicola VU ² 2.39 White-tailed Laurel Pigeon Columba junoniae EN ? 2.38 Dark-tailed Laurel Pigeon Columba bollii NT 3 2.38 Fea’s Petrel Pterodroma feae NT 3 2.27 Spanish Imperial Eagle Aquila adalberti EN 3 3 2.19 Corncrake Crex crex NT 3 3 2.14 Houbara Bustard Chlamydotis undulata VU ? 2.04 Audouin’s Gull Larus audounii NT 3 3 3 2.01 Azores Bullfinch Pyrrhula murina EN ² 2.00 White-headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala EN 3 3 1.87 Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni VU 3 1.84

There were only two species (unfortunately both GTBs), Lesser Kestrel and White-headed Duck, for which the Average Implementation Score was below 2.00. However, in the case of the White-headed Duck, this low value is due to the relative passivity of the Ruddy Duck range states, especially the ones where Ruddy Duck do not occur regularly yet (Figure 2).

3 As published by BirdLife International (2004) Threatened Birds of the World. CD-Rom. Key: CR = Critically Endangered when facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild, E = Endangered when facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild, V = Vulnerable when facing a high risk of extinction in the wild, NT = Near Threatened when close to qualifying for or is likely to qualify for a threatened category in the near future, DD = Data Deficient if inadequate information to make a direct/indirect assessment of extinction risk based on its distribution and/or population status.

9

Figure 2 National Implementation Scores for the White-headed Duck action plan

The level of implementation of the action plans has shown great variation between countries. The UK has achieved the highest level of implementation indicating the benefits of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan process. It is followed by some other countries where species are the subject of targeted actions, such as The Netherlands, Hungary, Portugal, Austria, France and Sweden. Although some regions of Spain carry out excellent species conservation work, this is not reflected in the Average NIS because the country as a whole has lower scores for lower progress in some regions. Attention should be given to improvement in performance of countries, such as Poland and Slovenia and a few other accession countries, which have low implementation scores and several relevant action plans.

10 30.00 4.00

25.00 3.50

20.00 3.00

Sum NIS 15.00 2.50 No of species Average NIS Average NIS

10.00 2.00 No of species and Sum NIS of speciesNo Sum and

5.00 1.50

0.00 1.00 l a e m ly ia ia rg s d en ce ain v u ru UK ug nc d e p Ita t p lan t ustria e S lgiu a Ireland nmark L lovak A Fra Finland EstoniaGr Be Cy Po HungaryPor Swe Germany De LithuaniaS Slovenia uxembo Netherlands L Czech Republic

Figure 3 Average National Implementation Score by Member States

The EU’s role in implementing the action plans

Protection status of the species All action plan species are legally protected in their regular range states. Article 5 of the Birds Directive provides a strong legal framework and guidelines for the Member States. However, it was reported in several cases (especially for raptors and waterbirds) that enforcement of the legal protection is still insufficient (e.g. Pygmy Cormorant and Dalmatian Pelican in Greece, raptors in Portugal, Spain and Greece). It was also reported that in Spain the official national classification of some species does not reflect their threat status according to the IUCN Red List categories.

Site protection The obligations arising from Article 4 of the Birds Directive have played an important role in the conservation of the action plan species. For most species all or at least a vast majority of the IBAs are covered to some extent by SPAs4. However, the extent of SPAs and nationally protected areas tend to be much smaller than of IBAs. In most cases, there was no significant difference between the population recorded within IBAs and SPAs5. Major gaps in the coverage of IBAs by SPAs can be identified in the case

4 For new Member States, it is more difficult to evaluate the contribution of SPA designation to the conservation of the action plan species because the data were not yet available at the time of data collection. 5 However, it was very difficult to assess to what extent the these species populations are covered by SPAs because in the Natura 2000 database (a) the data were incomplete (i.e. not quantitative) and (b) sometimes outdated. We were not always able to correct these deficiencies. Therefore the figures in Table 3 should be interpreted with care. For more details, see ‘Site designation’ in relevant species account.

11 of Lesser Kestrel, Corncrake, Great Bustard and Aquatic Warbler. However, in the case of Aquatic Warbler, most of the population of the enlarged EU can be found in Poland, where a significant proportion is already in protected areas designated at national level. Nevertheless, further work is still needed. The very low coverage of the Corncrake is due to the fact that a vast majority of the EU-25 population can be found in the new Member States where the designation of SPAs was not completed at the time of compiling the data for this study. LIFE LIFE has played a very significant role in the implementation of the species action plans, contributing to the conservation of all 23 species although to different extent (Table 4). LIFE has been the main driving force in the conservation of the island endemics in Portugal and Spain, and has played a very significant and strategic role in the conservation of the Spanish Imperial Eagle, Black Vulture, and Audouin’s Gull in Spain and of Dalmatian Pelican, Pygmy Cormorant and Slender-billed Curlew in Greece. Corncrake has received by far the largest Community support because it is the most widespread of all species and it was used in many cases as a flagship species for restoration of habitats. The introduction of LIFE Starter and Co-op in 2002 was a very good step towards promoting international co-operation in species conservation amongst Member States, addressing one of the earlier weaknesses of LIFE. The LIFE Starter project developing a site network for Lesser White-fronted Goose demonstrates well the potential of this instrument. Encouraging collaboration between different LIFE projects running at the same time (e.g. the Imperial Eagle conservation projects in Hungary and Slovakia) is also a positive contribution of LIFE to the implementation of the action plans. The single most important negative aspect of LIFE–Nature is that it provides only project funding and this inevitably leads to discontinuity or decrease in activities. This should be addressed when the future of LIFE is reconsidered in the framework of financing Natura 2000.

Other community funding Other community funding (agro-environmental support, INTERREG, Leader) has certainly provided some support to species and habitat conservation efforts. Although we attempted to collect comprehensive information on the contribution of other community funding to the implementation of the action plans, data for comprehensive analysis were not readily available in many countries and this review could identify only some examples. Good examples include the agro-environmental projects in Austria and the UK targeted at Corncrake and, in the case of the former, at Great Bustard. However, in many cases agro- environmental projects were poorly targeted and pursued rather generic objectives. It was reported from Portugal and Spain that some rural development measures, in particular afforestation and other forestry measures, were even counter-productive. INTERREG has played a positive role in Spain, Portugal and Austria, as has SAPARD in the Czech Republic. It can be concluded that INTERREG schemes are generally well targeted to pursue specific conservation objectives and this fact should be taken into account during the further discussions on funding Natura 2000.

12 Table 3 Overall evaluation of the coherence of the network for the 23 action plan species. See text for interpretation. Overlap Area of No No of not Min EU Min Pop in Min Pop in No of Total Area Total area between not- Scientific Name of protected population IBA SPA SPAs of IBAs of SPAs IBAs and protected IBAs IBAs (breeding)6 (breeding)7 (breeding)8 SPAs IBAs Pterodroma feae 1 1 1,384 1,384 1,384 170 100% 100% Pterodroma madeira 1 1 3,411 3,411 3,411 60 100% 100% Pelecanus crispus 15 14 1 218,121 194,543 155,868 1,700 500 100% 100% Phalacrocorax pygmeus 23 17 475,130 228,801 184,326 1,528 100% 100% Anser erythropus 29 26 887,571 453,894 152,182 5 100% 100% Branta ruficollis 1 1 19,000 13,120 13,120 – – – Marmaronetta angustirostris 6 8 1 247,483 121,121 121,050 100 32 75–99% 75–99% Oxyura leucocephala 15 21 1 515,611 292,013 218,540 100 2,300 100% 100% Aegypius monachus 26 40 1 2,867,377 1,550,436 1,294,938 45,800 1,387 75–99% 75–99% Aquila heliaca 26 8 1,096,121 229,058 181,905 75 50–75% 3%9 Aquila adalberti 24 36 3 2,854,585 1,505,087 1,286,769 69,800 188 50–74% 50–74% Falco naumanni 77 73 17 4,175,235 1,993,086 1,339,486 569,590 18,061 50–74% 10–49% Crex crex 321 271 14 7,231,150 3,123,937 2,695,716 145,980 106,972 10–49% <10%10 Otis tarda 67 57 15 4,069,253 1,830,796 1,278,304 445,907 25,236 75–99% 50–74% Chlamydotis undulata 9 6 2 47,738 55,628 28,611 7,070 527 50–74% 10–49% Numenius tenuirostris 27 25 2 634,019 176,555 150,022 18,164 – – – Larus audouinii 59 56 5 860,148 531,524 309,648 8,314 18,313 75–99% 75–99% Columba trocaz 2 2 18,653 18,653 18,653 4,142 100% 100% Columba junoniae 11 6 1 30,715 37,422 17,177 450 1,000 Majorityt11 Less11 Columba bollii 11 8 1 28,325 52,392 15,597 450 2,500 Majority11 Less11 Acrocephalus paludicola 42 31 4 948,413 281,401 216,911 133,000 4,267 75–99% 10–49%9 Fringilla teydea 4 2 8,850 53,038 6,557 1,000 100% 100% Pyrrhula murina 1 1 6,083 238 238 100%

6 Data based on Birds in Europe 2 and refers to the period of 1990-2003. 7 Data based on BirdLife’s World Bird Database. Refers to the period 1996–2003. 8 Data based on the Natura 2000 database. Refers to the period 1982–2003. 9 Does not include the populations in the new Member States due to lack of data on designation of SPAs at the time of collecting data. 10 Incomplete figure for new Member States and often only qualitative information on the species are available. 11 Insufficient quantitative information is available. 13 Table 4 Number and budget of LIFE projects per species in descending order of Community contribution Number Recipient Total Community Total project Species name of Member contribution budget projects States Corncrake Crex crex 50 € 37,864,719 € 69,880,373 A 5, B 5, D 2, EST 4, FIN 5, F 7, D 9, IRL 1, I 1, LV 2, L 1, NL 1, SLO 2, S 1 Spanish Imperial Eagle Aquila 18 € 15,497,468 € 23,714,690 E 18 adalberti Cinereous Vulture Aegypius 9 € 13,416,584 17,672,539 E 7, GR 1, monachus F 1 Pygmy Cormorant Phalacrocorax 11 € 9,754,992 € 17,661,528 GR 6, I pygmeus 3RO 2 Audouin’s Gull Larus audounii 11 € 9,208,314 € 15,642,183 E 4, GR 6, I 1 Great Bustard Otis tarda 10 € 7,809,524 € 13,175,579 E 5, P 3, D 2, Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus 7 € 5,770,631 € 8,530,638 GR 6 Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni 10 € 4,551,510 € 6,809,000 F 1, I 2, P 2, E 4, RO 1 Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser 8 € 4,035,402 € 5,966,725 FIN 2, GR erythropus 2, EST 2 White-headed Duck Oxyura 5 € 3,976,123 € 6,771,995 E 3, F 1, leucocephala GR 1 Slender-billed Curlew Numenius 6 € 3,927,059 € 6,202,985 GR 5, I 1 tenuirostris Azores Bullfinch Pyrrhula murina 3 € 3,518,141 € 5,259,934 P Marbled Teal Marmaronetta 2 € 1,754,198 € 3,508,396 E angustirostris Aquatic Warbler Acrocephalus 2 € 1,596,738 € 2,128,984 E, LV paludicola Dark-tailed Laurel Pigeon Columba 2 € 1,584,257 € 2,112,343 E bollii White-tailed Laurel Pigeon 2 € 1,584,257 € 2,112,343 E Columba junoniae Houbara Bustard Chlamydotis 2 € 1,338,741 € 1,898,322 E undulata Blue Chaffinch Fringilla teydea 2 € 1,297,638 € 1,796,396 E Red-breasted Goose Branta 1 € 1,251,920 € 2,086,533 GR ruficollis Zino’s Petrel Pterodroma madeira 1 € 1,187,724 € 1,696,748 P Fea’s Petrel Pterodroma feae 3 € 1,102,692 € 1,819,998 P Madeira Laurel Pigeon Columba 3 € 863,913 € 1,466,565 P trocaz Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca 2 € 808,106 € 1,077,475 H 1, (GR 1), SK 1

14

Species accounts

15 Fea’s Petrel Pterodroma feae

Status Target: To protect and maintain the breeding population of Fea's Petrel and to promote its expansion to all available habitat on the island of Bugio and, eventually, to Deserta Grande. Status: Overall, the population is stable. Population in Current Country Year Year SAP population Portugal 150 – 200 pairs 1994 170 – 260 pairs 2001-2003 Evaluation: The short term objective of the action plan, to maintain the population, is achieved; however expansion of populations has not happened yet. Protection Status The species has been protected since 1991. National and regional species action plans The species recovery plan should be incorporated into the national or regional legislation, but it has not happened yet. However, the Madeira Natural Park supported an extensive survey in 2001 to update the existing action plan, re-evaluate threat factors and to provide support for a detailed management plan, which altogether may lead towards achieving this target. Site protection Designation: The entire population is restricted to the Bugio Island that is a SPA, Biogenetic Reserve and Nature Reserve. Management plans: The protected area has no site management plan. No contingency plan has been developed to address the potential accidental introduction of ‘problem’ species. Site management: Adequate wardening is in place to prevent people from robbing their nests for foodThere has been a subsequent slight increase in population. Other conservation, research and public awareness measures Habitat conservation: On Deserta Grande islands, rabbits were completely eradicated from and goats were almost eradicated to create new breeding places. No such measures were taken on Bugio. No artificial burrows were provided on any of the islands. Species management: Nearby colonies of yellow legged gull are annually monitored and egg sterilizing campaigns are carried out regularly to prevent the expansion of this species. Research and Monitoring: Population dynamics and ringing studies were carried out in 2001 and some sporadic nocturnal searches in Deserta Grande and the Azores Islands took place as well. A LIFE application was prepared to identify areas important for the species while at sea. There has been an expedition organised to collect blood samples at Cape Verde to determine taxonomic status of the species, but results are not available yet. Awareness raising: There is significant progress regarding public awareness and training. Visitor reception conditions improved, with a small visitor centre established at Deserta Grande. A general information department was established for the Madeira Natural Park and

16 public awareness materials were produced. Preparation of a visitor management plan is in progress. Community financial support LIFE has made a significant contribution to the conservation of the species. Three projects (LIFE94 NAT/P/001034, LIFE95 NAT/P/000125, and LIFE98 NAT/P/005236) targeted the species conservation at least partially. The total budget of these projects was € 1,819,998 including € 1,102,692 Community contribution. A LIFE project (LIFE98 NAT/P/005236) addressed priority habitats and species on the Madeira Islands and contributed to creating suitable habitats for expanding Fea’s Petrel on Deserta Grande. Conclusions Significant progress has been made on the implementation of the species action plan (IS= 2.27) since the preparation of the action plan. LIFE funding has played a crucial role in implementing the recommendations of action plans, however significant gaps still remain. In this respect the followings can be highlighted: • Strengthening the legal status of the species recovery plan; • Increase the preparedness in case of accidental introduction of ‘problem’ species; • More attention should be paid to control rabbits, goats and cats and assist habitat recovery on the existing breeding ground. Contributor: Pedro Geraldes.

17 Zino’s Petrel Pterodroma madeira

Status Target: To increase the population to at least 40 pairs by 2000. Status: The discovery of a new colony in 2003 means that the population now exceeds 40 pairs.

Population in Current Country Year Year SAP population Portugal 20 – 30 pairs 199412 60 – 75 pairs 2003 Evaluation: The target set in the action plan has been achieved, although a NATO Radar project has delayed purchase of the breeding grounds and potentially endangers the breeding colony. Protection Status The species has been protected under Portuguese law13 since 1991. National and regional species action plans A recovery plan is in preparation, but it is not likely to be incorporated into the legislation as a legal document. Site protection Designation: The whole breeding population is located in one IBA that is fully protected, amongst other designations, as an SPA. Management plans: The site has no official management plan. Acquisition of the breeding grounds is in progress and expected to be completed in 2004. Other conservation, research and public awareness measures Species management: Most conservation measures address mortality caused by rats and cats. A programme to control rats continues and has been reinforced. A ‘No litter’ policy is being promoted among visitors to Areeiro. The rat population dynamics and ecology were studied between 1997 and 2000 contributing to improved efficiency of rat control measures. Feral cat populations are controlled and the occurrence of the species in their diet is monitored. Habitat conservation: In 2002 and 2003, all livestock were removed from the area to prevent further habitat degradation. Research and monitoring: Breeding ledges were visited regularly and breeding numbers monitored. Colony dynamics were followed and breeding success was annually monitored. Several new pairs were found breeding in new nests at known colonies. There were extensive surveys of likely breeding ledges. Listening searches in the vicinity of known colonies were carried out several times. New breeding sites were discovered.

12 In fact, the action plan refers to data from 1986. 13 Decreto Lei 75/91.

18 To support adequate management of the species and its habitats, habitat characterisation studies were conducted and satellite tracking devices were tested with Cory's Shearwater. Two nests were followed to study patterns of nest occupation. No measures have yet been taken to address the species requirements while at sea. Community financial support LIFE funding was essential to accomplish the majority of the measures indicated in the Action Plan. Although only one project has been explicitly targeted at the species, a series of other LIFE projects have contributed to strengthening the Madeira Natural Park, which proved to be essential for the conservation of the species. A LIFE project, Conservation of Zino´s Petrel through restoration of its habitat (LIFE00 NAT/P/007097), addressed issues related to rat and predator control and livestock removal and purchasing breeding grounds. The total budget of the project was € 1,696,748 with € 1,187,724 Community co-funding. Conclusions The species action plan has been implemented to quite a high level (NIS = 3.1). However, further steps are necessary to: • Establish a long-term framework for management of the species by strengthening the legal status of its recovery plan and adopting a management plan for the breeding sites; • Investigate the conservation requirements of the species while at sea assisted by radio tracking and other survey techniques still to be developed. • A new target for the action plan needs to be set. Contributors: Pedro Geraldes and Dília Menezes

19 Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus

Status Targets: In the short term, to prevent any further declines below 1994 levels in the population size and distribution of the Dalmatian Pelican. In the medium to long term, to increase the population size of the Dalmatian Pelican to a level at which it no longer qualifies as a globally threatened species. Status: It has been estimated that the species population in the EU-25 has increased by some 21-30% during the period of 1990-2000. However, the species is classified as vulnerable at global level due to the suspected decline in the Asian population. Population in Current SAP population Country Year Year (breeding (breeding pairs) pairs) Greece 190–260 1994 500–550 1995-1997 Evaluation: Both the short and long-term targets of the action plan have been achieved at the EU level. Protection Status The species is fully protected by law in Greece. National and regional species action plans There has been no national species action plan adopted in Greece. Site protection Designation: The entire breeding population occurs in two IBAs covered by three SPAs. Outside the breeding season 13 SPAs provide a high coverage of the population although one IBA (Artzan marshes) is not classified as SPA. The transboundary Prespa Park has been declared under a trilateral agreement between the Prime Ministers of Greece, Albania and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Management plans: Only two protected areas (Ekvoles potamou Strymona, Limnes Chimaditida-Zazari) have management plans that address the species requirements. , The level of implementation is evaluated as low.

Site management: There is no official wardening in place, but extensive wardening is carried out through several projects (LIFE, Tour du Valat). Hunting bans at key sites are enforced, but illegal hunting is still a problem at some key sites including disrupted breeding in January and early February. Burning and cutting of reeds in spring at key sites is forbidden, but occasionally happens causing great damage. Some actions were undertaken during the project LIFE (1999-2003) to manage the hydrological regime of Amvrakikos wetland.

20 Other conservation, research and public awareness measures Habitat conservation: Only some key areas are protected from area loss, pollution, changes in hydrological regime and disturbance, however, the majority of wetlands are not. A LIFE project has contributed to the restoration of Amvrakikos wetland (1999-2003) and now another LIFE project aims restoration at Mikri Prespa (2002-2006). Burying power lines: At Lake Prespa this had positive results. In Amvrakikos power lines were buried in areas where the problem was not so significant. Research and Monitoring: Breeding numbers weremonitored during 1983-2003 by Tour du Valat revealing new breeding sites. In the same period, mid-winter counts were carried out by the Hellenic Ornithological Society. Water levels and water quality are monitored by the prefectures. The Tour du Valat and LIFE projects have also contributed to several other research issues identified in the action plan, such as monitoring the effect of conservation measures, mortality rate and causes, existing or potential conflicts between people and pelicans, impacts of pelicans on fish populations and dispersal of pelicans. Community financial support Dalmatian Pelican has been the subject of several LIFE projects. In some cases it was targeted at key sites for the species such as Amvrakikos wetlands and Lake Mikri Prespa (LIFE99 NAT/GR/006475 and LIFE02 NAT/GR/008494). In other cases it has benefited from broader site conservation projects (LIFE00 NAT/GR/007242, LIFE03 NAT/GR/000092, and LIFE96 NAT/GR/003217). Altogether seven LIFE projects (including one in Romania) have addressed the species’ conservation with a total budget of € 8,530,638 including € 5,770,631 Community co-funding. Conclusions The species action plan for Dalmatian Pelican has been implemented to quite a high level (NIS=3.05) with a significant contribution from Tour du Valat and LIFE. The most important task is to maintain the positive achievements in a more systematic way. Therefore • A national species action plan should still be adopted; • Management plans should be prepared and implemented for more sites including measures to manage human activities, disturbance and conflict resolution; • The protection of wetlands from wetland loss and pollution should be strengthened in the framework of the national implementation of the Water Framework Directive. • A new target for the action plan needs to be set. Contributors: Stavroula Papoulia, Theodoros Naziridis, Myrsini Malakou, Dr Dionysia Hatzilacou, George Handrinos.

21 Pygmy Cormorant Phalacrocorax pygmeus

Status Targets: In the short term to prevent any further declines below 1994 levels in the population size and distribution of the Pygmy Cormorant. In the medium to long term, to increase the population size of the Pygmy Cormorant to a level at which it no longer qualifies as Near Threatened. Status: Despite the much larger figures available now due to improved count coverage , the species population has increased only slightly in Greece. Since drafting the action plan, it has expanded its range to Hungary and Italy. (Occasionally it also breeds in Slovakia). It is important to note that the proportion of the global population breeding in the EU will significantly increase after the accession of Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey. Population in Current Birds in Country Year population Year Europe14 (pairs) (pairs) Greece 557-590 1990-1994 1,250–1,310 1997 Hungary New breeder n/a 80–190 1998-2001 Italy New breeder n/a 118–128 2001 Evaluation: In south-east Europe, conservation measures have ameliorated the most important threats and resulted in relatively stable populations with some local increases. The species still qualifies as Near Threatened because significant declines are assumed outside of the EU. Therefore, it can be concluded that in the EU the short, medium and long term targets of the action plan are all achieved. Protection Status The species is fully protected in each member states where it occurs. However, problems with the enforcement were reported from Greece. (Similar problems exist in Romania and Bulgaria, too). National and regional species action plans There is national species action plan only in Greece, produced in 1999 in the framework of a LIFE project. Site protection Designation: The species breeding population is well covered by SPAs in Greece. 95% of the national breeding population is in four SPAs and all IBAs are classified as SPAs. The SPA network also supports the majority of the EU population during the non-breeding season and covers all IBAs selected for the species in this season. In Hungary the majority of the small breeding population is confined to one site which is already protected under national law. In Italy there are no SPAs classified for the species. One protected area overlaps with one of the two IBAs selected for the species, but it is unclear what percentage of the population occurs here. The SPA network also supports the majority of the EU population

14 The Species Action Plan does not contain any specific figures on individual countries.

22 during the non-breeding season and covers all IBAs selected for the species in this season. Not much has been done to designate the key sites as MedSPAs under the Barcelona convention, but this action is more relevant for non-EU countries in the Mediterranean such as Albania and the FYR of Macedonia. Management plans: Although the species’ population is well covered by protected areas, only two of these protected areas have management plans that address the species requirements and are implemented at least partially. Site management: Cutting of trees at breeding sites is largely prevented in all member states. Non-intrusion zones around breeding colonies were set up only in Hungary. Disturbance from hunting at wintering places in Greece is theoretically part of the protection regime at the sites designated for the species, but enforcement is a problem. Other conservation, research and public awareness measures Habitat conservation: There is less progress in the more general protection of wetlands. The member states usually have no national wetland strategies in the sense specified in the framework of the Ramsar Convention. Italy has reported most problems with wetland conservation. In Hungary, the species mostly occurs in artificial water bodies (mainly fishponds) where ensuring appropriate water quality according to the species’ requirements is not guaranteed because of other interests. Research and Monitoring: Numbers at breeding and, where relevant, wintering sites are monitored in all countries. To a lesser extent, the same applies to ecological changes at key sites. Movements and dispersal of the species is well understood in Greece and Italy. Feeding ecology and interaction with fisheries, as well as interspecific relationships, are poorly understood. Awareness raising: A public awareness campaign was carried out only in Greece in the framework of the LIFE project. Community financial support 11 LIFE projects (LIFE93 NAT/IT/010500, LIFE94 NAT/IT/005902, LIFE96 NAT/GR/003217, LIFE99 NAT/GR/006475, LIFE99 NAT/RO/006400, LIFE00 NAT/GR/007198, LIFE00 NAT/GR/007242, LIFE00 NAT/IT/007142, LIFE00 NAT/RO/007171, LIFE02 NAT/GR/008494, LIFE03 NAT/GR/000092), including two in Romania have contributed to the conservation of the species, , mainly through site conservation. The total budget of these projects was € 17,661,528 including € 9,754,992 Community co-funding. Conclusions There has been a significant progress in the implementation of the action plan (Average IS=2.44). The species conservation status has improved. However, further work is needed especially in the field of: • Preparing and implementing management plans for the key sites with special regard to preventing disturbance of breeding colonies and of wintering birds; • Maintaining the extent and quality of shallow waters; • Better understanding the feeding ecology of the species and the potential conflicts with fisheries, including drowning in fishing nets. • A new target for the action plan needs to be set

23 Contributors: Stavroula Papoulia, Savas Kazantzidis, George Handrinos, Zsolt Végvári, Balázs Szabó, Gergő Halmos, Gábor Magyar, Ariel Brunner, Marco Gustin.

24 Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus

Status Targets: In the short-term the action plan aims to maintain the current population of the Lesser White-fronted Goose in known areas throughout its range. In the medium to long term, to ensure an increase in the Lesser White-fronted Goose population. Status: The decline of the Fennoscandian population has continued since the adoption of the action plan. The increase reported from Sweden is related to a captive breeding and release programme. The data for 2003/04 suggest 10-15 pairs there. On passage and in winter, the species also occurs in other member states such as Estonia, Lithuania, Germany, Hungary and Greece. Recently, released birds from Sweden visit Germany and the Netherlands as well.

Population in Current Birds in Country Year population Year Europe15 (pairs) (pairs) Finland 15–20 1992 0–5 1999-2001 Sweden 1–5 1987 5 1999-2000

Evaluation: The objectives of the action plan were not achieved; however, the reasons for decline are probably to be found at staging and wintering quarters outside the EU (Russia and Kazakhstan) not in the breeding area. Protection Status The species is legally protected in all EU Member States where it occurs. Hunting of look- alike species may pose a problem in Germany. National and regional species action plans No information on national species action plans. Site protection Site designation: The known breeding site in Sweden is designated as an SPA. In Finland remaining breeding areas are not known. Along the migration route all 27 IBAs are covered by some sort of protected area (93 altogether) including 26 SPAs or proposed SPAs in the case of some accession countries. Management plans: Management plans address the species’ conservation requirements at only eight protected areas (all of which are SPAs or proposed SPAs) to some extent. Six of the sites where management plans explicitly target the species are located in the Oulu region of Finland and two in Estonia (Matsalu Nature Reserve, Nigula Nature Reserve).

15 The Species Action Plan does not contain any specific figures on individual countries.

25 Other conservation, research and public awareness measures Habitat conservation: In several countries agriculture and land use policies take into account the species at least locally. However, conversion of grasslands was reported from some areas in Germany. Although much work was undertaken during a LIFE project to integrate the species requirements into the national agricultural and other land use policies, it has not yet been implemented widely. Wetland strategies usually do not exist or do not pay specific attention to the species requirements. However, some measures are taken at local level. Core breeding areas are so restricted in the EU that they are sufficiently covered by the Natura 2000 Network. Species management: Measures have been taken in Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania and Sweden to prevent hunting disturbance. In the Netherlands goose was banned in 2001-2003, however other hunting may occasionally cause disturbance. In Greece, two of the four key sites are strictly protected from disturbance. In Finland, traditional staging areas are not used anymore and it is suspected that hunting, which is allowed at some of the strictly protected sites, may be the cause of this. Some Member States have started establishing an alternative migration route from Sweden through Germany to the Netherlands based on captive birds. There is considerable progress in the implementation of the action plan in these countries, however the impact of the reintroduction project on the wild population should be considered carefully in collaboration with other range states. Research and Monitoring: There has been a significant advance in the location and monitoring of key staging and wintering areas within the EU. The areas were located with the help of satellite tracking and colour ringing and are regularly monitored. The remaining Fennoscandian population is monitored. Habitat requirements of the species are well understood and applied in most countries. Awareness-raising: A lot of awareness raising activity has been implemented in the framework of the LIFE projects in Finland and Greece and also in the framework of the ‘introduction’ project in Germany and the Netherlands. Efforts have been made in Germany, the Netherlands, Hungary, Greece, Finland and Estonia to raise awareness in relation to identification problems, but the majority of hunters and land owners still cannot distinguish the species from the White-fronted Goose. On the other hand, training of wardens is not considered necessary except in Estonia and Germany as in most countries but identification skills are adequate. Community financial support Eight LIFE projects have addressed the species. Two in Finland (LIFE97 NAT/FIN/004098, LIFE2002NAT/ST/FIN/000024), two in Greece (LIFE96 NAT/GR/003217, LIFE00 NAT/GR/007198), two in Estonia (LIFE00 NAT/EE/007082, LIFE03 NAT/EE/000181) and two in Romania (LIFE99 NAT/RO/006394, LIFE02 NAT/RO/008573). The Finnish LIFE Starter project aimed to address the species conservation needs along the European Flyway. The total budget of these projects was € 5,966,725 including € 4,035,402 Community co- funding. Conclusions There has been a significant progress in the implementation of the action plan (Average IS=2.82) in the EU. Especially countries in the breeding range have implemented the

26 recommendations of the action plan to a high degree. Member States along the traditional migration routes (especially Estonia, Hungary and Greece) have also made considerable efforts to protect key staging areas and all these key staging areas within the EU are already protected. However, the wild Scandinavian population also uses another route through Russia and Kazakhstan where most of the losses happen. Not addressing this problem will inevitably lead to the disappearance of the wild population. Despite the high level of the implementation of the action plan, the species is in a critical situation and there is a disagreement amongst key stakeholders concerning the way forward. The following actions are therefore suggested: • The species action plan should be urgently revised under the auspices of AEWA to reach a new consensus on the appropriate strategies for the species conservation and ensuring the equal participation of all range states. The outcome of this agreement should form the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding (cf. action number 1.1); • Member States should pay more attention to managing the limited number of key sites according to the species’ requirements. Restrictions on hunting in the vicinity of the key sites should form part of the conservation measures to avoid accidental killing of the species. Contributors: Maire Toming, Andres Kalamees, Juha Markkola, Petteri Tolvanen, Balázs Szabó, János Tar, Gergő Halmos, Gábor Magyar, Johan H. Mooij, Holger Schielzeth, Christoph Südfeldt, Inka Gnittke, Savas Kazantzidis, George Handrinos, Stavroula Papoulia, Ruud van Beusekom, Björn Welander, Torsten Larsson.

27 Red-breasted Goose Branta ruficollis

Status Targets: In the short term, to maintain the Red-breasted Goose population at no less than 70,000 individuals. Status: The species occurs only marginally, during the non-breeding season, in the current EU member states. Greece holds a wintering population of 2,300 individuals. The total number of birds observed on migration in Hungary is around 200 individuals. The species occurs in much smaller numbers in all other EU member states. The main wintering areas are outside the EU in Romania, Bulgaria and to a lesser extent in Turkey. The current population estimate of Wetlands International from 2002 is 88,000 individuals, although it is suspected that the population has declined in recent years (Dereliev pers. com). The contribution of current EU member states to the conservation status of the species is extremely limited. However, after the accession of Romania and Bulgaria the enlarged EU will host the majority of the global population in winter. Evaluation: The species current situation is uncertain although there were some significant increases during the 1990s although this may be just the result of better counts. It can be said that the short and medium term targets have been achieved the but not the long term target because of the possible decline. Protection Status The species is fully protected in Hungary. In Greece there are problems with the enforcement of the protection. National and regional species action plans No national species action plans in the two member states. However, there is a national species action plan adopted in Bulgaria. Site protection Site designation: There is only one IBA selected for the species in the EU-25, the Evros Delta in Greece, which is largely protected as a Special Protection Area. Management plans: There was no management plan reported from this site although the site was the subject of focused conservation measures. Other conservation, research and public awareness measures Habitat conservation: In Hungary management of feeding areas is carried out including for other goose species. The species’ habitat is not considered specifically in EIA processes due to its marginal occurrence in Hungary. In Greece, scientific studies are currently undertaken in the framework of the LIFE project on restoration and conservation management of Drana lagoon. Species management: Hunting mortality is currently assessed in Greece in the framework of the LIFE project mentioned above. Use of rodenticides is not considered a problem in the current member states and no studies were carried out on this.

28 Research and Monitoring: Monitoring of key sites is implemented in both countries. Feeding ecology is researched in Greece in the framework of the LIFE project. Awareness raising: Awareness raising is not explicitly targeted at the species in the current member states, although in Hungary all foreign hunters receive a multi-language brochure at the border, the local hunters has to take an exam of species identification to avoid accidental killings. Community financial support The restoration of the Drana lagoon in the Evros Delta, Greece (LIFE00 NAT/GR/007198) has a total budget of € 2,086,533 and received € 1,251,920 Community funding. The purpose of the project is to restore and manage Drana Lagoon and at the same time restore and protect the habitats of the species together with Anser erythropus, Numenius tenuirostris, Aquila clanga and Aquila heliaca. Conclusions There has been significant progress on the implementation of the action plan in the current member states of the EU (Average IS=2.47), at least proportionately to the importance of the size of the population occurring in these countries. The significance of the EU wintering population will drastically change after the accession of Romania and Bulgaria. It is encouraging that the competent authorities and local NGOs are already committed to the conservation of the species and its key sites in those countries. Contributors: Sergey Dereliev, Stavroula Papoulia, George Handrinos, Gábor Magyar, Balázs Szabó, Gergő Halmos.

29 Marbled Teal Marmaronetta angustirostris

Status Targets: In the short term to maintain the current population and area of occupancy throughout its range. In the medium term, to promote the population increase of the species within its current range. In the long term to promote the expansion of the breeding population to other suitable areas. Status changes: The species is typically fluctuating and according to the opinion of the national experts the overall trend was negative over the last decade but this is not reflected in the table below which presents only the minimum and maximum figures. Numbers have been considerably reduced compared to the 1950s. It has almost disappeared as a regular breeder from the Doñana National Park, where there are very few breeding sites, each of which faces different threats. A negative trend for the near future is thus foreseen. The species is a new breeder in the Canary Islands (one pair) and in Italy. Population in Current Country SAP Year population Year

Italy 0 n/a 1 – 2 p. 2001 - 2002 Spain br 30 – 250 p. 1985 - 1994 31 – 204 p. 1994 - 2001 w 50 – 500 i. 50 – 500 i. Evaluation: It is not easy to decide whether the targets set in the action plan were achieved or not because on the one hand the population has expanded its current range. This could be evaluated as reaching the long term target, but this judgement would disregard the negative changes reported. On the other hand, the figures in the above table indicate that the 1994 population size and area of occupancy has been maintained, i.e. the short term targets are achieved. Achievement of the medium term target is less promising due to the negative changes. Protection Status The species is considered as "endangered" by the Spanish official list of threatened species. AEWA was signed by Spain in 1998 and ratified in 1999. A regional evaluation in Spain in 2002 (following the IUCN guidelines version 3.1) considered the species to be Critically Endangered. National and regional species action plans No national strategy or recovery plan approved despite the legal obligations; however a conservation programme has been implemented in Andalusia since 2001, which affects c. 100 birds. The Marbled Teal Working Group has met annually since 1994 coordinated by the Ministry of Environment, with the attendance of the regional governments, Ministry of Environment and experts. Site protection Designation: There have been 3 Important Bird Areas identified for the species; all in Spain. The total number of birds supported by these birds is at least 46 as the species’ breeding population concentrates at only a few sites. All of these sites are classified as SPAs. There are

30 five IBAs supporting non-breeding populations of the species of which only one, the Los Tollos Lake, supporting 30-50 birds, is not protected. The majority of the non-breeding population, 486 individuals, occurs at the El Hondo wetlands. Management plans. Seven protected areas have management plans that all address the species requirements and are partially implemented. Prevention of damage to sites has often failed. Whereas Environmental Impact Assessment procedures necessary for many major projects have been effective in avoiding damage, for smaller projects not subject to EIA it has been more difficult to prevent damage. There are many damaging projects and consents for water exploitation that affect water level and water quality. Agriculture practices surrounding wetlands cannot be judged as sustainable, which means that the impact of many activities is not properly evaluated. Most important sites have management plans, but these do not avoid many of the problems. Other conservation, research and public awareness measures Habitat conservation: The “Spanish Strategic Plan for the Conservation and Rational Use of Wetlands” incorporates a general objective regarding protection and integrated wetland management. This includes guidelines for different fields that aim to guarantee legal mechanisms to facilitate the wise use and conservation of wetlands. In 2002, Andalucia initiated a conservation plan for wetlands in the region “Plan Andaluz de Humedales” which will result in a legally binding plan to ensure deterioration of Andalucian wetlands is avoided. This plan has secured an investment of 27 million euros.

Despite all the above, many important wetlands used by the species suffer from chronic deterioration (contamination, overexploitation of underground water, sedimentation, water level fluctuation, overgrazing in surroundings, arable cultivation next to the water limit, etc.). Habitat restoration: To create new breeding and wintering sites: • At the El Hondo SPA, Valencian Community, a total of 46 ha of wetlands have been acquired (Life project B4/3200/92/15183) and are being restored (Life project B4- 3200/96/513). • At the Marjal del Moro SPA, an area of 4.8 hectares (formerly dumping areas and arable land) was recovered to inland salt marshes habitats (Life project B4-3200/96/513) • At three other Andalusian wetlands, Veta la Palma (Parque Nat. Doñana), Hydrological restoration at the Paraje Nat. Brazo del Este (Sevilla) and Codo de la Esparraguera (Trebujena, Cádiz), projects have been designed, , although not yet started , targeted at the species. Prevent hunting and lead poisoning. Hunting has been banned at important sites (e.g. 65% of El Hondo SPA since 1997), but it still is practiced at other sites that regularly hold the species in Andalusia (Marismas del Guadalquivir surrounding Doñana National Park) and the Valencian Community (Salinas de Santa Pola SPA and partially in El Hondo SPA). However, effective wardening and other methods to reduce the chance that Marbled Teals are shot are not implemented, despite the fact that funds are available for enforcement of hunting legislation. The Spanish law (RD 581/2001) has banned the use of lead since October 2001 at Ramsar sites and all other legally protected wetlands. In practice this has led to a ban of lead shot from all key sites since January 2003..

31 Reducing other mortality factors: • In 1998, the concrete slopes of an irrigation channel, and adjacent road, were modified at El Hondo SPA, Valencian Community, to prevent nestling casualties. • Rules regulating fishing gear (net width of tunnel fishing traps) and fishing period were established at the Marismas del Guadalquivir, Andalusia, in 1997, so that fishing activity does not affect teal reproduction. Periodic surveys are conducted to enforce regulations. Effectiveness varies by sites. Monitoring and research: Coordinated counts are carried out periodically at all known and possible breeding sites. Breeding population size and inter and intra-annual population size changes are well known, although there is need for improvement in quality of counts and involvement of volunteers. There is an Andalusian plan of coordinated counts with dates that coincide with those of the national censuses. One of the periodical counts coincides with the mid-winter counts and covers all sites used by the species. Relevant ecological studies were carried out from 1998 to 2000 at El Hondo SPA under the LIFE96 NAT/E/003105 project, through an agreement between the beneficiary and the CSIC (national research institution). This identified the habitat requirements of the species and determined the presence and type of invertebrates important in their diet. Many threats have been identified and assessed by the above studies; however, some limiting factors remain to be understood (e.g. competition with other aquatic birds). Epidemic casualties are monitored within the Andalusian programme of conservation actions. Awareness raising and education: An environmental campaign has been carried out in the framework of the Life project, including production and distribution of leaflets, posters or a comic among the children and adult local population living around the El Hondo SPA and Salinas de Santa Pola SPA (Valencian Community). This measure has also addressed hunters. It has affected c. 50 breeding pairs and 200 individuals. Community financial support Two LIFE projects have addressed the species’ conservation (LIFE96 NAT/E/003105, LIFE03 NAT/E/000055). The total budget of these projects was € 3,508,396including € 1,754,198 Community contribution. The first project aimed to develop a coordinated action plan for the West Mediterranean, while the other has focused on the conservation and restoration of wetlands in Andalucia. Conclusions There has been some progress in the implementation of the action plan (Average IS=2.75), however, the status of the species has not improved. Key gaps are listed below although it is expected that they will be filled by the implementation of the new LIFE project: • No national strategy for the species is yet published and most regions that hold the species lack a legally binding species recovery plan required by the Spanish national legislation. • Inadequate funding and staffing for the implementation of recovery plan for the species; • Inadequate knowledge of the species’ distribution and ecology; • Insufficient site protection. Contributors: Mario Giménez Ripoll, Javier Cobos, Concha Raya, Andy Green, Fernando Ibáñez, Matías García, Jordi Muntaner, José Luis Echevarrías, Alberto Madroño and Borja Heredia.

32

33 White-headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala

Status Targets: In the short term, to maintain the current population and area of occupancy throughout its range. In the medium term to promote the population increase within its current range. In the long term, to promote the expansion of the species to other suitable areas. In addition, to prevent the hybridisation of White-headed Duck by eradicating the introduced Ruddy Duck from the western Palaearctic. Status: The Spanish population of Oxyura leucocephala has increased tenfold over the last decade. The control of O. jamaicensis has been implemented in an increasing number of countries. It is important to note, however, that the global population of the species has undergone very rapid decline, which further underscores the importance of the population within the EU. Population in Current SAP Country Year population Year (breeding (individuals) females) Spain 100 – 200 1994 2,300 – 2,300 2002 Evaluation: The size and the range of the species have increased, hence the short, and medium term targets related to the population size and area of occupancy have been achieved in Spain, however not in other countries. With regards to this, and the incompleteness of Ruddy Duck elimination, it can be judged that the long term objectives are not yet achieved. Protection Status The species is legally protected in all countries where it occurs naturally. However, protection is not effectively enforced in some countries (e.g. Greece). In Spain, the species is considered as "endangered" by the Spanish official list of threatened species. National and regional species action plans In Spain, the development and implementation of legally mandated national or regional recovery plans have not yet been achieved. Only Castilla-La Mancha autonomous region has a recovery plan, which covers some 400 individuals. A National strategy is under elaboration, and a Working Group meets annually coordinated by the Ministry of Environment, with the attendance of the regional governments, Ministry of Environment and experts. Site protection Designation: In Spain, all Important Bird Areas for the breeding of the species are designated as SPAs and expert opinion suggests that this includes the entire national breeding population. In winter, 12 SPAs support some 1,500 individuals. There is only one IBA with wintering White-headed Duck that is not protected, Los Tollos Lake, holding 10-444 individuals. In France, the only site where the species used to breed (in the 1960s) is fully protected as a nature reserve. A re-introduction programme is being implemented here. However, a breeding population is not yet re-established.

34 In Greece, two SPAs (Techniti Limni Kerkinis-Krousia and Limnes Vistonis, Ismaris- Limnothalasses Porto Lagos, Alyki Ptelea, Xirolimni, Karatza) support some 2,300 wintering individuals from outside the EU. However, the key site here, Lake Vistonis, has undergone severe destruction and degradation since 1996. Management plans. In Greece, no key sites have management plans. In Spain, seven sites have management plans which address the species’ requirements and are at least partially implemented. The ten other sites have no management plans. Other conservation, research and public awareness measures Integrating species requirements into the management of wetlands: The “Spanish Strategic Plan for the Conservation and Rational Use of Wetlands” incorporates a general objective regarding protection and integrated management. This includes guidelines for different sectors aiming to guarantee legal mechanisms to ensure wise use and conservation of wetlands. In 2002, Andalucia initiated a conservation plan for wetlands in the region “Plan Andaluz de Humedales” which will produce a legally binding plan to avoid deterioration of the Andalucia wetlands. This plan has secured an investment of 27 millions of euros. Castilla-La Mancha has a Conservation Wetland Strategy that includes: protection through the inclusion of important wetlands in the protected area system, research, hunting regulations and land acquisition. Since 1996, this region has initiated the elaboration of management plans for 19 wetlands that add to the 28 already existing. In 2002, ten of these became protected. Despite all the above, many important wetlands used by the species suffer from chronic deterioration (contamination, overexploitation of underground water, sedimentation, water level fluctuation, overgrazing in surroundings, plough next to the water limit, etc.). Habitat creation: In Spain, 46 ha of wetlands have been acquired (LIFE project B4/3200/92/15183) and are being restored (LIFE project B4-3200/96/513) at the El Hondo SPA, Valencian Community. Although Marmaronetta angustirostris is the main target of this restoration, some use of the lagoons by the White-headed Duck is expected. In France, reedbed is purchased and managed in the framework of the re-introduction of the species. Species management: In France, a hunting ban is applied only in nature and hunting reserves. There is a good wardening system in place at these sites. In Greece, hunting is banned at the key sites, but illegal hunting continues. There is no wardening in place. In Portugal, hunting is prohibited at all key sites where the species occurs. Effective wardening is in place. In Spain, hunting has been banned at important sites (e.g. all important sites in Castilla-La Mancha), but is still practiced at other sites regularly holding the species in the Valencian Community (Salinas de Santa Pola SPA and partially in El Hondo SPA). However, no action has been taken to ensure wardening of all key sites nor other measures to minimise the negative impacts of hunting. The hunting season is usually closed by end of January, except of Greece, where the latest closing date is 15 February. Spanish law (RD 581/2001) has banned the use of lead since October 2001 at Ramsar sites and protected wetlands. In practice, this has meant that lead shot has been banned from all key sites since January 2003. In the other countries where the species occurs, little has been done to phase out lead shot.

35 Research and monitoring: In Spain, coordinated counts are carried out five times a year at all sites for the species. This census has provided precise information about distribution and size of the population. However, the relationship between Spanish and northern Africa populations is still unclear, as is the percentage of the population that may be involved in such movements. Some studies have been carried out on these topics, but more assessment is needed. LIFE00 NAT/E/7311 project supports several studies in El Hondo and Salinas de Santa Pola SPAs on habitat use, trophic ecology and Cyprinus carpio and its effect on White-headed Duck. At El Hondo SPA, there has been a survey of the hydrological situation with special emphasis on pollution and eutrophication. There is other ongoing research to characterise the hydrological needs of this important wetland. After the Aznalcollar (Doñana) spillage in 1998, the Ministry of Environment started an ambitious plan, "Doñana 2005", to regenerate and improve the hydrology of Doñana. In Greece, the status and distribution was better understood after the international project “Actions for the research and conservation of two globally threatened species in the Balkans: Pygmy Cormorant and White-headed Duck”. This project contributed significantly to the understanding of the movements of the species in the Black-Sea/Eastern Mediterranean region and provided information on the species’ habitat requirements as well. In France, released birds are radio tagged. Public awareness and education: The species has been used as flagship species for the protection of wetlands in Spain since it was on the verge of extinction in 1977. It has also been a flagship species in the demand for a ban of the use of lead shot in wetlands, notably at El Hondo and to stress the damage that introduced species can pose to native and threatened avifauna (Ruddy Duck and several exotic fish). It has obviously been one of the many reasons to improve water management at key sites for the species. Several LIFE projects devoted to the species and habitat management of wetlands, notably in Valencia and Andalucia regions have increased the public profile of the species. During 2002, a brochure about the White-headed Duck was published (edited by the Ministry of Environment and environmental authorities of autonomous regions). An environmental campaign was started in 2003 within the Life2000 NAT/E/7311 project, including the production and distribution of various materials such as leaflets, posters, a travelling exhibition and educational material for the children and adults living around the El Hondo SPA and Salinas de Santa Pola SPA (Valencian Community). Network development: International collaboration is taking place through the WWT Threatened Waterfowl Specialist Group. In Spain, a working group has met annually since 1994, coordinated by the Ministry of Environment, with the attendance of the regional governments, conservationists and the Ministry of Environment. Coordinated counts are implemented. For the eastern Mediterranean population an international project "Actions for the research and conservation of two globally threatened species in the Balkans: Pygmy Cormorant and White-headed Duck" has contributed to the development of a subregional network including Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria. The project was sponsored by the Hellenic Ministry of Environment, Land Planning and Public Works. Eradication of Ruddy Duck: DNA studies of feral ruddy ducks from Spain, UK feral birds and UK captive birds have proved that Spanish ruddy ducks originate in Europe, as opposed to being trans-Atlantic migrants. The evidence that ruddy ducks reaching Spain originate in the UK is compelling, although further research work could provide proof.

36 In the UK, eradication is considered feasible, following the Government’s successful three- year (1999 and 2002) regional control trial. In March 2003, the UK Government announced that it supports the principle of eradication, and is working to implement a UK wide eradication programme. The regional control trial determined that a year-round programme of shooting, if sufficiently resourced, could reduce the UK population to less than 175 birds within a period of four to six years. Monitoring population responses during the eradication programme will be important to guiding the control strategy. Intensity of eradication measures varies more in countries with small Ruddy Duck population. The need for Ruddy Duck control is understood in Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK, but not yet in Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden. Ruddy Duck and hybrid control strategies have been in place in France since 1997, Portugal since 1994 (all Ruddy Ducks recorded are eliminated) and Spain. No measures have been take in Austria (no established Ruddy Duck population), Belgium, Estonia, Finland (no established Ruddy Duck population), Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands (although the Dutch Government now recognises the problem) or Italy. In Denmark, where there are no breeding Ruddy Ducks yet, random actions were taken against a few individuals by public employees on request; probably only one bird was ever shot. Indeed, control is not legally possible in Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg, Slovakia and Slovenia. In Germany, after successful breeding in 2001, Ruddy Duck is part of the avifauna and as such protected. However, as with other non-native species it could potentially be controlled. In Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony), where most breeding took place so far, measures to prevent successful breeding of Ruddy Duck were planned, but not successful (because of late announcement of breeding attempts). In the UK, there are now no legal constraints to organised control for purposes of conserving the White-headed Duck. As of January 2004, organised control has been licensed in England, Wales and Scotland, but not in Northern Ireland. Legal protection was removed in England in 2003, enabling control of birds and nests/eggs under the terms of a general licence, but remains in place in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In Finland, the Ruddy Duck is regarded as an alien species and importation is banned. Release of captive Ruddy Ducks is illegal in Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden and the UK. However, enforcement has weaknesses in Belgium and Germany. Captive Ruddy Ducks are listed on a special register in Estonia and the UK. In the latter, it is illegal to trade in Ruddy Ducks without a licence; the UK Government has indicated that no further licences will be issued. Measures to require the registration and ringing of captive birds are expected by the end of 2004 or early 2005, following the addition of ruddy ducks to Annex B of the EU CITES Regulation. A code of practice for aviculturists is in place. Ruddy Duck status is monitored in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and the UK. Usually, this is implemented through national rarities committees or general waterbird censuses. Community financial support Three LIFE project were implemented in Almeira, Valencia and Andalucia in Spain (LIFE98 NAT/E/005323, LIFE00 NAT/E/007311, and LIFE03 NAT/E/000055), one in Greece

37 (LIFE96 NAT/GR/003217) and one reintroduction project in France (LIFE97 NAT/F/004226). The total budget of the projects was € 6,771,995 including € 3,976,123 Community contribution. Conclusions Although the average implementation score (1.87) indicates only some progress in the implementation of the action plan, this is mainly due to the relatively low attention to Ruddy Duck control in countries with small Ruddy Duck population. However, significant progress has been made in the implementation of the action plan in Spain, France, Portugal, the UK and Greece. Special attention should be paid to: • Controlling Ruddy Duck in all western Palearctic countries including drawing up proactive control strategies (e.g. setting up monitoring systems, making control measures legally possible, setting up response mechanisms); • Protection of all key sites against negative hydrological changes and managing human activities on site; • Enforcement of hunting ban at all key sites Contributors: Andreas Ranner, Wim Van den Bossche, Jean-Paul Jacob, David Lacina, Eva Cepakova, Iris Charalambidou, Savvas Iezekiel, Timme Nyegaard, Jarl Krausing, Andres Kalamees, Margus Ellermaa, Bernard Deceuninck, Stavroula Papoulia, George Handrinos, Hans-Günther Bauer, Holger Schielzeth, Christoph Südfeldt, Inka Gnittke, Christine Croton, Alex Copland, Ariel Brunner, Marco Gustin, Oskars Keišs, Antra Stīpniece, Liutauras Raudonikis, Patric Lorgé, Ruud van Beusekom, Pawel Sidlo, Michal Maniakowski, Pedro Geraldes, Vítor Encarnação, Rastislav Rybanič, Luka Bozic, Andy Green, Fernando Ibáñez, Matías García, Jordi Muntaner, José Luis Echevarrías, Alejandro Onrubia, Alberto Madroño, Borja Heredia, Björn Welander, Torsten Larsson, David Hoccom, Helen Baker.

38 Cinereous Vulture Aegypius monachus

Status Targets: In the short term to maintain and enhance the existing populations of Cinereous Vulture in Europe. In the long term, to encourage the recolonisation of the former range. Status: Stable in Greece, increasing in all other countries in the EU. Population in Current Country SAP Year population Year (pairs) (pairs) France 1 1995 8 – 10 2002 Greece 20 – 21 1994/95 21 2002 Portugal 0 1994 0 - 5 2002-2003 Spain 1,050 – 1,150 1994 1,358 2001 Evaluation: Short term targets achieved. The recolonisation of the species in Portugal and the successful re-introduction in France are steps towards achieving the long term objective. Protection Status The species is legally protected in all countries. In Spain, the level of protection is insufficient, as the national system of classifying threatened fauna does not include this species as threatened but only in a lower category “special interest”. This is despite the fact that the species has met the criteria for “Vulnerable” at a national level (Spanish Red Data Book: not legally binding). Some autonomous regions (Castilla-La Mancha, Extremadura and Madrid) have overcome this deficiency by providing increased protection through their regional catalogues of threatened fauna. Others have maintained the same category (i.e. not threatened) either because of not having adopted their regional catalogue (Baleares and Castilla y León), or because the species has not qualified for the highest threat category (Andalucia) in their regional red data book. Baleares also published a red data book (not legally binding) in which it qualified as "Vulnerable". National and regional species action plans The species is covered by a national action plan only in France. In Spain, although there has been an obligation to approve a management plan for the species at national level since 1990 (L 4/1989), this has not been done. Castilla-La Mancha is the only region of Spain that has approved a legally binding recovery plan for the species (2003) that provides for a proper level of legal protection and planning of action. Extremadura has just published an official draft. Other autonomous regions have internal (not public or legally binding) plans for the species. Site protection Designation: In France the whole population occurs in one site. The SPA (130 ha) covers only the breeding colonies so much of the feeding areas are without any protection. In Greece, the whole breeding population occurs in the Dadia-Lefkimi-Soufli forest, which is designated as SPA. In Portugal there are no SPAs selected for the species yet. In Spain, there are 41 SPAs, which cover 1,742,503 hectares and overlap with all IBAs important for

39 the species. This network includes the majority of the breeding population of the species. However, the extent of the IBAs is about one million hectares larger than that of the SPAs. Management plans: In France and Greece the relevant SPAs are covered by management plans. In Spain, only 11 sites have management plans and these cover about one third of the breeding population and the total area of SPAs. Other conservation, research and public awareness measures Provision of feeding opportunities: Support for the continuation of traditional extensive livestock farming is regarded as fully implemented in France and to some extent in Spain but not at all in Portugal and Greece. The measures in response to BSE made it more complicated to leave dead stock on the field for vultures. Now, dead stock are provided at some designated sites only in France, Greece and Portugal. Spain, and unofficially France and Greece, have reported increasing difficulties with obtaining carcasses for the ‘vulture restaurants’. It is also unclear, how the inclusion of sanitary measures under the new cross-compliance rules will affect the traditional livestock grazing practices in Spain and in turn the food availability for vultures. The Spanish population also depends on rabbits which could be in decline due to increasing deer density, which is thus causing problems indirectly for Cinereous Vultures. Avoiding human disturbance: In Spain, most colonies are in protected areas and forestry is generally practiced in a way that avoids disturbance, but it still occurs, and nesting trees are still felled occasionally. The forestry policy generally promotes the maintenance of native forests, but the application of the forestry measures under the rural development programme still supports activities that lead to increased disturbance. However, positive examples also exist. In Portugal, the national legislation protects native forests and economic incentives are available to promote afforestation with native species. However, these incentives are not competitive enough. The nesting attempts are supported by verbal agreements with forest owners. Wild fire protection plans are also mandatory for each municipality, however, poorly implemented. In Greece, the policy objectives are also favourable for native forests, but the species requirements are rarely taken into account in practice apart from the Dadia forest where the current population is concentrated. Here forestry operations are carried out after the breeding season. Wildfires are also successfully prevented by the forestry service. Prevent poisoning. In Spain, substantial efforts have been carried out by SEPRONA (police specialised in environmental offences). Despite this, illegal use of poison is still a very common problem. Between 1990 and 2002, more than 454 black vultures were poisoned. Although recently some offenders were sentenced, much more effort is still needed. Very good results have been obtained in Baleares after three condemnatory sentences. Legislation is adequate and has been recently strengthened (2003). Administrative legislation does allow for moratoria on hunting, in hunting areas were poison has caused severe damage, until population levels have recovered . Control of use of agricultural biocides is very insufficient and at its early stages. In 1998 several NGO started the “Antidoto” programme as a means to fight the illegal use of poisons including through being active in a number of court cases. The campaign is having very important results, such as facilitating coordinated actions between NGOs, environmental administrations, judicial police, etc. NGOs have played an active part in raising awareness about the problem in various ways, and have often received support

40 from the Ministry of Environment and some regional governments. The role and participation of NGO has been very important (through "Antidoto" Programme).Portugal has started its "Antidoto" anti-poisoning program, developed by NGOs and ICN (National Conservation Institute), in 2003. A special police task force was created to address environmental issues (SEPNA) and aims to investigate wildlife poisoning incidents and stop poisoning activities. In France, poisoning is not a major problem. In Greece the use of poison baits is legally prohibited, however it is still illegally used in the Evros region. HOS and WWF Greece have taken some awareness raising actions against poisoning, and more will follow in the framework of the new LIFE project. Re-introduction: During the period since 1996, it took place only in France, where the population has increased from one pair in 1996 to ten pairs in 2003. A further three birds were released in 2003. In Portugal, the species is on the verge of recolonising naturally from Spain, but no successful breeding was reported so far. Environmental Impact Assessment: Environmental Impact Assessment regulations exist in all Member States, however, these mostly address large projects and some of the smaller but disturbing activities (e.g. opening of forest tracks, fire prevention measures, etc.) are exempt. It was reported from Greece that impacts of windmills on the species were not properly considered. Research and monitoring: In Spain, a co-ordinated national census has not yet been carried out. Each autonomous region monitors the colonies in their territories, mostly on a yearly basis, but the effort is not homogeneous. They do not use the same monitoring methods either. Some colonies at protected areas and SPAs are monitored more often than others. In Portugal, national surveys are carried out. In France the existing population is continuously monitored. In Greece, WWF Greece has carried out annual monitoring since 1993. Since 2001, the monitoring is carried out according to the monitoring plan of the Dadia National Park. Causes of mortality are determined in all countries by examining specimens found dead and radio tracking. In Spain the colonies of Moros-Valdemaqueda, Sª Pelada, Iruelas, Cabañeros are studied in more detail. There is one report about the Rascafría colony and another currently underway at Valsaín. Some of these are providing a wealth of new information not yet published. From 1998-2000, research was carried out in Extremadura with further worthwhile information that contributes to fill the gap. In Baleares several birds followed with radio-tracking have provided very useful information in relation to home range, dispersal and habitat use. Awareness raising: There is some awareness raising activity in all countries but Portugal. In France local authorities built a ‘Vulture Centre’. In Greece, WWF has taken action for many years, involving the local authorities more recently. In Spain, awareness raising and educational activities regarding the species are carried out by different protected areas with the support of several LIFE projects. Community financial support LIFE has contributed significantly to the species’ conservation. It supported seven projects in Spain (LIFE97/NAT/E/004161, LIFE97 NAT/NL/004210, LIFE98 NAT/E/005351, LIFE99 NAT/E/006327, LIFE99 NAT/E/006336, LIFE00 NAT/E/007340, LIFE00 NAT/E/007348, LIFE03 NAT/E/000050), one in Greece (LIFE02 NAT/GR/008497) and one in France mostly related to regional conservation efforts, but also to the reintroduction of the species to France. The total budget of these projects was € 17,672,539 including € 13,416,584 Community contribution.

41 Conclusions There has been significant progress in the implementation of the action plan (Average IS= 2.80). However, further measures are needed on the following areas: • Maintain sufficient feeding opportunities for the species; • Avoid disturbance during forestry operations; • Developing and implementing national recovery plans. Contributors: Bernard Deceuninck, Stavroula Papoulia, Theodora Skartsi, George Handrinos, Pedro Geraldes, Carlos Pacheco, Alberto Madroño, Ángel Gómez Manzaneque, Atanasio Fernández García, Eduardo Soto Largo, Javier de la Puente, Juan Carlos del Moral, Juan José Sánchez Artez, Pablo Dobado Berrios, Rafael Arenas González, Rafael Galán Romero, Juan Manuel Sánchez Guzmán, Borja Heredia.

42 Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca

Status Targets: In the short term, to maintain the present numbers of the Imperial Eagle throughout its present range. In the medium to long term, to ensure range expansion. Status: The population has increased in Hungary and in Slovakia and has expanded significantly its range from the foothills to the lowland in both countries. It became a breeding species in Austria and the Czech Republic. On the other hand, it has more or less disappeared as a breeding species in Cyprus and remained at a very low level in Greece.

Population in Current Country SAP Year population Year (pairs) (pairs) Austria 0 1993 1 1998 – 2002 Cyprus 2 – 4 1993 0 – 2 1994 – 2002 Czech 0 1993 1 – 2 1998 – 2002 Republic Greece 0 – 2 1993 0 – 1 1995 – 2000 Hungary 34 – 36 1993 50 – 65 1998 – 2002 Slovakia 30 – 35 1993 23 – 33 2000 – 2003 35 – 40 1980 – 1999

Evaluation: The short, medium and long term objectives are all achieved. New targets need to be set, especially by better defining the target for range expansion. Protection Status The species is fully protected in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary and Slovakia. In the Czech Republic it has not yet been declared a Specially Protected Species. In Austria, it is still a huntable species with no open season. National and regional species action plans Only Hungary and Slovakia have national species action plan. Site protection Site designation: In Austria the existing one pair is in an SPA. In Hungary in 2003, 43 pairs occurred (65% of the 66 nests active in 2003) in 12 IBAs. Another 15 pairs (23% of the 66 nests active in 2003) were located in ten nationally protected areas. In Slovakia, 27 pairs (98%) of the population breeds in IBAs of which 20 pairs (73%) are in nationally protected areas. In the Czech Republic and Greece there is neither IBA nor protected area identified for the species. In Cyprus, there are no breeding records over the last 15 years; however, the former breeding place of the species is protected. Management plans. No management plans addressing the species’ requirements are reported from any of the sites. A species management plan is being elaborated in Hungary in a LIFE Nature project aiming at the conservation of the Imperial Eagle in the Carpathian Basin.

43 Other conservation, research and public awareness measures Management of forest and agricultural land: National forest policies do not yet give priority to wildlife conservation in most countries. Biodiversity conservation features in the Czech and Hungarian legislation to some extent. Non-intervention zones in commercially managed forests are designated only in Hungary. There are some measures in place to prevent human disturbance by creating a buffer zone around active nests in the Czech Republic (to 300 m) and Hungary (only to 100m and only the population in the hilly areas). Guidelines for appropriate forest management and agreements with forest owners are usually not available except in Hungary where the conservation authorities may issue ordinances to this effect. In Slovakia, buffer zones and guidelines will form part of the SPA protection regime. Likewise, guidelines have not been produced on species friendly agricultural practices in most countries except Hungary. Mapping of habitat use has started in Hungary in the framework of the current LIFE projects. National guidelines for appropriate forest management and on species friendly agricultural practices are also being drawn up. A proposal to integrate Imperial Eagle habitats into the network of target areas for agro-environmental programmes was submitted to the relevant ministry in Hungary. Environmental Impact Assessment measures are required for afforestation schemes, construction of dams, power lines and other infrastructure in most countries with certain limitations, e.g. in Hungary and in Slovakia EIA is required only within protected areas for all development. Outside protected areas, only projects above a certain size would require EIA. Provision of artificial nest platforms: An essential part of the conservation efforts in Hungary where a significant percentage of lowland breeding birds use artificial nests. The activity has been started in Slovakia in the framework of the recent LIFE project. Increasing abundance of key prey species: The action plan suggested measures to increase Suslik Spermophilus citellus populations. However, it has turned out that the species has a broader diet and other species such as hare, hamster and pheasant play a more important role in its diet than previous research suggested. In Austria, agro-environmental support is provided to create “Imperial Eagle fallows”. Other countries, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, have reported that food supply seems to be stable at present. However, it is important to note that both hare and hamster populations may decrease significantly with the intensification of arable farming in the new member states. In Greece, there is a Life project in the Dadia National Park addressing the Suslik issue. Reducing disturbance: No measures were reported from Cyprus and Greece. In Austria, hunters collaborate in reducing disturbance; however, there is no official restriction of access in place yet. In the Czech Republic, there is an access restriction in place during the breeding season in the breeding area. In Hungary, the disturbance and its impacts have increased, because of the increase of nesting pairs in lowland agricultural areas. A ministerial order is about to be submitted in Hungary on regulations for the restriction of human activities around the breeding habitat of strictly protected species such as the Imperial Eagle. The public information campaign to local farmers to reduce disturbance has started. In Slovakia, regular nest safeguard takes place affecting some 15 pairs.

44 Prevention of nest robbing and illegal trade: All countries but Cyprus and Greece have made significant efforts to prevent nest robbing. Nest safeguard and surveillance is implemented in Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia. Prevention of illegal shooting: Currently, this seems to be a marginal problem in most countries. On-going LIFE projects address the issue in Hungary and Slovakia. Measures are also taken in Austria and Cyprus. No measures have been reported from Greece. Prevention of poisoning: It is banned or strictly regulated in all countries, but there are still problems with enforcement (i.e. illegal poisoning was reported from Austria, Greece and Slovakia). Secondary poisoning, i.e. through consumption of poisoned rodents, may also be a problem in some countries (e.g. Hungary). Prohibition of leg-hold traps: Implemented in all countries. Reduce the risk of electrocution: Increasing intensity of measures. In Austria, some measures are planned for Great Bustard, which will also benefit the species. In the Czech Republic, special measures were taken in the whole district where the only pair occurs. In Hungary, insulation of the pylons in areas important for the species has been carried out over the last decade. The location of critical sections of power lines and communication with electricity suppliers is under way to achieve (a) insulation of pylons that pose a risk of electrocution and (b) to change pylon design. In Slovakia, new types of pylons have been produced and every new pylon must have a comb-barrier. However, more then 90% of all existing power lines are still dangerous for raptors. Research and monitoring: National surveys have been carried out in most countries and monitoring of breeding pairs is in place in all countries but Cyprus, where the species is regarded as practically extinct. Limiting factors and causes of mortality are generally well understood apart from in the Czech Republic and Greece. However, satellite tracking has been implemented in Hungary to better understand migration and to identify temporary settlement areas and wintering places. It is also being applied in Slovakia within the current LIFE Nature programme, linked to the Hungarian efforts. Radio tracking was used in Hungary to identify the habitat preferences and requirements of the species. There is an intensive international collaboration in place through the Imperial Eagle Working Group. Awareness raising: Increased awareness is reported from most countries. In Austria local hunters are proud of the newly established pair. In Hungary and Slovakia, the LIFE projects include awareness raising activities. Community financial support LIFE has provided 585,475 Community support to the LIFE02NAT/H/008627 in Hungary and 369,000 Euro in Slovakia for the species’ conservation. There is active co-operation between these two LIFE Nature projects. Together with the Drana Lagoon project in Greece (LIFE00 NAT/GR/007198) the total budget of the three projects was € 3,164,008 including € 2,060,026 Community contribution. However, the species is only marginally affected by the latter project. The amount targeted more specifically on this species is € 1,077,475 and € 808,106 respectively. In Hungary, some of the species’ feeding areas are the subject of zonal and horizontal agro- environmental schemes. The species benefits from the measures, although they are not directly targeted at the species.

45 Conclusions There has been significant progress in the implementation of the species action plan (average implementation score = 2.39), especially in the Carpathian basin. The key areas where further measures are needed: • Improve understanding of the species requirements and integrate them more effectively into the management of forest and agricultural land with special regard to reducing disturbance and maintaining food availability; • Reduce mortality caused by electrocution; • Understand better migration and wintering areas through satellite tracking • Set new, measureable targets for the plan Contributors: Andreas Ranner, Iris Charalambidou, Savvas Iezekiel, Petr Horak, Eva Cepakova, Stavroula Papoulia, George Handrinos, Stratis Bourdakis, Márton Horváth, András Kovács, Balázs Szabó, Gergő Halmos, Gábor Magyar, Jozef Chavko, Rastislav Rybanič.

46 Spanish Imperial Eagle Aquila adalberti

Status Targets: To increase the population and range to a degree that will allow its reclassification as not threatened. Status: The species population has continued to increase. It has returned to Portugal as a breeding species. However, the species is still classified as globally threatened.

Population in Current Country SAP Year population Year (pairs) (pairs) Portugal 0 1994 1 – 3 2003 Spain 150 1994 187 2003 Evaluation: Although the species population has recently been increasing, the long-term target has not yet been reached. However, taking into account the sustained increase of the population, the development of the population is heading towards that aim. Protection Status The species is legally protected in Spain (“threatened” in the national system of classifying threatened fauna) and in Portugal. National and regional species action plans By the end of 2003, the autonomous regions of Castilla y León and Castilla-La Mancha had approved their species recovery plans. These are legally binding tools that include many of the actions proposed in this plan. Of the three other autonomous regions that should publish recovery plans, the plan for Extremadura is expected in 2004 while Madrid and Andalucia regions have made no progress towards the approval of their plans in recent years. These legal documents should have been in place soon after Law 4/89 (on protected areas, flora and fauna) was passed in 1989. Site protection Site designation: In Spain about 73% of the national population is covered by the SPA network, covering 1.8 million hectares. All IBAs holding the species in globally significant numbers are protected. However, the total extent of SPAs designated for the species is much less than the total 2.8 million hectare extent of the IBAs. In Portugal there is no site designated yet for the species because it is a new breeder. Management plans. 86% of the nationally protected areas in Spain where the species occur have management plans that take into account their needs. For the SPAs, management plans are not required by law and the protection regime is less strict than for nationally protected areas. Other conservation, research and public awareness measures Forestry: In 2003, national law (L 43/03) on forestry was passed, which also regulates the management of other habitats types outside protected areas, taking into consideration

47 biodiversity in general. Protected areas and SPAs are part of public lands, i.e. considered as of “public utility”. Natural management plans of protected areas will be considered as valid forestry management plans if they have been approved by competent forestry authorities. Where forestry management instruments cover areas that are not included in the protected area network, they should make sure that the “long-term viability of ecosystems” is not put into risk. They should furthermore guarantee that the natural heritage is preserved. It considers provisions to grant subsidies to maintain (and improve) biodiversity through sustainable forestry. Despite this new legislation, the subsidies under the Rural Development Regulation are too much oriented at supporting rather intensive forestry practices (clearing, cleaning of undergrowth, and opening of new forest tracks, fire protection and reforestation). These practices do not necessarily benefit the species that requires a very specific habitat management that suit its ecological needs. Regeneration of Holm and Cork Oak, as well as, Stone Pine is promoted within the species range only to some extent. Biological criteria are mostly used within the protected area and SPA network. Many private lands benefit from forestry subsidies, but reforestation is not always carried out with tree species that best suit the ecology of the area. Extensive use of pines, instead of natural Mediterranean vegetation, still occurs. Fortunately, some protected areas of Andalucia and Extremadura are slowly removing eucalyptus trees in favour of native trees (e.g. Doñana and Monfragüe). Forest cover in Spain has notably increased due to the abandonment of traditional land management in the countryside, emigration, etc. Many of the reforestations that happened during the first half of the 20th century have helped expansion and recovery of the species. In Portugal economic incentives are offered to promote afforestation with Holm and Cork Oaks. Agriculture: Integrating the species requirements into agricultural plans has not received much attention although most feeding and dispersal areas are generally located in agricultural areas. Agro-environmental measures are not targeted at areas of high ecological value (e.g. areas with threatened species), neither do they intend to favour optimum game levels (such as rabbit and red partridge), which are linked to traditional and extensive agriculture practices. One of the subsidies within the rural development programme is the “reforestation of agriculture fields”, which are intended to compensate farmers’ income losses. The result is a loss of suitable hunting habitat for the species. Some dispersion areas of great value for the species have been subject to new irrigation schemes or other forms of intensification. Environmental Impact Assessment procedures are only necessary for major projects;many smaller ones do not require EIA. Many major projects in critical areas for the species have been avoided through EIAs. However, many damaging projects that affect feeding grounds in agricultural fields, do not adequately value the importance of such areas for the species. Only two (out of five autonomous regions) where the species occurs in Spain have passed new legislation (2003) that improves the level of protection for such important feeding grounds so that they cannot be altered without proper evaluation of their impact to the species. For the time being, it is too early to know with certainty that these measures will truly improve the situation for the species. The use of compensatory measures without proper application of article 6 of the Habitat Directive (and/or equivalent domestic legislation) is far too frequent. Mitigation measures are not always adequate and sufficient. Enforcement of obligations that emanate from these

48 environmental processes is often very weak. Some well known examples of projects that critically affect the species and its habitat are: Melonares (Seville) and la Breña II (Córdoba) dams; urbanisation at Navas del Marqués (Ávila); gas pipelines to reach Córdoba across some very important territories in western Sierra Morena oriental. In Portugal general EIA rules are in place and apply to this species, too. Improving food availability: This is issue has been addressed through managing rabbit, the key prey species, and through provision of supplementary feeding. Restriction of rabbit hunting until the recovery of rabbit populations is not implemented in most of the species’ range, due to political difficulties. However, agreements with landowners in Andalucia consider setting aside non-hunting areas for rabbits in exchange for other habitat improvements that are convenient for both the property and the eagles. There are also other agreements for hiring of hunting rights in favour of the rabbit; however, this might be not sustainable. Rabbit hunting outside the open season is still often permitted and justified as disease prevention. Rabbit populations have increased through active restocking at several places including using techniques such as habitat management for rabbits, creation of appropriate burrows. This activity is more intensive in protected areas and SPAs, but is also carried out by hunting societies, landowners that have agreements with the administration, Fundación CBD-Hábitat and WWF/Adena. Still, the local recovery of rabbit populations will take some time. Apart from a few cases, these measures are usually not maintained over years although 4-6 years are needed to reach good rabbit densities. There is also a programme under way to test vaccine’s to prevent drastic declines in rabbit populations. In Portugal a strategic approach to rabbit-restocking is under development. Provision of supplementary food is a common practice and methodologies are now sufficiently refined. This does allow provision of supplementary food when appropriate to pairs that are known to have low productivity owing to lack of food. Prevent electrocution. No legislation has been passed at a national level to modify the design of high voltage power lines. Four autonomous regions out of five where the species occur have specific legislation that can be judged incomplete, mainly because it only applies to new power lines, failing to correct existing ones. Specific legislation at a national level is needed to help to improve regional regulations so that they meet basic standards. Its approval would also favour allocation of resources from the Ministry of Environment to correct dangerous power lines. New power lines are subject to environmental evaluation before their installation. If the power line’s function is energy distribution, it may cross the species’ territory provided it has a safe design. This measure is applied much more rigorously at breeding areas than at feeding, dispersing and recolonisation areas. In Portugal new high-voltage power lines are subject to approval from the Nature Conservation Institute. Dangerous pylons are regularly located, although many dangerous pylons remain without any anti-electrocution measure. The action is insufficiently implemented, especially at feeding and dispersing areas. Not enough efforts are taken to revert the current situation. Many of the measures taken in the early 1990s have lost their effectiveness. During 2003, a minimum of eight Spanish Imperial Eagles were electrocuted, six of them died in Castilla-La Mancha. Between 1991 and 2003, the total number of birds killed by

49 electrocution totals 69 birds. Some protected areas, such as Cabañeros, have successfully buried the electricity lines. In Portugal there is a project underway to evaluate the impact of power lines. The electricity companies are well aware of the problem. They employ technicians and advisors dealing with the issue. Information is provided at any time if it is requested, or if NGO or governments seek to correct any dangerous power line. Studies are being carried out to design harmless electricity pylons. Many publications and reports are available. Reducing persecution: There has been substantial improvement through awareness campaigns conducted by the regional administrations and NGOs. However, illegal activities related to hunting are still very frequent. Withdrawal of hunting reserve licences when conservation and hunting plans have not been respected has only occasionally been executed. Regional legislation has been recently improved (e.g. Andalusian Hunting and Conservation Law and the Castilla y León Recovery Plan for the species). National administrative legislation (L 4/89) does allow for a moratoria in hunting areas were poison has caused severe damage, thus requiring a period of time (several years) to allow the recovery of natural favourable conditions before hunting is allowed again. This measure has at least been taken once by Castilla y León government in a severe case of poisoning when one Spanish Imperial Eagle was killed. The regional conservation legislation of Castilla-La Mancha (1999) allows the owner of the game reserve liable for using poison baits to be prosecuted in the absence of an identified offender (which is mostly the case). Surveillance of hunting reserves has increased involving environment guards and SEPRONA, as well as experts dealing with the species. NGOs also participate. Increasing productivity of breeding pairs: All breeding pairs are under appropriate surveillance. Habitat management, rabbit restocking and artificial feeding plays an important role in this. Artificial nests are also provided and unstable nests are regularly fixed. Successful experiments with artificial feeding allow increasing chick survival through active management if needed. It has also been proved that provision of artificial food is a more effective way of protecting threatened chicks than artificial rearing. Each of the five autonomous regions has identified potential areas for recolonisation, although it is not treated as a whole with an overall coordinated mapping facility. Potential areas for recolonisation are seldom afforded preventive protection and are rapidly degrading due to development. Captive breeding: There are c.40 captive individuals in four different captive-breeding centres. Most of the birds are not appropriate for release. The species has never been raised in captivity to date. There has not been enough collaboration and exchange of individuals between centres, and the overall captive population is not managed as a whole. Research and Monitoring: All territories and breeding pairs are monitored annually. The monitoring of the illegal use of poison is coordinated through a national working group “Ecotoxicología”, lead by the Ministry of Environment, with the participation of the autonomous regions, SEPRONA (judicial police devoted to fight against environmental offences ) and NGOs. The latter are coordinated through the “Antidoto” programme that runs a free-call phone to collect reports of incidents that are immediately passed to competent bodies. The level of chemical pollutants in eggs is regularly monitored.

50 Only a few birds are followed by radio tracking. The effort is still insufficient to provide enough information on location of temporal settlement areas, dispersion pattern and feeding habits. The knowledge available on dangerous areas where birds die is still very inadequate. Studies on the area requirements of the species are being carried out, but information is still insufficient. A great deal of information is available that needs to be published. Breeding, dispersal and re-colonisation zones are mapped by the autonomous regions, supporting organisations and institutions. There is still insufficient knowledge on areas of dispersion and of potential recolonisation. Awareness raising: Several awareness campaigns targeted at relevant land-users were carried out and educational materials were prepared, however, further efforts are needed. Community financial support LIFE has made a very significant contribution to the conservation of the species even before the adoption of the action plan. There were 18 projects implemented for the conservation of the species including three phases of a set of regional projects in Madrid, Castilla y León, Castilla La Mancha, Andalucía and Extremadura. In addition, the species was also the subject of conservation projects either together with other species (e.g. Lynx and Black Stork) or as the main target in protected area management (Cabañeros National Park). The total budget of these projects was € 23,714,690 with € 15,497,468 Community contribution. Conclusions There has been significant progress in the implementation of the species action plan. The somewhat lower Average Implementation Score reflects the early stage of conservation efforts in Portugal and the overall progress is better characterized by the National Implementation Score for Spain where the vast majority of the species’ population occurs. However, there are still deficiencies that need to be addressed, namely: • Protection of adequate habitats, defined in mapping studies, outside existing protected areas and SPAs still needs to be secured, if necessary through providing adequate incentives to private land owners; • Food availability through appropriate management of rabbit populations needs to be ensured; • Mortality caused by illegal hunting measures and electrocution requires further attention. Contributors: Ángel Gómez Manzaneque, Atanasio Fernández, Carlos Cano, Javier Oria, José Guzmán Piña, Luis Mariano González García, Luis Fernández García, Rafael Cadenas, Salvador Pacheco, Alberto Madroño, Borja Heredia.

51 Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni

Status Targets: In the short term, the action plan aimed to maintain all known Lesser Kestrel colonies at their 1994 level and, in the medium to long term, to increase the population to a level at which the species no longer qualifies as globally threatened species. Status: During the last decade the species’ population has increased in France, Italy and Portugal, and become stable in Greece and Spain. (The higher figures for these countries in the table below are due to better knowledge and do not represent actual increase). However, the Slovenian population has gone extinct.

Population in Current Country SAP Year population Year (pairs) (pairs) France 31 – 33 1994 72 – 72 2003 Greece 2,700 – 3,240 1994/95 2,000 – 3,480 2000 Italy 1,300 – 1,500 1994 3,640 – 3,840 2001 Portugal 150 – 150 1994 349 – 376 2003 Slovenia 5 – 1016 1994 0 2000 Spain 8,000 – 8,000 1994 12,000 – 20,000 2002

Evaluation: Although the overall population decline has been stopped, some colonies are still decreasing due to adverse habitat changes or reduced breeding opportunities. Overall, the short term targets are achieved, however the medium and long term ones are not yet. Protection Status The species is legally protected in all countries, but enforcement of the legal requirements should be improved e.g. in Greece and Spain. National and regional species action plans A national species action plan has been adopted only in France where the species has increased by over 80% during the last decade. Site protection Designation: The protection of key sites is implemented to different degrees in various Member States. The majority of the national population is protected in France (85%) and Portugal (62%). A significant percentage is protected in Italy (41%). However, only about 15% of the national populations are protected in Spain and Greece. Although a large number of SPAs were designated for the species in Spain after 2000, most of the feeding areas are not protected yet. Some 70% of the 100-sqkm-grids where the species breeds are not protected. In many cases, the urban centres where the species breeds were excluded from the SPAs leaving the nesting sites without effective protection.

16 In 1994 only one breeding pair returned to the breeding ground and the species has not bred in Slovenia since.

52 There are at least nine Important Bird Areas of global importance supporting altogether at least 1,600 birds (Hinojosa del Duque-El Viso, Fuente de Cantos-Montemolín, Jaén countryside, San Clemente-Villarrobledo, Puebla de Don Fadrique-Las Cañadas, Carmona countryside, Condado-Campiña, Córdoba countryside, Plasencia and San Bernabé mountain range) that are not yet protected at all. In Greece, the identification of sites is still in progress. There are threeunprotected important sites in Greece (Ioannina city and neighbouring area, Elassona area, Area of Anthofito), supporting some 180 birds. Management plans: Only a few protected areas have management plans in France (1), Greece (1), Italy (1) and Spain (5). These sites cover about a thousand birds. Other conservation, research and public awareness measures Habitat conservation: Apart from France (where the population is restricted to one site) and Portugal, there have been very few measures taken to incorporate the species’ requirements into the agricultural policy and maintain favourable land use patterns or regulate and monitor the use of pesticides at the feeding areas. Agro-environmental measures are applied in Portugal (Castro Verde). Several regions in Spain (Aragon, Extremadura, Navarra) have made some attempt to provide incentives to farmers without any great success until now. Conservation measures targeted at preserving favourable land use patterns were reported only from Aragon where conditions are set for changes in land use within 4 km of the colonies. There has been little progress in improving our understanding of the impact of different grazing intensity. Afforestation policies usually do not take into account the species’ requirements. The Castro Verde Council in Portugal has taken measures to limit afforestation. In Spain, Extremadura has forbidden plantations in steppic areas. In Aragón, the conservation plan for the species has limited or fixed special conditions for afforestation projects in agricultural fields that are located in critical areas for the species, steppic areas in SPAs or subject to natural resources management plans of protected areas. Many other autonomous regions also do not allow reforestation in SPAs that are important for steppic birds. In general, however, environmental impact assessment rules are relaxed in Spain to make afforestation easier. Lesser Kestrel normally breeds in colonies in walls or roofs of old buildings and suitable nesting opportunities are limiting factors. Provision of nesting opportunities through collaboration with departments responsible for historic buildings and provision of artificial nests are important provisions of the action plan. However, only limited progress has been made in this direction. Andalucia has an agreement between the competent environmental authority and competent heritage authority so that any restoration that may affect any of the buildings considered of “cultural interest” takes into consideration the species’ needs, but problems do happen from time to time. In Madrid, the religious responsible body has been informed about all buildings that host colonies, but this has not proved sufficient. In 2003, the environmental authority and the heritage authority signed an agreement with the Catholic Church that owns many of the churches and buildings in which the species nests. The agreement aims at protecting threatened species such as the Lesser Kestrel. Aragon is one of the regions that promotes subsidies for colony restoration. Villafáfila SPA (Zamora, Castilla y León) built traditional pigeon houses and repaired other private ones,

53 with the instalment of nest boxes for the species. Andalucia and Castilla-La Mancha have local initiatives in some colonies. Extremadura has also carried out some similar initiatives in certain colonies. Some specific “houses” for the species (primillares) have been installed as well as artificial nests in pylons (electricity), but these two have not been very successful. Madrid has also installed artificial nests in several colonies, and a primillar has been built. Artificial nests have been provided in Castro Verde and Guadiana colonies leading to an increase in breeding population with 132 pairs breeding in artificial nests. Here, measures are also taken to prevent predation and interspecific competition. In France, most of the breeding pairs are in artificially provided stone piles. Research and Monitoring: The species is relatively well surveyed in most countries but Greece and Slovenia. The limiting factors are well understood in the case of the small populations (Portugal and France), while not so much in the case of Greece, Italy and Spain although some research has been started in Spain and Italy. Community financial support The species was targeted by nine LIFE projects: one in France (reintroduction), two in Portugal and 3 in Spain (Extremadura, Villafafila and Aragon). The total budget of these projects was € 6,809,000 including € 4,551,510 Community contribution. A project was also funded in Romania. The species has also benefited from some other Community funding such as agro- environmental measures in some regions of Spain. In Portugal, it has benefited from an INTERREG project. In Italy the POR GRAVINA project provided some funding for studies on habitat use of the species. Conclusions There has been some progress in the implementation of the action plan (Average IS=1.84). More progress has been made in countries with small population, while in the countries with major populations the implementation was patchier. There are still major gaps in the implementation of the action plan. Therefore, the most important recommendations are the followings: • Designation and management of key sites for the species is still insufficient and proactive measures to prevent adverse changes at breeding places and feeding habitats are needed; • The species requirements should be better addressed through agro-environmental measures; • Better protection should be awarded to the breeding colonies and collaboration amongst stakeholders should be improved. Contributors: Bernard Deceuninck, Stavroula Papoulia, Stratis Bourdakis, Danae Portolou, Savas Kazantzidis, Theodoros Naziridis, George Handrinos, Pedro Geraldes, Inês Catry, Luka Bozic, Juan Carlos Atienza, Alberto Madroño, Javier Forcada, José Luis González, José Luis Tella, Manuel Alcántara, Marino López de Carrión, Mercedes Alberdi, Borja Heredia.

54 Corncrake Crex crex

Status Targets: To prevent further declines below 1994 levels in the population size and distribution and to ensure the recovery of small breeding populations at risk of extinction. Status: The species has showed varying trends in different member states over the last decade. It has increased in Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Slovakia and the UK. It has been stable in Poland and Slovenia and fluctuated in Belgium, Estonia and Hungary. Decrease has continued in France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg and Sweden.

Population in Current Country SAP Year population Year (calling males) (calling males) Austria 140–180 1989-1991 200–500 1998-2002 Belgium 17–21 1990 21–44 1995-2002 Czech 200–400 1985-89 1,500–1,700 1998-2002 Republic Denmark 6 1991 450–550 2003 Estonia 5,000 1993 15,000–25,000 1998-2002 Finland 500–1,000 1994 2,000–8,000 1998-2002 France 1,100–1,200 1991-92 551–599 2002 Germany 800 1994 1,200–3,200 1996-2000 Hungary 350–450 1993-94 500–1,200 1998-2002 Ireland 174 1993 139–157 1998-2002 Italy 250–300 1994 200–450 2003 Latvia 3,000–10,000 1993 26,000–38,000 – Lithuania 3,000–4,000 1994 25,000–30,000 1999-2001 Luxembourg <10 – 0–5 2000-2002 Netherlands 30–80 1990-95 240–700 1998-2000 Poland 6,600–7,800 1993 30,000–45,000 1998-2003 Slovakia 600–900 1992 2,500–3,000 1996-2003 Slovenia 500< 1992-93 500–600 1992-1999 Spain 24–31 1993-94 ? Sweden 250–1,000 – 150–200 1999-2000 United 489 1993 821 2003 Kingdom

Evaluation: The population of the species has increased significantly over the last ten years partly due to targeted conservation management, partly due to the side effect of the decline in intensity of agriculture in some accession countries, especially in the Baltic States and non EU-countries like Belarus and the Russian Federation. However, many of the small breeding populations (e.g. France, Ireland, and Italy) have not recovered yet.

55 Protection Status The species is fully protected in all countries. National and regional species action plans National species action plans exist in Denmark, France, Latvia, the Netherlands, Slovakia and the UK and are in the final stage of development in Ireland and Slovenia. A plan is developed but not published in Italy. Unofficial action plans, written by NGOs, exist in Austria and Hungary. It is important to point out that there is no clear strategy for the species’ conservation in the countries where the majority of the EU population occur (i.e. Baltic States and Poland). Site protection Site designation: At least 176 SPAs support Corncrake, but this network covers no more than 2% of the total EU-25 population. This is because the total population of the old member states does not make up more than 10% of the total of the enlarged EU. In general, in Poland and the Baltic States only a small fraction of the national population is covered by protected areas17. By contrast, in Belgium SPAs provide almost full coverage of the national population and in many other Member States (e.g. Austria, France, Ireland, Germany and the UK) SPAs cover more than one third of the national population. Clearly effective conservation of the species will require a broader approach to habitat conservation in the new member states than in the old if the EU Corncrake population is to be maintained18. Management plans: Only 34 sites have some management plans that address somehow the species requirements, mostly in Austria and France. Other conservation, research and public awareness measures Integrating the species requirements into agriculture policies: Amongst the old EU member states, agro-environmental schemes address appropriate management of Corncrake habitats in Austria, Denmark, France, Luxembourg and some regions of Germany, but some of these countries have reported lack of clear targets. France has also reported that the incentives are not high enough to encourage farmers to carry out the appropriate habitat management measures. The situation is similar in the new member states, where the new agro-environmental schemes often support grassland management, but the measures are usually not specifically targeted at Corncrake (e.g. Estonia, Slovenia). However, some countries, e.g. the Czech Republic, have targeted some of the pilot agro-environmental projects under SAPARD at Corncrake habitats. There are well-targeted measures in place in Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK. It is worrying that countries with large populations of Corncrake have paid little attention to integrating the species requirements into their respective agricultural policies. Furthermore, in the new member states the understanding of the impacts of capital investment in agriculture

17 It is important to note that IBAs cover only around 12% of the EU population, which reflects the dispersed character of the species in countries with large populations. 18 It should be noted, however, that site accounts both in the Natura 2000 Database and in BirdLife’s Word Bird Database do not contain numeric information for this species in many cases; hence the contribution of these sites may be underestimated.

56 on the species has received no attention, although more capital will be made available in most new member states for agriculture than before accession. The species requirements are not taken into account in the formulation of policies on land tenure, farm reconstructing and investment aid for agriculture investment. Neither national policies, nor the Common Agricultural Policy, support labour-intensive, grass-based farming. The only notable exception is the Scottish National Rural Development Scheme that also supports capital work. Crofting laws, related to land tenure, also favour Corncrake in Scotland. The ÖPUL scheme in Austria also provides some incentives for investment in sympathetic farming. Technical advice for farmers: The situation is better in this respect. Advice is available for farmers mainly in relation to agro-environmental schemes or conservation bodies or NGOs e.g. in Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Slovakia and the UK. Restoration of habitat: In most countries, this occurs only at very small scale locally in Austria, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Germany. However, the restoration projects of Skjern River and Varde Ådal in Denmark aimed to attract Corncrake populations and were a great success, although perhaps only temporarily before vegetation succession excludes them out. In the UK, Scottish National Heritage has made considerable progress. Using eco-tourism to create incentives for favourable land management: Reported from Austria (affecting some 26% of the national population), Belgium (10%), Germany (locally at Murnauer Moos and Lower Odra), Ireland (some 80 birds) and the UK. Some initial steps were taken in Finland as well. No actions were taken in this direction in the Baltic countries and Poland. Raising awareness: The extent to which the general public is informed about Corncrake conservation seems to differ between countries depending on the attitude of national conservation organisations. In several countries, such as Austria, Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK the species has attracted the attention and support of decision makers. In quite a few areas, farmers implement conservation measures for the benefit of the species. It seems that the critical factors in achieving this are provision of information and availability of financial incentives. In some countries, local communities also feel ‘ownership’ of the species, such as in Austria, Wallonia, the Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Lithuania, and Slovenia. In the UK, the Corncrake's distribution restricted to a small and remote area. Within this area, large numbers of farmers/crofters have entered agro-environment schemes or other management schemes offering payments for corncrake management. Investigation into attitudes on the Argyll Islands (Edinburgh University) indicated farmers and crofters have positive views towards Corncrake conservation projects, partly because of increasing availability of financial incentives including Corncrake management schemes and benefits related to tourism. Improved relations between land managers and conservation organisations have helped to foster understanding and support. It seems that non-agricultural residents are also aware of the importance of their islands for the species. Austria has reported significant support from hunters because of benefits for co-existent species such as Pheasant, Grey Partridge, Roe Dear and Hare.

57 Research and Monitoring: Surveys are mostly implemented at key sites and the status of the species is now much better understood than when the action plan was originally prepared. The impact of mowing is studied in more detail in Austria, France, Germany, Ireland, Slovakia, Slovenia and the UK. Survival rate data of juveniles and adults are usually not available except for France and the UK. In other countries, it is mostly not surveyed due to high resource requirements. The ecological requirements of the species in habitats subject to infrequent habitat management is understood in the Czech Republic, at Les Basses Vallées Angevines in France, Germany and the UK. Surprisingly, there are no studies in the new member states where land abandonment is potentially a big issue. Effectiveness of conservation measures is well understood in Austria, Denmark, France, Hungary, Ireland and the UK. The impact of predation was studied in Ireland to some extent and earlier in the UK. The association of Corncrake with other flora and fauna was studied in several countries. Community support Corncrake is the subject of agro-environmental measures that are usually co-funded as part of the national Rural Development Plans under the Common Agricultural Policy. A large number of LIFE projects have been justified by Corncrake conservation. Altogether 50 projects in Austria (5), Belgium (5) Denmark (2), Estonia (4), Finland (5) France (7), Germany (9), Romania (3), Ireland (1), Italy (1), Latvia (2), Luxembourg (1), The Netherlands (1), Slovenia (2) and Sweden (1) claimed to protect or restore Corncrake habitats with a total budget of € 69,880,373 including € 37,864,719 Community co-funding. These projects included a large number of river or bog restoration projects and only a few were explicitly targeted at the species. Conclusions There has been some progress in the implementation of the action plan (Average IS=2.14), especially in countries with smaller populations. However, the countries with large populations, i.e. Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, lack a proactive conservation strategy for the species, which could easily lead to a sudden decline of the population in its current strongholds. The most important measures for the conservation of the species are: • To introduce incentives for appropriate land management targeted more specifically at the conservation of the species, covering a high percentage of its range, especially in the new member states; • Cross-compliance management rules should take into account the requirements of the species (e.g. not to cut the area before the end of the breeding season). Contributors: Johannes Frühauf, Andreas Ranner, Wim Van den Bossche, Jean-Paul Jacob, Jan Hora, David Lacina, Vaclav Zamecnik, Eva Cepakova, Timme Nyegaard, Jarl Krausing, Andres Kalamees, Andrus Kuus, Margus Ellermaa, Bernard Deceuninck, Sándor Boldogh, Balázs Szabó, Gergő Halmos, Gábor Magyar, András Schmidt, Alex Copland, Christine Croton, Ariel Brunner, Marco Gustin, Oskars Keišs, Edmunds Racinskis, Liutauras Raudonikis, Petras Kurlavicius, Patric Lorgé, Ruud van Beusekom, Pawel Sidlo, Bogumila Blaszkowska, Miroslav Demko, Luka Bozic, Björn Welander, Torsten Larsson, Julian Hughes, Paul Walton, Helen Byron.

58 Great Bustard Otis tarda

Status Target: The action plan aims to maintain the existing populations of the Great Bustard throughout its range in the short term. In the medium to long term it aims to allow for population growth and range expansion. Status: Although the current population estimate, 25,236 – 25,934 individuals, is significantly higher than the figures available at the time of drafting the action plan (15,815 – 16,535 individuals), the species overall population in the EU has not increased in reality. The higher figures for Spain only represent better estimates19 and this population, together with the Portuguese and Hungarian ones can be only regarded as more or less stable. The Austrian, and to a lesser extent the German, populations have increased. On the other hand, the species is on the verge of extinction now in the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Population in Current Country SAP Year population Year (individuals) (individuals) Austria 50 – 60 1994 74 – 140 2003 Czech 10 – 15 1994 0 – 4 2002 Republic Germany 130 1994 60 – 82 2003 Hungary 1,100 – 1,300 1994 1,100 – 1,200 2002 Portugal 1,000 1994 1,000 – 1,500 2003 Slovakia 25 – 30 1994 2 – 8 2002 Spain 13,500 – 14,000 1994 23,000 2002

Evaluation: Overall, despite significant efforts, the targets of the action plan have not been achieved because the overall reduction in range continues. Some of the populations are exposed to new threats such as the development of wind farms in Austria and Germany. Protection Status The species is fully protected across Europe, although it is still listed as a game species in Germany and Austria, but without an open season for hunting. It was removed from the list of game species in the Czech Republic in 2001. National and regional species action plans National species action plans exist in Austria, Hungary, Portugal and Slovakia. Although in Spain regional authorities should have prepared at least management plans for the species, no plan has yet been officially approved.

19 Alonso, J.C., Palacín, C. & Martín, C.A. 2003. Status and recent trends of great bustard (Otis tarda) population in the Iberian peninsula. Biological Conservation 110: 185-195.

59 Site protection Designation: Site protection measures are implemented to different degrees across the EU- 25. In Spain, where the vast majority of the species occur, approximately 60-70% of the national population is included in SPAs. (For comparison, 66% is included in IBAs). However, 11 IBAs, supporting some 1,500 birds (i.e. c. 5% of the national population), are not designated as SPAs. In Austria, Germany and Portugal most of the national population occurs in protected areas that are also designated as SPAs. In Portugal, however, there are three IBAs holding at least 130 birds, which are not yet designated as protected areas. In Hungary, a large part of the species range will soon be covered by SPAs but pre-accession only part of the area used by the species had the status of protected area, covering c. 1,000 birds. In the Czech Republic and Slovenia, the sites of the remaining population are not protected. In Slovakia the Sysľovské fields are identified as a proposed SPA. Management plans: Designated sites usually do not have management plans in Spain and Portugal. In Germany, the main population at Unteres Rhinluch-Dreetzer See, Havelländisches Luch, Belziger Landschaftswiesen is covered by a management plan which especially addresses the requirements of the species. In Hungary, most of the Great Bustard areas have management plans which address the conservation needs of the species, although many of these plans are not adopted officially under Hungarian legislation. In Austria, the preparation of management plans just started in 2003. Other conservation, research and public awareness measures Habitat conservation: One of the main reasons of the species’ decline is the decrease of suitable habitats due to the intensification of agriculture and fragmentation of the habitat. Most countries have made some steps to integrate the species requirements into national agriculture policy and provide incentives for extensification. In Spain, several agro-environmental programmes and measures have been applied with different intensity in Castilla y León, Castilla-La Mancha, Andalucía, Madrid, Aragón, Navarra and Extremadura and it is estimated that they affect some 18,000 birds, although the effectiveness of these measures were not specifically monitored. In Portugal traditional agricultural practices and extensification schemes are only implemented in the Castro Verde region, although this covers some 90% of the national population. However, this scheme is currently loosing its attractiveness to farmers due recent changes in the zonal programme because forestry measures are becoming economically more beneficial. In Germany financial support is available to farmers for extensification and it covers about 50% of the conservation area affecting some 55 birds. Agriculture practices can be effectively adapted to the species needs only in the core area, but it is more difficult for commercial farmers. In Austria the national agro-environmental scheme supports measures relevant for Great Bustard conservation over 5,500 hectares, which costs about two million Euro annually. In Hungary, appropriate habitat management is ensured through the lease contracts of state owned protected areas and through four pilot zonal agro-environmental programmes implemented since 2002.These provide only partial coverage, though post-accession, coverage of the agro-environmental schemes will significantly increase. The Moson Project successfully demonstrated the benefits of large-scale set-aside schemes and now is used as a model to be expanded to other areas with LIFE support. . In Slovakia habitat conservation measures are restricted to some 70 hectares of land rented by the State Nature Conservancy.

60 In general, most countries undertook some habitat conservation measures, but these provide only partial coverage and a substantial increase in funding and coverage would be necessary to change the negative trends. Most Central European countries have taken some measures to provide oil seed rape and alfalfa to avoid massive losses of wintering Great Bustards. Habitat fragmentation is relatively poorly addressed in most countries. Environmental and other appropriate assessments provide a legal framework in most countries to evaluate impacts of certain projects and plans, especially if they are to be implemented in designated areas. In this respect expansion of SPA coverage has great importance. Usually, afforestation requires impact assessment only above certain thresholds. There are both positive and negative examples of taking into account the species requirements during construction of new roads. The transboundary population of Austria, Hungary and Slovakia is now completely surrounded by motorways. With the expansion of the Trans European Transport network and funds available to up-grade field roads this risk is expected to increase further. Only some limited measures were taken to tackle the risk of collision with power lines in Portugal, Spain, Germany, Austria and Slovakia, mainly because of the high costs of these measures. Wind farms are reported as a new threat not covered by the action plan from Austria and Germany. Species management: Nest safeguard or rescue and captive management measures were applied only in a few countries, mainly Germany and Hungary. These measures can play only a complementary role to habitat conservation. Another significant risk for Great Bustards is predation by foxes, Corvidae, wild boar, etc., especially for the smaller populations in Central Europe. Predator control is implemented, with varying effectiveness in Austria, Germany, Hungary and Spain. A general problem with predator control is that it covers only a part of the national Great Bustard population and therefore requires regular repetition. Research and monitoring: The national population is usually well monitored using standardized methods with the exception of Spain and the Czech Republic. There is significant progress on research issues identified in the action plan (e.g. factors influencing breeding success and mortality factors) in most countries. There is transboundary collaboration on the species between Austria, Hungary and Slovakia as well as between Spain and Portugal; however, practically no comparative studies have been carried out between different populations. Awareness raising: The species is widely used as a flagship species for extensive farming in all countries where it still regularly breeds, with strong awareness campaigns targeting farmers and land owners in Austria, Hungary, Germany and, to a lesser extent, in Spain and Portugal. Community financial support The species has benefited from various Community financial assistances. Agro- environmental schemes provide incentives for sympathetic habitat management in Spain, Portugal, Germany, Austria and Hungary. However, most schemes suffer from budgetary limits and competition with other subsidies. Budgetary limits often lead to inadequate coverage of the area (Hungary), unattractive levels of payments (Portugal) or compromised management prescriptions (Hungary). Interreg has also provided funding to the conservation

61 of the species in Portugal and Spain (2,656,810 EUR) as well as in Austria and Hungary (247,127 EUR). LIFE has made also a significant contribution to the conservation of the species. There were two projects in Germany (LIFE92 NAT/D/004838, LIFE94 NAT/D/000500), three in Portugal (LIFE92 NAT/P/013900, LIFE95 NAT/P/000178, LIFE02 NAT/P/8476) and five in Spain (LIFE96 NAT/E/003080, LIFE96 NAT/E/003102, LIFE99 NAT/E/006350, LIFE00 NAT/E/007327, LIFE00 NAT/E/007348). The majority of these projects purchased key areas for the species, influenced land management and tackled threats posed by infrastructure, such as power lines. The total budget of these projects was € 13,175,579 including € 7,809,524 Community funding. Conclusions Significant progress has been made in the implementation of the action plan (Average IS= 2.55). However, there are big differences between different countries. Conservation efforts are more intensive in countries with small but still more or less viable populations (i.e. Austria, Germany, Hungary, Portugal). There are more gaps in implementation in Spain and especially in the countries with populations are on the verge of extinction. To achieve the targets of the action plan further efforts are needed in the following areas: • The geographic scope and funding of the agro-environmental schemes needs to be expanded. The impact of the schemes should be closely monitored and management prescriptions shall be adapted accordingly to the outcome of the monitoring • More effective arrangements are necessary to address predation in the case of small populations to assist their recovery, especially if habitat management is tackled efficiently; • More attention should be paid to the effective prevention of collision with power lines especially in small populations that are less able to compensate the losses, even if it is less “cost effective”. Contributors: Rainer Raab, Andreas Ranner, Eva Cepakova, Vlasta Skorpikova, David Horal, Imre Fatér, Sándor Faragó, Balázs Szabó, Gergő Halmos, Gábor Magyar, Torsten Langgemach, Holger Schielzeth, Christoph Südfeldt, Inka Gnittke, Jozef Chavko, Rastislav Rybanič, Carlota Viada, Juan Carlos Alonso, Borja Heredia, Ignacio Navascués, Manuel Alcántara, Javier Forcada, Alejandro Urmeneta, Javier Martín, Luis Robles, Francisco Jiménez, Atanasio Fernández, Luis Prada, Miguel Aymerich, Pedro Geraldes and Pedro Rocha.

62 Houbara Bustard Chlamydotis undulata

Status Targets: The action plan aimed to maintain the range and the population of the Canary Islands’ Houbara Bustards at no less than the 1994 levels. In the medium to long term, to promote an increase in the population and expansion of its range. Status changes: The last population estimates are available from 1994 and the status of the species is poorly known.

Population in Current Country SAP Year population Year (individuals) (individuals) Spain 700 – 750 1992 527 1994

Evaluation: Therefore, it is not possible to evaluate status change, although the Spanish government has assumed slight increase in its report to the Bern Convention in 2002. Protection Status The species is included in both the regional and the national catalogues of threatened species under the category of 'Endangered of Extinction'. National and regional species action plans In 1985, a draft Recovery Plan was elaborated, but still not officially approved. However, it is used in practice. Site protection Site designation: There are seven SPAs selected for the species, covering 70,238 ha, which hold 182 – 202 individuals (36% of the total population), while the nine IBAs support 346 – 348 birds (68%). The two unprotected IBAs, Plains of Mareta-Hoya de la Yegua and Plains of La Corona-Las Honduras, hold 20 and 72-82 birds respectively. However, the procedure for SPA designation is not finished in the Canaries, and the regional government is elaborating a new proposal with more SPAs for the species. Management plans: None of the protected areas has officially approved management plans. The number of wardens for key sites is less than the target set in the action plan and it has even decreased in recent years. The EIA procedure does not guarantee the conservation of the critical areas for the species and therefore does not ensure avoidance or reduction of the negative incidence of building or other construction in critical areas. Illegal constructions also happen in critical areas for the species. There is already some land purchased in Lajares, Fuerteventura Island, affecting 45 individuals. In addition, the LIFE project carried out by SEO/BirdLife with the support of the Regional Government, the Cabildo de Lanzarote and RSPB, will buy an estate in Fuerteventura in 2004.

63 Other conservation, research and public awareness measures Agro-environmental support has been used to support cultivation of alfalfa and other plants, mainly in Fuerteventura, between 1996 and 2003 and it is estimated to benefit nearly half of the population on the island. Reducing disturbance caused by off-road driving and military operations: There has been no significant progress in reducing the off-road driving; however, meetings with the military have taken place to avoid manoeuvres in critical areas during breeding the season. Stop illegal hunting: Although some hunting refuges have been declared, protection is inadequate. On Fuerteventura Island two people develop wardening activity. Reducing collision with power lines: The most critical sectors of power lines have not been identified and no corrective measures have been implemented yet. Preventing predation by feral dogs and cats: No progress. Monitoring and research: The last complete census was carried out in 1994, after the development of the species action plan. In the next four years, as part of the LIFE project carried out by SEO/BirdLife with the support of the Regional Government, the Cabildo de Lanzarote and RSPB, a complete census will be carried out and critical areas will be identified. This, and future censuses will use the standardised census methods available since the 1994 census. There has been very little progress on research, only some studies on habitat use carried out in the mid-90s by La Laguna University and the Regional Government. Public awareness and education: Some educational and awareness materials have been edited by the Regional Government (video, leaflet and a poster) and the Fuerteventura island authorities -Cabildo- (posters, sticker and school booklet). Fuerteventura island authorities - Cabildo- has carried out talks to different schools on the island and an educational campaign in 2003. The new LIFE project will include an educational and awareness raising campaign. Community financial support So far two LIFE projects have addressed the conservation of the species (LIFE93 NAT/E/010900 and LIFE03 NAT/E/000046). The total budget of these projects was € 1,898,322 including € 1,338,741 Community contribution. Conclusions There has been some progress in the implementation of the action plan (Average IS=2.04), however, the status of the species has not improved. Key gaps listed below are expected to be solved by the implementation of the new LIFE project: • Inadequate legal status, funding and staffing for the implementation of recovery plan ; • Inadequate knowledge of the species’ distribution and ecology; • Insufficient site protection. Contributors: Christina Gonzales, Elena Mateo, Luis Pascual, Ana Calero, Juan Antonio Lorenzo Gutiérrez, Alberto Madroño, Borja Heredia.

64 Slender-billed Curlew Numenius tenuirostris

Status Targets: In the short term, to prevent the extinction of the Slender-billed Curlew. In the medium term, to prevent any further decrease of the population. In the long term to secure a significant increase in the numbers of the Slender-billed Curlew. Status: The population estimate has been reduced to less than 50 individuals and no confirmed records are known since 1999 although at least 1-6 unverified records are reported every year since 1998 year, of which only three are from EU countries: Greece, Spain and Hungary.

Number of Recent records Country Years Last record records in SAP (1994-2004) Hungary 85 1903 -1991 2 1995 Italy 76 1900-93 2 1996 Greece 70 1918-93 13 1999 Spain 6 1962-80 - - Overall 50 – 270- ind. 1994 population estimate <50 2004

Evaluation: With regard to the decline of the population and of records during migration or wintering, it can be concluded that the action plan’s targets have not been achieved. Protection Status The species is legally protected in all relevant member states, as are look-alike species i.e. species of the genera Numenius and Limosa, but Numenius species are reportedly still shot in some areas of Greece and Italy. International and national species action plans There is a MoU under the CMS signed by all EU Member States. There is a national species action plan in place only in Italy. Site protection Site designation: In Italy all IBAs where the species has been observed have some level of national or international (Ramsar) protection, although the coverage should be improved. Eight out of nine IBAs are (at least largely) covered by SPAs. In Greece, all 14 IBAs are covered to variable extents by SPAs. In Spain, the only IBA/key site is the Guadalquivir Marshes 25% of which are covered by an SPA and by national protections instruments. In Hungary all key sites are protected.

Management plans: Only 15 out of 90 protected sites have some sort of management plan. All of them are in Italy.

65 Other conservation, research and public awareness measures Habitat conservation: The low percentage of management plans in place results in a lack of habitat management. The species seems to use a fairly wide range of habitats ranging from salt marshes and steppes to mudflats and arable fields. Detailed analysis of the habitat selection and recommendations on habitat management have been developed in the frame of a LIFE programme in Greece Research and Monitoring: All key sites are regularly monitored. Rarities committees evaluate all records. Ornithologists and birders are widely aware of the rarity of the species and the importance to report any possible sighting. Satellite tracking is still technically not an option and the lack of regularly used sites makes it impossible to implement any use of such technology. Currently research is under way to identify the breeding areas from the stable isotopes of feathers of juveniles from specimens in museums. Preliminary results seem to show that the main breeding area was in Kazakhstan where habitat has suffered enormous changes during the 20th century. Awareness raising: Awareness raising material targeted at? was produced in Greece in the framework of a LIFE programme. No awareness raising activities have been carried out aimed at the general public or hunters. Awareness among the birding community has been raised through talks at international ornithological conferences and at AEWA MOP, with articles in the CMS and AEWA newsletters and messages sent to several birding e-groups so that virtually all (possible) observations are reported. Community financial support LIFE has supported five site protection projects in Greece and one in Italy that benefited the species. The total budget of these projects was € 6,202,985 including € 3,927,059 Community co-funding. Conclusions The number of confirmed records has declined since the publication of the SAP and the total population estimate is now at > 50 individuals. No wintering areas are currently known (the last site in Morocco has not been used by the birds since the late 1990s). Further actions are needed: • To ensure the appropriate protection and management of all key sites; • To reduce the risk of hunting-related mortality, improving awareness and identification skills among hunters and strengthening law enforcement on legal protection; • To maintain the interest and attention of ornithologist to report any record of the species. Contributors: Umberto Gallo-Orsi, Stavroula Papoulia, George Handrinos, Balázs Szabó, Gergő Halmos, Gábor Magyar, András Schmidt, Ariel Brunner, Marco Gustin.

66 Audouin’s Gull Larus audounii

Status Targets: In the short term to maintain the current population of Audouin's Gull throughout its range. In the medium to long term, to conserve suitable habitats in order to promote the expansion of the species’ range and numbers particularly in smaller colonies. Status: The species is stable, fluctuating or increasing in all EU Member States. There is no country with a declining population. The current EU population estimate is higher than at the time of writing the action plan. The species is a new breeder in Portugal.

Population in Current Country SAP Year population Year (pairs) (pairs) Cyprus 10–20 1993 15–30 1998-2002 France 90 1993 56–92 1998-2001 Greece 200–300 1993 750–900 1995-2000 Italy 550–650 1993 510–982 1999-2000 Portugal 0 1993 25–30 2002-2003 Spain 14,000 1993 16,957 2000

Evaluation: The short, medium and long term targets of the action plan have been achieved. The species has expanded its range and it is expected that new colonies will be found. However, the fisheries in the Ebro Delta, which are thought to be responsible for the population increase, are regarded as unsustainable and their collapse would probably result in a rapid decline of the dependent breeding population. Protection Status The species is protected in all member states. National and regional species action plans A national species action plan has been developed only in Italy. In Spain, a national strategy has not been developed, as the legal status of the species is only "Of Special Interest" in the National Catalogue. However, a working group for the species has met annually since 1999 coordinated by the Ministry of Environment, with the attendance of the regional governments, conservationists and the Ministry of Environment. Site protection Site designation: The key sites for the species have high coverage of protected areas in most member states. There are 39 SPAs classified for the species supporting some 16,000–17,000 pairs. Four breeding IBAs (Coast between Cape Teulada and Pula, Flumendosa and Colostrai pools, Coast from Coghinas river-mouth to Cape Testa, Islands and headlands of South- Eastern Sardinia) holding 210-236 individuals are not protected in Italy. The most important wintering sites in the Mediterranean (Columbretes Islands, Wetlands at South Alicante; Almería coastal wetlands) are also protected.

67 Management plans. Management plans cover only 19 sites. The majority of the Spanish population is well protected from human disturbance through specific rules attached to SPA designation. However, Italy, France and especially Greece have reported difficulties with regulating human access. Other conservation, research and public awareness measures Habitat conservation Fisheries: The effects of fishing policies and regulations on population numbers and breeding biology have been extensively documented in Spain. Measures are being developed to prevent accidental bycatch of seabirds by long-liners. Data were also collected in the framework of a LIFE project in Greece. No progress has been made in this respect in France, Italy and Portugal. Sea pollution control: In France new rules have been in place since 2000 in response to the Erika spill. In Greece, MARPOL, Barcelona Convention, Biosafety Protocol are all signed but poorly enforced. A National Contingency Plan was compiled by the Ministry of Commercial Shipping (2000) under the MARPOL protocols and Barcelona Convention. However, no regional or local contingency plans exist for specific protected areas (e.g. SPAs, etc). In Portugal, oil spills are prevented by law, but enforcement is problematic. In Spain, increasing efforts are made in relation to purification of sewage. However, heavy metals accumulated in marine sediments in the past are enough to provide long term pollution of bottom fish. Integrated Coastal Zone Management and land use planning: The main tool for influencing land use changes is EIA, especially in relation to protected areas. It is reported to function poorly in Greece. The Catalan government is planning to establish a global plan for the whole coast; however, the time schedule is not yet established. Species management: Culling programmes have been applied to control Yellow-legged gull Larus michaellis numbers in some colonies. At other places, they are currently planned (Chafarinas, Balearic Islands, Alborán Island). A programme for the control of terrestrial mammals (mainly badgers and foxes) is being implemented at the Ebro Delta. A number of campaigns to control Yellow-legged Gull productivity have been undertaken or designed (I. Grossa, Columbretes, Chafarinas). Significant progress has been made and further research is being carried out to establish threshold numbers for Yellow-legged Gull that may allow the coexistence of both species. Some measures were also taken in Italy. No significant competition problems were found in Greece during research carried out in the framework of the LIFE projects. It has been reported that egg collecting is not a serious problem anymore. Nevertheless, colonies are kept under surveillance in Spain, but not in other countries. Research and Monitoring: Colonies are mostly well monitored with the exception of Greece, where this was only possible in the framework of the LIFE project. An intensive colour-banding programme - has been implemented since 1988 to understand the dynamics of each colony within a metapopulation frame; birds are marked in Spain, Italy, France and Greece.

68 The extent and location of wintering is well monitored by a wide web of amateur observers along the Spanish Mediterranean coast. Much less is known about colonies from the central and eastern Mediterranean. Some progress has been made in understanding breeding biology and colony-site selection at many colonies, but colony-site selection is poorly understood throughout its breeding range. Some assessments have been carried out in a few colonies (Columbretes, some Balearic colonies) but very little is still known about the habitat requirements of the species. Habitat characterisation studies were also undertaken in Portugal, Greece and Italy. Some predictive models have been developed involving one or two colonies. Diet has been well studied and found to be highly dependent on human fisheries all over the western Mediterranean. Diet has been studied to a lesser extent in the eastern and central Mediterranean. Important aspects that still need to be known in more detail include the permanence of breeders in colonies that receive large wintering numbers, the role of wintering birds as colonizers, the influence of winter fishing (purse-seine) moratoria on the extent of wintering in particular locations, etc. Community support LIFE has supported 11 projects targeted at the species. The total budget of these projects was € 15,642,183 including € 9,208,314 Community co-funding. Five of these projects were explicitly targeted at the species (four in Spain, one in Greece), while six others had a broader scope of island or coastal zone conservation or were targeted at other species such as Monk Seal or Eleonora’s Falcon but benefited the species in Greece. Conclusions Significant progress has been made on the implementation of the action plan (average implementation score is 2.01). It is important to point out that the level of implementation is even higher in Spain where the vast majority of the European population can be found. However, the implementation of the action plan is lagging behind in other countries. Integrating the species’ requirements into wider policies such as fisheries, coastal development and control of sea pollution requires more attention in the future. A new, measureable target needs to be also defined for the plan. Contributors: Daniel Oro, Alejandro Martinez-Abrain, Bernard Deceuninck, Stavroula Papoulia, George Handrinos, Danae Portolou, Ariel Brunner, Marco Gustin, Pedro Geraldes, Miguel Lecoq, Ricard Gutiérrez, Javier Zapata, Josep Cardà, Juan Carlos Nevado, Jordi Muntaner, Matías García, Borja Heredia, Alberto Madroño.

69 Madeira Laurel Pigeon Columba trocaz

Status Targets: In the short term, to maintain the population of Madeira Laurel Pigeon at no fewer than 3,500 individuals. In the medium term, to ensure its continued increase towards occupying all suitable habitats in Madeira. In the long term, to enable the recolonisation of areas of its former range through habitat restoration. Status: The conservation status has improved in recent years and now the species occupies all of its former areas in Madeira. However, Porto Santo is not occupied yet due to lack of suitable habitat. The species population is fluctuating widely.

Population in Current Country SAP Year population Year (pairs) (pairs) Portugal 3,500 – 4,900 1994 4,142 – 16,910 2002

Evaluation: The short term objective of the management plan has been achieved and the population continues to increase. However, the long term target has been not yet achieved. Protection Status The species has been protected since 199120 under national legislation. No measures were taken to list the species on Annex II of the Bern Convention, instead of Annex III. National and regional species action plans The species recovery plan should have been incorporated into the national or regional legislation. Instead, the Action Plan will be incorporated in the management plan currently being prepared for the two SPAs. Site protection Site designation: Practically the entire population of the species occurs in two IBAs, Laurissilva (IBA PT083) and Maciço Montanhoso Oriental (IBA PT084). Both sites are fully classified as SPAs and protected under national law. The Laurissilva is also designated as an UNESCO World Heritage Site. Some 75% of the population is in strictly protected areas (integral reserves). Management plans: The protected areas are not covered by a management plan yet; however, it is in preparation now. Other conservation, research and public awareness measures Habitat conservation: Extinction on Porto Santo and historical declines on Madeira were directly related to forest destruction for wood, agriculture, grazing and human settlements. Now, works are well under way to restore laurel forests in Madeira, but not in Porto Santo. Livestock grazing is prevented in most of the area (c. 95%) populated by the species.

20 Decreto Lei 75/91.

70 However, no action has been taken to prevent fires posing risks to laurel forest regeneration. Habitat selection of the species is now well understood.

Hunting and poisoning compounded the effects of habitat loss and they continue illegally in a few well-defined areas, especially on agricultural land. However, now wardening is in place. No compensation measures or acquisition of key agricultural areas were undertaken to reduce the conflict with farming interests, but scarers and mist nets were provided to farmers. In response to farmers’ protests, the regional government authorised limited culling of the species. Predator control: The species is possibly limited by predation of black rat Rattus rattus. A general ‘no litter’ campaign was implemented throughout the Madeira Islands in 2002. Population dynamics of rats in the laurel forest was studied, but there were no specific measures taken to monitor the effectiveness of rat control. Research and Monitoring: The population is monitored on a bi-annual basis and its population dynamics and breeding ecology are well studied. Awareness raising: A public awareness campaign was undertaken and the establishment of an information department within the Madeira Natural Park is having a positive effect. Community financial support The species conservation was assisted by three LIFE projects. One included the setting up of the Madeira Nature Park (LIFE92 NAT/P/014200). The other two, ‘Measures for the Management and Conservation of the Laurisilva Forest of Madeira’ (LIFE97 NAT/P/004082) and ‘Recovery of Madeira's priority habitats and species’ (LIFE98 NAT/P/005236), had a wider scope, but included measures related to controlling agriculture damage and rats and to public awareness. The total budget of these projects was € 1,466,565 including € 863,913 Community co-funding. Conclusions Significant progress has been made on implementation of the species action plan (NIS = 2.94). LIFE funding has played a crucial role in implementing the recommendations of action plans, however significant gaps remain. In this respect the following can be highlighted: • Strengthening the legal status of the species recovery plan; • Finding other solutions than culling to crop damages caused by the species; • Starting restoration of laurel forest habitat at Porto Santo to facilitate the achievement of the long term target of the action plan. Contributors: Pedro Geraldes and Dília Menezes

71 Dark-tailed Laurel Pigeon Columba bollii

Status Targets: In the short-term to maintain the population and in the medium term, to promote expansion of its range. Status: The size and trend of the species’ population is still poorly known, but slight increase is assumed.

Population in Current Country SAP Year population Year (pairs) (individuals) Spain 1,150 – 1,700 1985 2,500 – 9,99921 1996 – 2003

Evaluation: Short-term targets are achieved. Protection Status Included in the 2001 official Regional Threatened Species List as 'Sensible to habitat alteration'. This new category requires approval of a Habitat Conservation Plan, which has to be formulated. National and regional species action plans In 1994 the Regional Government started a conservation programme for both laurel pigeons, with the support of two LIFE projects (1995-1996 and 1997-2000) that included habitat restoration, wardening, research, awareness campaign, etc. However, the plan was not officially approved. Site protection Designation: Most of the population is included in protected sites under regional legislation and, to a lesser extent, as SPAs. However, as a result of recent studies (LIFE 1995-1996 and 1997-2000) on its distribution and conservation status, new sites have been discovered, mainly in La Palma but also in La Gomera; they are not yet protected. Few hunting reserves have been designated; some of the existing ones have even been degazetted. Although the regional authorities have bought some estates where the species is present, more still need to be managed primarily for the species. Management planning: Around 25% of protected sites for the species have officially approved management plans. Human activities and recreation at important areas for the species continue, thus rubbish has accumulated and led to increases in rats, feral cats, etc. Other conservation, research and public awareness measures Habitat conservation: Commercial forestry has decreased, but still occurs in important areas for the species, particularly La Palma islands.

21 Refers to no actual figures, only represents the estimated size of the population.

72 Some programmes of habitat restoration have been carried out (LIFE 1995-1996), as well as other indirect measures, but they are still insufficient. As part of one LIFE project (1995- 1996), there were different programmes to promote the re-colonisation of laurel forest by cutting down aloctonous pinewood (Regional Government, through a LIFE Project and also the Tenerife Island Authorities -Cabildo- and, to a lesser extent, also La Palma authorities). It is necessary to reinforce these activities all over the range of the species, particularly in those degraded areas whose restoration is a priority for the species. The restoration of thermopile forests at the important sites is also a priority. A study was carried out between 1995 and 1996 to find alternatives to forestry materials from laurel forest used by farmers. An awareness campaign was then developed (1997-2000) to promote these alternatives. A new study on social and economic elements of forestry exploitation at La Palma Island was also carried out. Drinking points: some have been installed in laurel forest areas, as part of a LIFE project (1995-1996), but more are still needed. Prevention of illegal hunting: Several awareness campaigns have been carried out targeted at the hunting sector. Between 1996 and 2000 a specific vigilance programme was implemented at Tenerife Island (particularly at Las Lagunetas Protected Landscape). However, this was insufficient, and efforts should be increased. Reinforced vigilance efforts are needed all over the range of the species, at least during the hunting season. The awareness campaigns should be also continued. Health control of imported birds: This measure has not been implemented. Monitoring and Research: The conservation status of the populations in Tenerife, La Gomera, La Palma and El Hierro island was surveyed from 1996 to 1999 in the framework of a LIFE project. The survey aimed to establish the distribution range of the species, to determine its abundance at different areas, to understand better the possible relationship between abundance and habitat features and to identify the most important threats. According to the experts, it is almost impossible to have more detailed estimates of the population size. A study on breeding success was carried out in Tenerife in 1995. Predation by Rattus rattus was the main factor causing breeding failure for both laurel pigeon species, but particularly for White-tailed Laurel Pigeon. However, other possible causes still need to be researched. Public awareness: Several awareness and education campaigns have been carried out targeted at the local population. Some public awareness materials (leaflets, stickers, posters, videos, etc.) were produced to support these activities. A monographic book on the 'Endemic pigeons of the Canaries' has been also published and widely distributed. Community financial support Two LIFE projects have been targeted at the species. The total budget of these projects was € 2,112,343 and the total LIFE contribution was € 1,584,257. As outlined above, these projects have helped to implement different aspects of the action plan. Conclusions There has been significant progress in the implementation of the action plan (Average IS = 2.4). However, further measures are still needed especially in the field of: • Proper designation and management of key areas; • Restoration of laurel forest and further reducing negative impacts of commercial forestry; • Preventing illegal hunting.

73

Contributors: Christina Gonzales, Aurelio Martín, Miguel A. Hernández, Juan Antonio Lorenzo Gutiérrez, Alberto Madroño, Borja Heredia.

74 White-tailed Laurel Pigeon Columba junoniae

Status Targets: In the short-term to maintain the population and in the medium to long term, to promote expansion of its range. Status: The size and trend of the species’ population is still poorly known.

Population in Current Country SAP Year population Year (pairs) (pairs) Spain 1,240 – 1,480 1985 1,000-2,49922 1996 – 2003

Evaluation: It is not possible to judge whether targets were reached or not. Protection Status In 2001 the official Regional Threatened Species List included this species as 'Sensible to habitat alteration'. This new category requires the approval of a Habitat Conservation Plan, which has yet to been formulated. National and regional species action plans In 1994 the Regional Government started a conservation programme for both laurel pigeons, with the support of two different LIFE projects (1995-1996 and 1997-2000), that included habitat restoration, wardening, research, awareness campaign, etc. The plan was not officially approved. Site protection Designation: Most of the species’ population is included in protected sites under regional legislation and, to a lesser extent, under SPAs. However, as a result of recent new studies (LIFE 1995-1996 and 1997-2000) on its distribution and conservation status, new sites for the species have been discovered, mainly in La Palma and, to a lesser extent, also in La Gomera. These are not yet protected. Although the regional authorities have bought some estates where the species is present, more still need to be managed primarily for the species’. Few hunting reserves have been designated in areas where this is species is present and some of the existing ones have even been degazetted. Management planning: Around 25% of the protected sites for the species have officially approved management plans. Human activities and recreation at important areas for the species have not been diverted away, leading to rubbish accumulation and increases in rats, feral cats, etc.

22 Refers to no actual figures, only represents the estimated size of the population.

75 Other conservation, research and public awareness measures Forestry: Commercial forestry has decreased, but still takes place in important areas for the species, particularly in La Palma islands (Garafía, Puntallana, Santa Cruz de La Palma, etc.). Some programmes of habitat restoration have been carried out (LIFE 1995-1996), as well as other indirect measures, but they are still insufficient. As part of one LIFE project (1995-1996), there have been various programmes to promote the re-colonisation of laurel forest by cutting down aloctonous pinewood (Regional Government, through a LIFE Project and also the Tenerife Island Authorities -Cabildo- and, to a lesser extent, also La Palma authorities). It is necessary to reinforce these activities throughout the range of the species, particularly in those degraded areas where restoration is a priority for the species. The restoration of thermopile forests at the important sites is also a priority. A study was carried out between 1995 and 1996 to find alternatives to forestry materials from laurel forest used by farmers. An awareness campaign was then developed (1997-2000) to promote these alternatives. A new study on social and economic elements of forestry exploitation at La Palma Island was also carried out. Drinking points: some have been installed in laurel forest areas, as part of a LIFE project (1995-1996), but there are still not enough. Prevention of illegal hunting: Several awareness campaigns have been carried out targeted at the hunting sector. Between 1996 and 2000 a specific vigilance programme was implemented at Tenerife Island (particularly at Las Lagunetas Protected Landscape).This programme was insufficient, and efforts should be increased. Reinforced vigilance efforts are needed all over the range of the species, at least during the hunting season. The awareness campaigns should be also continued. Health control of imported birds: This measure has not been implemented. Monitoring and Research: The distribution and conservation status of the different populations in Tenerife, La Gomera, La Palma and El Hierro island was surveyed between 1996 and 1999 in the framework of a LIFE project. The survey aimed to establish the distribution range of the species, to determine its abundance at different areas, to understand better the possible relationship between abundance and habitat features and to identify the most important threats. According to the experts, it is almost impossible to have more detailed population estimates. A study of breeding success was carried out at Tenerife in 1995. Predation by Rattus rattus was identified as the main cause of breeding failure for both laurel pigeon species, but particularly for the White-tailed Laurel Pigeon. However, other possible causes still need to be researched. Public awareness: Several awareness and education campaigns have been carried out targeted at the local population. Some public awareness materials (leaflets, stickers, posters, videos, etc.) were produced to support these activities. A monographic book on the 'Endemic pigeons of the Canaries' has been also published and widely distributed. Community financial support Two LIFE projects have been targeted at the species (LIFE94 NAT/E/001154, LIFE96 NAT/E/003095). The total budget of these projects was € 2,112,343 and the total LIFE

76 contribution was € 1,584,257. LIFE has played a crucial role in helping implementation of many recommendations of the action plan. Conclusions There has been significant progress in the implementation of the action plan (Average IS=2.38). However, further measures are still needed especially in the field of: • Proper designation and management of key areas; • Restoration of laurel forest and further reducing the negative impact of commercial forestry; • Preventing illegal hunting.

Contributors: Christina Gonzales, Aurelio Martín, Miguel A. Hernández, Juan Antonio Lorenzo Gutiérrez, Alberto Madroño, Borja Heredia.

77 Aquatic Warbler Acrocephalus paludicola

Status: Vulnerable Non-breeding member states covered by the action plan: Belgium, France, Netherlands, Poland and United Kingdom. Although not covered by the action plan, the species also occurs in Spain. Targets: In the short term, to maintain the current population of the Aquatic Warbler throughout its range. In the medium to long term, to promote the expansion of the breeding population to other suitable areas. Status: Although the current population estimates are higher than at the time of writing the action plan (due to better knowledge of the population), the species has suffered large declines in all countries but Hungary.

Population in Current Country SAP Year population Year (pairs) (pairs) Germany 40–50 1993 7–19 1998-2003 Hungary 400–425 1993 610–860 1998-2001 Latvia 10–50 1993 0–10 – Lithuania 50–200 1993 250–300 1999-2001 Poland 3,500–4,500 1993 3,400–3,550 2003

Evaluation: Given the large declines in most member states, it can be concluded that the action plan’s targets have not been achieved. Protection Status The species is legally protected in all relevant member states. The Spanish Red Data Book lists the species as "Vulnerable", but the national listing has put the species in a lower category (“special interest”). Hence, the level of protection at a national level is insufficient. Fundación Global Nature has formally requested (to the national Flora and Fauna Committee) the inclusion of the species as “Vulnerable”. National and regional species action plans There are national species action plans adopted in Lithuania and in the UK. In Germany, there is a draft for Brandenburg. In Poland, a draft has been submitted to the Ministry of Environment for approval. However, targeted conservation actions are also carried out for the conservation of the species in France and Hungary on key sites. Site protection Site designation: In Germany, the only former member state holding breeding Aquatic Warblers, all IBAs are designated as SPAs. However, the designated areas cover only a small part of the area used by the species. In Hungary and Lithuania, almost the entire breeding population is in protected areas. In Latvia, the one IBA identified for the species is almost completely protected under national legislation. In Poland, IBAs cover the entire national population, but protected areas under national law cover only about 50-60% of the national

78 breeding population. There are four IBAs, holding 24 individuals, which are not designated yet. Sites important for the species on passage are not entirely known yet, however, there are three IBAs identified for the species in the UK, two in Spain, one in Italy. These sites are all protected as SPAs. In France, there are 25 IBAs identified for the species of which 17 are classified as SPAs. However, the sites are protected only partially in many cases. Due to lack of sufficient qualitative information, it is impossible to assess the coherence of this network. Management plans: There are 19 protected areas with some sort of management plan addressing the species requirements. Most of these are in France (16), followed by Germany (2), Lithuania (1) and Spain (1). Other conservation, research and public awareness measures Habitat conservation: Maintaining the species’ breeding habitat requires proper implementation of appropriate agricultural practices (e.g. hand scything, mowing, certain grazing, controlled fire) by conservation managers or farmers. This has mostly not, or only to limited extent, taken place in Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Germany. In Hungary, the breeding area is mostly managed according to the species’ requirements and since the introduction of the current management regime the population has increased. In the breeding quarters there have been no measures to restore natural water conditions reported except in Hungary. Abandoned agricultural land was restored at two places in Lithuania two years ago. The protection of the species’ habitat is generally restricted to protected areas. The EIA process takes into account the species requirements mostly in protected areas only in all the EU range states -. Research and Monitoring: Survey and census of breeding sites is generally well established. Potential breeding sites are also checked, although there are still gaps in Lithuania. Monitoring of stop-over sites takes place in France, Spain and the UK. However, the population size is not well known in France. In Spain, information about stop-over areas during autumn migration was not available until 1999 (102 birds ringed between 1969 and 1998). Then the species was detected at La Nava Lagoon. Successive ringing campaigns in 2000-2002 have increased the number of captures significantly, allowing the preparation of a methodology that has helped to identify new areas for the species in different regions of Spain (País Vasco, Asturias, Galicia, Castilla y León, Andalucía, etc.). The number of birds, thus ringed for the period 1999-2002 was 525. Habitat selection during passage has been quantified in the UK. In in the Netherlands, although there have been no specific studies, requirements are considered sufficiently known. Habitat requirements of the species in Spain are slowly becoming understood, and it seems to be very similar to its habitat at breeding sites. In France there is very little information available. Not much progress has been made on understanding variation in breeding density and success through comparative studies, nor the effects of different habitat management techniques and water conditions on breeding populations. Some progress can be noted on collaborative research and monitoring between Germany, Poland and the Baltic States. Awareness raising: In the EU the species is not much used as a flagship for the conservation of wet meadows and lowland marshes, partly because the species is confined to very few sites in some countries. Educational materials on the species were produced only in Lithuania and

79 Poland. There is a strong network of committed individuals across the range of the species working together in the framework of the BirdLife Aquatic Warbler Conservation Team. Community financial support LIFE has supported two projects on the species’ conservation, one in Spain (LIFE02 NAT/E/008616 Conservation of the aquatic warbler in the ZEPA 'La Nava-Campos') and one in Latvia (Lake Pape - conservation, preservation and evolution). The total budget of these projects was € 2,128,984 including € 1,596,738 Community contribution. Conclusions There has been significant progress in the implementation of the action plan (IS=2.4). However, it is important to note, that a very low level of implementation was reported from Poland that holds 77% of the EU population. Further actions are needed: • To ensure the appropriate protection and management of key breeding sites; • Incorporate the species requirements into national wetland strategies, in which respect the implementation of the Water Framework Directive offers new opportunities; • Better understand the effects of different habitat management techniques and water conditions on the breeding populations. Contributors: Bernard Deceuninck, Jochen Bellebaum, Martin Flade, Torsten Langgemach, Franziska Tanneberger, Holger Schielzeth, Christoph Südfeldt, Inka Gnittke, Végvári Zsolt, Balázs Szabó, Gergő Halmos, Oskars Keišs, Liutauras Raudonikis, Ruud van Beusekom, Michal Maniakowski, Fernando Jubete, Alberto Madroño, Borja Heredia, Ken W Smith, Helen Baker.

80 Blue Chaffinch Fringilla teydea

Status Targets: In the short term to maintain the range and population of Blue Chaffinch in the Canary Islands at no less than the level at the time of writing the action plan, and, in the medium to long term, to increase the level of the Gran Canaria population to the level where it is no longer classified as an endangered sub-species. Status changes: The population of the species is still poorly known, however, the population is thought to remain stable.

Population in Current Country SAP Year population Year (in pairs) (in pairs) Spain 1,000 – 1,500 1994 1,000 – 2,49923 2003

Evaluation: The short term objectives of the action plan is thought to have been attained, but no significant progress towards achieving the long-term objectives of the action plan. Protection Status In 1998, the Gran Canaria sub-species were listed as 'Endangered of Extinction' and the subspecies of Tenerife as 'Vulnerable'. Furthermore, in 2001 the Regional Endangered Species List of the Canaries Islands listed the two subspecies in those respective categories. An evaluation of the risk of extinction of both subspecies (in 2002), according to the IUCN status assessment guidelines version 3.1, concluded that the Gran Canaria sub-species is “Critically Endangered”, whereas the Tenerife sub-species is “Vulnerable”.However, the species overall global threat status is “only” Near-threatened. The species is still not listed under CITES and illegal trade and trapping is not prevented. National and regional species action plans There is a plan for the Gran Canaria Island already formulated but not officially approved. Site protection Site designation: The habitat of the species is already protected officially as SPA and SAC. Management plans for the most important areas have not entered into force at Integral Natural Reserve of Inagua and Natural Park of Corona Forestal. Management and conservation plans for Tamadaba and El Nublo protected sites are already approved. However, there are pressures from some social sectors to allow new recreational activities in Blue Chaffinch habitats at Gran Canaria without taking into account the minimum conservation requirements of the species.

23 Refers to no actual figures, only represents the estimated size of the population.

81 Other conservation, research and public awareness measures Prevention of fires: In recent years vigilance and prevention have increased in priority areas, although it is still insufficient. A specific plan of prevention and fighting forest fires still has to be developed for Inagua and Tamadaba pinewoods. Habitat restoration: The area of pinewood is reduced and fragmented on Gran Canaria, therefore the action plan recommended to create linkage between existing and potential habitats for the species through afforestation in the open areas of Inagua, Ojeda and Pajonales. Although some afforestation has taken place in Gran Canaria, this has happened without special attention to the requirements of the species and there is no strong commitment to undertake reforestations strategically designed to benefit the species. Diversion of recreational activities: At Inagua, where almost 100% of the Gran Canaria Blue Chaffinches can be found, an educational resort for schools is located. It is allowed to use the tracks. There has been an increase in the number of visitors walking without any control in the reserve, as well asan increase in uncontrolled sports and recreational activities. This increases the risk of forest fires. Management plans for Tamadaba and El Nublo establish areas of restriction and exclusion although competent authorities are under severe pressure to allow higher levels of human presence in these areas. Predator control: Feral cats were controlled on Gran Canaria between 1996 and 2002. This programme is not finished yet. Captive breeding: A captive breeding programme has been implemented. It has made important advances in breeding the species in captivity, but a new orientation is needed to the programme, using alternatives techniques (double clutch, artificial incubation, etc.) because of its limited success. Research and monitoring: Since 1991, and with the financial support of two LIFE projects (1995-1996; 1999-2002), the Regional Government developed a conservation programme for the species in Gran Canaria including: monitoring of the populations, study on the species biology and ecology, and on limiting factors. Once the LIFE projects finished, the conservation programme has been significantly reduced. Community financial support Two LIFE project supported the conservation of the species of which the second, Conservation of the blue chaffinch of Gran Canaria (LIFE98 NAT/E/005354), was implemented after the approval of the action plan. The total budget of the two projects was € 1,796,396 including € 1,297,638 Community co-funding. Conclusions There has been significant progress in the implementation of the action plan (Average IS=2.51), however, the status of the species has not improved. Key gaps are the following: • Inadequate prevention of illegal trapping and trade; • Insufficient measures to reduce pressures on key habitats from leisure activities; • No improvement in connectivity between existing and potential habitats through afforestation. Contributors: Cristina González, Ángel Moreno, Felipe Rodríguez, Juan Antonio Lorenzo Gutiérrez, Alberto Madroño and Borja Heredia

82 Azores Bullfinch Pyrrhula murina

Status Target: The action plan aims to increase the species population to 150 – 200 pairs by 2010 and extend the area of the laurel forest by 80 ha, reversing its continuing large-scale deterioration through the invasion of exotic flora. Status: The species population is still decreasing according to the most recent data even if the numbers presented in the table are higher than at the time of drafting the action plan, which is due to improved censuses. However, trend data are classified as poor.

Population in Current Country SAP Year population Year (pairs) (individuals) Portugal 60 – 200 1993 238 2002

Evaluation: Because of the continuing decline of the species, neither the short term nor long term targets of the action plan were met. Protection Status The species has been protected since 199124 under national legislation. National and regional species action plans No measures were taken to incorporate the species recovery plan into regional and national legislation. Site protection Designation: The species’ habitat is only partially protected, although the majority of the population (220 of 238 individuals) is within the SPA Pico da Vara/Ribeira do Guilherme. Management plans. The site has no management plan, although one is under preparation in the scope of the current LIFE project run by SPEA. Other conservation, research and public awareness measures Habitat conservation: In the past, small scale efforts have been carried out to eliminate exotic plants and restore original vegetation cover. In some areas, native plant species were re-established under a LIFE programme, but no positive response was identified. Unfortunately, no measures were taken to prevent planting of exotic species or to study the large-scale invasion of laurel forest by exotic flora although the results could be valuable for devising effective control measures. Species management: Artificial feeding was tested but proved unfeasible as seeds deteriorated quickly and were not used by the birds.

24 Decreto Lei 75/91, further reviewed by the Decreto-lei 140/99.

83 No measures were taken regarding captive breeding or identifying the species exact taxonomic status. Research and Monitoring: Population monitoring is under way and has provided baseline information for a new LIFE project. Awareness raising: Public awareness was carried out on a limited scale with one leaflet being produced. Community financial support Two LIFE projects (1994-2001) were undertaken by the Azores Government Forestry Department and the Azores University. However, these projects were not as effective as one would have hoped, and this species is still in a precarious situation. In 2003, SPEA started a new LIFE Project ‘Azores bullfinch recovery in Pico da Vara/Ribeira do Guilherme SPA’ (LIFE03 NAT/P/000013). The project receives 2,843,728 Euro Community co-funding. The total budget of these projects is € 5,259,934 including € 3,518,141 Community co-funding. Conclusions Only some progress has been made on the implementation of the species action plan (IS=2.00). LIFE has paid adequate attention to the species, but conservation efforts were not able to address effectively the conservation of the species. It is hoped that the new LIFE project will address the key management issues and put in place a management plan for the area with full involvement of the key stakeholders. Contributors: Pedro Geraldes, Luis Costa and Manuela Nunes.

84 Annex

Summary tables of Action Plan Implementation

Table 5 Implementation of the action plan for Fea’s Petrel

Action Target API No. Priority Portugal 1.1.1 The species recovery plan is incorporated in national and 3 1 3.00 regional legislation 1.1.2 Conservation actions for Desertas and for the species 3 4 0.00 financially supported by LIFE Nature. 1.1.3 Policy actions are taken to address the species 2 1 2.00 requirements while at sea 2.1.1, Herbivores and predators are eradicated from the 3 3 1.00 2.1.2, breeding areas 2.1.3, 2.1.4 2.1.5 Contingency plan for the accidental introduction of 2 1 2.00 problem animals developed. 2.1.6 Expansion of the Yellow-legged Gull population 2 4 0.00 prevented. 2.2. Human disturbance prevented through adequate 2 4 0.00 wardening 2.3.1 Breeding conditions improved through regeneration of 2 2 1.00 natural vegetation 2.3.2 Artificial burrows for breeding provided. 2 1 2.00 3.1.1 Annual breeding numbers and breeding success known 3 2 2.00 3.1.2 Effectiveness of habitat management monitored annually. 2 1 2.00 3.2a Effectiveness of the control programme for problem 2 3 0.67 animals evaluated. 3.3.1 Taxonomic status determined. 1 2 0.67 3.3.2 Studies on population dynamics continued. 1 2 0.67 3.3.3 Potential breeding areas identified. 2 2 1.33 4.1.1 Public awareness campaign launched prior to the 3 1 3.00 eradication programme. 4.1.2a Public awareness of the values of the Nature Reserve 2 3 0.67 increased. 4.1.2b Information centre about the archipelago and the species 2 3 0.67 established. 4.1.2c Wardens trained for management and monitoring. 2 3 0.67 National and Average IS: 2.27 2.27

85 Table 6 Implementation of the action plan for Zino’s Petrel

Action Target API No. Priority Portugal

1.1.1 The species recovery plan is incorporated in regional and 1 1 1.00 national legislation. 1.1.2 Management plan for the Natural Park of Madeira established. 3 4 0.00 1.1.3 Funds from LIFE regulation used for the conservation of the 3 4 0.00 species and of the endemic flora. 1.1.4 Policy actions are taken to address the species requirements 2 1 2.00 while at sea 2.1.1 Eradication of rats completed. 4 4 0.00 2.1.2 Breeding areas are kept free of rats. 3 2 2.00 2.1.3 Predation by feral cats controlled. 4 4 0.00 2.2.1 Breeding colonies wardened 3 2 2.00 2.2.2 Area of breeding colony acquired and managed 3 3 1.00 2.3.1 Breeding colonies established at other designated sites 1 4 0.00 2.4 Grazing livestock excluded from the breeding area 3 4 0.00 3.1 Search for new breeding colonies carried out. 3 4 0.00 3.1.2 Breeding numbers monitored annually. 3 4 0.00 3.2.1 Research on population dynamics and survival rates continued. 2 4 0.00 3.2.2 Habitat selection for breeding colonies characterised. 1 4 0.00 3.2.3 The diet of predators living around the breeding area studied 1 3 0.33 3.2.4 Birds' feeding and non-breeding range identified. 2 2 1.33 3.2.5 Research on the taxonomic status continued. 1 2 0.67 3.2.6 Ecology and population dynamic of rats investigated. 1 4 0.00 4.1.1 Leaflet on the species produced and Zino's Petrel used as the 2 4 0.00 symbol of cultural identity. 4.1.2 Information centre about the Natural Park and the species 2 3 0.67 established. National and Average IS: 3.31 3.31

86 Table 7 Implementation of the action plan for Dalmatian Pelican

Action Target API No. Greece Priority 1.1, 1.2, The species is fully protected. 4 4 0.00 2.1.2 1.2 Catching of chicks and adults is banned. 4 4 0.00 1.3 & Wetlands habitats are protected from area loss, pollution, changes in 4 2 2.67 2.2.5 hydrological regime and disturbance. 1.4 International co-operation is in place to protect trans-border wetlands. 2 4 0.00 1.5 National species action plan developed and implemented 2 1 2.00 2.1.1 All breeding, as well as, key feeding and wintering sites are fully 4 3 1.33 protected. 2.1.2 Hunting ban at key wintering and staging areas enforced. 4 3 1.33 2.1.3 All colonies are declared non-intrusion zones and wardens are appointed. 4 3 1.33 2.2.1a Burning or cutting of reeds in spring within the breeding areas is 4 2 2.67 forbidden. 2.2.1b Habitat restored within the range of species 4 3 1.33 2.2.2 Hydrological regime is properly managed at key sites. 4 3 1.33 2.2.3 Dangerous power lines are buried or made visible to the birds in order to 3 3 1.00 avoid collisions. 2.2.4 Artificial structures to facilitate breeding or roosting are provided in 1 2 0.67 protected areas, where needed. 2.2.5 Polluted Dalmatian Pelican sites restored. 1 1 1.00 3.1 Breeding numbers are monitored annually by trained observers. 4 4 0.00 3.2 Wintering birds are counted annually at roosting sites. 4 4 0.00 3.3a Water levels are monitored at key sites. 4 4 0.00 3.3b Water quality is monitored at key sites. 4 3 1.33 3.3c Ecological changes are monitored at key sites. 4 2 2.67 3.4 Studies on hydrology, possibly at catchment level, carried out. 3 3 1.00 3.5a Effect of conservation measures and management monitored. 3 3 1.00 3.5b Conservation measures and management modified according to their 3 4 0.00 effectiveness. 3.6 Fishery catches monitored at key sites. 2 2 1.33 3.7 Death rate and mortality causes monitored. 1 4 0.00 3.8 Existing or potential conflicts between people and pelicans identified. 1 3 0.33 3.9 Impact of pelicans on fish population and commercial fisheries evaluated. 1 4 0.00 3.1 Dispersal of pelicans understood and monitored. 2 3 0.67 4.1 Public awareness campaign targeting local communities, hunters, 3 3 1.00 fishermen and local authorities carried out. 4.2 Training courses on wetland issues carried out. 2 2 1.33 National and Average IS: 3.05 3.05

87 Table 8 Implementation of the action plan for Pygmy Cormorant

Action Target API

No. Italy Greece Priority Hungary 1.1.1 All sites with colonies declared Med SPA 2 1 0 1 2.0 (Barcelona Convention) 1.1.2 International policies (Ramsar Convention, 2 3 3 1 1.1 MEDWET, etc.) and legislation on the conservation of suitable wetlands implemented at national level 1.2.1 National action plan / recovery plan produced and 3 3 1 1 2.3 implemented 1.2.2. National Wetland Strategy (or its equivalent) has 3 2 2 1 2.3 & clear targets and priorities for the protection and 1.2.3 integrated management of wetlands important for the Pygmy Cormorant 1.2.4 The species is fully protected by law 4 4 4 4 0.0 1.2.5 Non-intrusion zones set up around all breeding 4 1 3 1 3.1 colonies 2.1 & All important sites protected 4 4 4 2 0.9 1.2.3 2.2 Disturbance from hunting is prevented at sites with 4 2 0 1 3.3 large wintering concentrations 2.3.1 Cutting of trees at breeding sites prevented 4 3 3 4 0.9 2.3.2 Shallow waters and their quality maintained 4 3 2 1 2.7 3.1 Numbers at breeding and wintering sites monitored 4 3 4 4 0.4 annually 3.2 Water level and quality monitored at key sites 4 2 4 3 1.3 3.3 Ecological changes at key sites monitored 2 2 4 3 0.7 3.4 Movement and dispersal understood 3 3 1 3 1.7 3.5 Feeding ecology and interaction with fisheries 3 2 2 2 2.0 understood 3.6 Interspecific relationship understood 2 2 1 1 1.8 4.1 Public awareness campaign carried out at all key 3 4 1 1 2.0 sites 4.2 Training courses for site managers carried out 2 1 1 1 2.0 National and average IS: 2.60 2.65 2.07 2.44

88 Table 9 Implementation of the action plan for Lesser White-fronted Goose

Action Target API No. Greece Estonia Sweden Finland Priority Hungary Germany Lithuania Netherlands 1.1d Specific inter- 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3.11 governmental agreement developed for the conservation of the species. 1.2a The species is fully 3 44344 4 440.56 protected. 1.2b, Key sites are fully 3 43244 4 230.78 2.2 protected and provide feeding and roosting opportunities. 1.3a Agriculture and other 3 33210 0 022.00 land-use policies take into consideration the conservation of the species. 1.3b Conservation strategies for 3 00420 0 031.50 inland wetlands take into account the requirements of the species 2.1 Hunting and associated 3 32233 3 141.67 disturbance is prevented at key sites 2.2 Core breeding areas are 2 03000 0 041.11 protected from industrial development and tourism. 2.3 Management plans are 3 43313 3 431.44 developed and implemented for staging and wintering areas. 2.4 Reintroduction or 1 00000 0 030.83 restocking takes place only as last resort and following IUCN criteria. 3.1 Key staging, wintering and 4 34334 3 431.19 moulting sites have been located and monitored. 3.2b Monitoring of remaining 3 04000 0 041.67 populations carried out 3.3 Habitat requirement 3 24432 0 341.25 understood and used for habitat protection and management.

89 Action Target API No. Greece Estonia Sweden Finland Priority Hungary Germany Lithuania Netherlands 4.1 Public awareness ofthe 3 23130 0 331.86 importance of the species and the need for its conservation increased. 4.2 Hunters and landowners 2 23122 1 331.41 aware of the identification problems and of the need to avoid hunting in key areas. 4.3 Wardens of protected 2 24222 2 431.11 areas trained on identification and census techniques. National and Average IS: 2.78 3.16 2.40 2.46 2.88 2.74 2.90 3.12 2.81

90 Table 10 Implementation of the action plan for Red-breasted Goose

Action Target No. API Greece Priority Hungary 1.1 Agricultural policies in the wintering countries maintain 4 0 4 0.00 favourable feeding conditions for the species 1.2 The species is fully protected and protection is effectively 4 4 2 1.33 enforced 1.2.1 The hunting season ends at the end of January in wintering 2 4 1 1.00 countries. 1.3 AEWA signed and ratified. 3 4 2 1.00 2.1 Hunting bans established at all key sites and in their buffer 4 0 2 2.67 zones when the species is present. 2.1d Poisoning prohibited at key sites. 4 4 4 0.00 2.2.1 All internationally important sites are designated as 4 4 0.00 protected areas 2.2.2 Development proposals likely to affect the species and its 3 0 3 1.00 habitat are subject to Environmental Impact Assessment 2.3 Use of rodenticides is controlled where it is a problem for 2 3 0 0.67 the species. 2.4 Management of feeding habitat carried out at staging and 2 3 2 1.00 wintering areas informed by specific research. 2.5 Specific inter-governmental agreement developed for the 3 1 1 3.00 conservation of the species. 3.1a Population size and structure monitored annually at 4 3 3 1.33 wintering grounds 3.1b, Distribution and numbers of breeding Red-breasted Goose 4 0 0 - 3.2.3 monitored. 3.2.1, All staging and wintering areas identified and monitored; 3.5 3 3 1.17 3.2.2 their status and threats evaluated. 3.3.1 Research on the relationship between spring fattening and 2 0 0 - breeding success carried out. 3.3.2 Understanding of feeding and behavioural ecology provides 2 1 3 1.33 useful information for management planning. 3.3.3 Feeding ecology of breeding females studied. 2 0 0 - 3.3.4 Changes in land use in wintering areas monitored. 4 1 3 2.67 3.5 Effect of hunting (mortality and disturbance) assessed. 3 3 3 1.00 3.6 Impact of the use of rodenticides understood. 2 1 1 2.00 4.1.1 Public awareness on the importance of the species increased. 3 1 1 3.00 4.1.2 Education/awareness programmes targeted at hunters, 3 2 1 2.50 fishermen and farmers carried out. 4.2 Red-breasted goose used as a flagship for the conservation 3 0 1 3.00 of its habitat. National and Average IS: 2.60 2.35 2.47

91 Table 11 Implementation of the action plan for Marbled Teal

Action Target

No. API Spain Priority 1.1.1 AEWA signed and ratified. 2 4 0.00 1.2.1 National or regional action plan developed and 3 2 2.00 implemented 1.2.2 The species is fully protected. 3 4 0.00 1.2.3 National wetland conservation strategy sets clear targets 2 2 1.33 and priorities for the protection and integrated management of potential Marbled Teal habitats and this is not hampered by agriculture, transport and tourism policies 2.1.1 All sites regularly holding the species are declared 3 4.00 protected areas. 2.1.2 Destruction of key sites or degradation of ecological 4 3 conditions prevented through appropriate environmental 1.33 assessments 2.1.3 All key sites are declared Ramsar sites and are 3 4.00 appropriately managed 2.2a Appropriate management plans are prepared and 2 implemented at all key sites 2.67 2.3 The species requirements are taken into account when 1 3 new artificial wetlands are designed 0.33 2.4.1 Hunting ban at all sites regularly holding the species. 3 3 1.00 2.4.2 Effective wardening ensures no Marbled Teal are shot. 3 1 3.00 2.4.3 Where hunting ban cannot be achieved, all possible 3 1 methods to minimise the number of Marbled Teal shot 3.00 are successfully used. 2.4.4 Lack of funds does not hamper the enforcement of 3 1 3.00 hunting regulation. 2.5 Lead shot are not allowed at key sites. 2 4 0.00 2.6 Other mortality factors, such as crayfish nets and 4 4 0.00 concrete drains, are reduced. 3.1.1 Known breeding sites are regularly surveyed. 3 4 0.00 3.1.2 Surveys in possible breeding sites carried out. 4 4 0.00 3.1.3 All sites where the species is recorded are covered by 2 4 0.00 the Mid-winter counts (IWC). 3.1.4 All important sites are surveyed simultaneously. 2 4 0.00 3.2.1 Studies on species' ecology and habitat requirement, 4 3 1.33 relevant for conservation, carried out. 3.2.2 Movements of the Marbled Teal understood. 3 1 3.00 3.2.3 Nature and significance of threats understood at all key 2 3 0.67 sites. 4.1a Educational booklet on the species produced and 4 3 1.33 distributed. 4.1b Educational campaign for hunters carried out. 4 1 4.00 National and Average IS 2.75 .75

92

Table 12 Implementation of the action plan for White-headed Duck

Action Target API UK Italy

No. Spain Latvia France Poland Cyprus Cyprus Ireland Greece Austria Priority Finland Estonia Sweden Slovakia Slovakia Belgium Belgium Slovenia Slovenia Portugal Hungary Germany Germany Lithuania Denmark Denmark Netherlands Netherlands Luxembourg Czech Republic

1.1.1 National Ruddy 4 1 1 00 10 24 10 11 1 0 01 20 41 10 33 3.00 Duck control strategy in place 1.1.2 Control of Ruddy 4 1 3 00 44 34 10 41 4 0 00 40 41 10 43 1.50 Duck legally possible 1.1.3 Captive Ruddy 4 4 4 00 14 34 34 00 1 0 04 40 41 10 44 1.17 Ducks cannot be released legally 1.1.4 All captive Ruddy 4 1 1 11 14 11 11 11 1 1 11 11 11 10 23 3.65 ducks are listed in a special registering system 1.2.1 White-headed 3 0 0 00 00 04 04 00 4 0 00 00 40 04 00 0.00 Duck is legally protected 1.2.2 All key sites 2 0 0 00 00 02 04 00 0 0 00 00 40 03 00 0.50 declared as Ramsar sites 1.2.2b AEWA 2 0 0 00 00 04 03 00 1 0 00 00 40 04 00 0.53 agreement signed 1.2.3 National/regional 3 0 0 00 00 03 01 00 1 0 00 00 00 02 00 2.25 action plan/ recovery plans developed and implemented 1.3 Clear targets and 2 0 0 00 00 02 04 00 1 0 00 00 00 01 00 1.33 priorities set for the protection and integrated management of White-headed Duck habitats 2.1.1 Ruddy Duck 4 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 00 00 03 1.33 population in UK reduced

93 Action Target API UK Italy

No. Spain Latvia France Poland Cyprus Cyprus Ireland Greece Austria Priority Finland Estonia Sweden Slovakia Slovakia Belgium Belgium Slovenia Slovenia Portugal Hungary Germany Germany Lithuania Denmark Denmark Netherlands Netherlands Luxembourg Czech Republic

2.1.2 All small Ruddy 4 1 1 00 20 12 10 11 1 0 00 10 40 00 10 3.44 Duck populations eradicated in the Western Palearctic 2.1.3 All hybrids 4 0 0 00 00 03 00 00 1 0 00 00 40 03 00 1.67 Ruddy x White- headed Ducks are eliminated 2.2.1 All sites regularly 4 0 0 00 00 04 04 00 2 0 00 00 00 00 00 0.89 holding White- headed Duck are protected 2.2.2 All sites regularly 4 0 0 00 00 03 01 00 0 0 00 00 40 00 00 1.78 holding White- headed Duck are safe from destruction or degradation 2.3a Habitat managed 2 0 0 00 00 02 01 00 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 1.67 to increase breeding success and reduce mortality 2.4 New habitats for 1 0 0 00 00 02 01 00 1 0 00 00 00 02 00 0.83 breeding and wintering created 2.5 Species 3 0 0 00 00 02 02 00 0 0 00 00 40 04 00 1.00 protection fully implemented 2.5.1 Hunting is 3 0 0 00 00 02 04 00 2 0 00 00 40 03 00 1.00 banned at all key sites 2.5.2 Wardening is in 3 0 0 00 00 02 01 00 1 0 00 00 40 01 00 2.20 place and effective at all key sites 2.5.3 Where 3 0 0 00 00 00 01 00 1 0 00 00 00 01 00 3.00 permanent hunting ban is not possible,

94 Action Target API UK Italy

No. Spain Latvia France Poland Cyprus Cyprus Ireland Greece Austria Priority Finland Estonia Sweden Slovakia Slovakia Belgium Belgium Slovenia Slovenia Portugal Hungary Germany Germany Lithuania Denmark Denmark Netherlands Netherlands Luxembourg Czech Republic

other methods to minimise White- headed Duck mortality are implemented 2.5.5 Hunting season 1 0 0 00 00 01 01 00 4 0 00 00 40 03 00 0.47 ends at the end of January 2.6 Lead shot 2 0 0 00 00 01 01 00 1 0 00 00 10 04 00 1.60 forbidden in key sites 2.7 White-headed 4 0 0 00 00 02 00 00 1 0 00 00 00 04 00 2.22 Duck reintroduction schemes postponed until Ruddy Duck problem eliminated 3.1 Ruddy Duck 4 4 3 12 41 44 31 24 2 1 10 41 41 30 13 2.06 status monitored regularly 3.2 Effectiveness of 4 1 1 00 10 14 10 11 1 0 00 10 41 00 13 3.24 controlling Ruddy Duck monitored 3.3 Status and 3 0 0 00 00 00 04 00 0 0 00 00 40 04 00 0.00 distribution of White-headed Duck monitored effectively 3.4.1 Research on the 2 0 0 00 00 04 01 00 4 0 00 00 00 01 00 1.00 behaviour of released captive- bred birds carried out 3.4.2 Movements of 2 0 0 00 00 01 03 00 0 0 00 00 00 02 00 1.33 White-headed Duck understood 3.4.3 White-headed 1 0 0 00 00 02 03 00 0 0 00 00 00 02 00 0.56 Duck ecology and habitat

95 Action Target API UK Italy

No. Spain Latvia France Poland Cyprus Cyprus Ireland Greece Austria Priority Finland Estonia Sweden Slovakia Slovakia Belgium Belgium Slovenia Slovenia Portugal Hungary Germany Germany Lithuania Denmark Denmark Netherlands Netherlands Luxembourg Czech Republic

requirement well known 3.4.4 Genetic studies 4 1 1 00 10 10 10 11 1 0 00 10 00 10 13 3.78 on Ruddy Duck carried out to understand origin 3.4.5 Studies on 2 0 0 00 00 02 02 00 2 0 00 00 00 02 00 1.33 hydrology, pollution and socio-economic needs carried out at key sites 3.5 Number of stiff 4 1 1 11 11 11 11 11 2 4 11 11 01 10 13 3.64 tail ducks in captivity known and monitored 4.1 The need to 4 4 1 00 10 34 20 11 3 0 01 30 01 10 12 2.76 control Ruddy Duck understood 4.2.2 White-headed 3 0 0 00 00 02 02 00 3 0 00 00 00 00 00 1.67 Duck used as a flagship species for the protection of wetlands 4.2.3 Education 3 0 0 00 00 03 01 00 3 0 00 00 00 03 00 1.50 programmes on the White-headed Duck carried out National and 1.90 1.70 1.00 1.33 1.70 2.80 2.00 2.77 1.50 2.16 1.44 1.33 1.79 2.00 1.00 1.60 2.20 1.00 3.69 1.00 1.25 2.76 1.90 3.00 1.87 average IS

96 Table 13 Implementation of the action plan for Cinereous Vulture

Action Target API No. Spain France Greece Priority Portugal 1.1 National forest policy ensure long-term 3 0 1 2 3 2.00 survival of native forests 1.1.2 Agriculture policy ensures sustainability 2 4 1 1 3 1.17 of traditional extensive livestock raising 1.2.1a The species is fully protected. 3 4 4 4 3 0.25 1.2.1c National recovery plan established. 3 4 1 1 1 2.25 1.2.1d Environmental impact assessment law 3 2 3 3 3 1.25 exists, taking account the species. 2.1.1 All existing colonies are included in the 4 2 3 0 3 1.78 core zones of larger protected areas and have adequate management plan 2.1.2 All damaging or disturbing activities are 3 3 3 3 3 1.00 restricted in the vicinity of the nests 2.1.3 Forestry operations do not disturb the 3 0 4 3 2 1.00 species or remove its nesting trees 2.1.3c Wildfire prevention plans are developed 3 0 3 2 4 1.00 and implemented. 2.2.1 Dead stock is re left for the vultures 2 4 4 4 3 0.17 under careful veterinarian supervision. 2.2.2 Reintroduction or restocking of native 1 0 1 1 1 1.00 ungulates is carried out following the IUCN criteria and avoiding overgrazing and competition with other key prey species such as rabbits. 2.2.3 Supplementary food at specific sites. 1 4 4 1 1 0.50 2.3a Ban on using poisoned baits and other 4 1 2 3 3 2.33 toxic chemicals is enforced 2.4 Reintroduction schemes are carried out 1 4 0 0 0 0.00 following IUCN criteria. 3.1.1.a At least one national survey has been 2 4 2 4 2 0.67 carried out in every four years. 3.1.1b Protected area colonies monitored yearly. 2 4 4 4 3 0.17 3.1.2 A national inventory covering all breeding 2 4 4 4 2 0.33 colonies is established. 3.1.3 Mortality causes are monitored. 2 4 3 4 3 0.33 3.1.4 Reintroduction schemes monitored. 1 4 0 0 0 0.00 3.2 Studies on home range, habitat use and 2 4 3 0 2 0.67 dispersal undertaken. 4.1a Education and awareness campaign on 1 4 3 1 3 0.42 the species carried out. 4.1b Cinereous vulture used as a flagship for 1 4 4 1 2 0.42 the conservation of forests and traditional farming practices. 4.2 Anti-poisoning campaign launched. 4 1 3 2 3 2.33 National and Average IS: 3.05 2.80 2.67 2.67 2.80

97 Table 14 Implementation of the action plan for Imperial Eagle

Action Target API No. Czech Greece Greece Cyprus Austria Priority Slovakia Republic Hungary

1.1.1a National Forestry Policy gives 31131 2 13.36 priority to wildlife resources 1.1.1b Non-intervention zones 31111 2 13.46 designated in commercially managed forests 1.1.1c Human disturbance is prevented 31041 2 23.23 & within 300 m of active nests 2.1.2 through yearly forestry planning 1.1.1d Appropriate management of 32141 2 13.15 & forest agreed with landowners 2.1.3 1.1.1e Guidelines for appropriate forest 1111 2 20.00 management available 1.1.2 Guidelines on species-friendly 21101 2 12.36 agricultural practices produced 1.1.3a All IBAs where the species occur 34112 1 13.29 have adequate management plans 1.1.3b All sites with at least one nest are 33442 3 32.54 protected 1.1.4 Experience gathered in some 33042 3 32.85 countries used abroad 1.2a The species is fully protected 32314 4 42.71 1.2 National action / recovery plans 31111 3 43.21 produced 1.2d Environmental Impact 31342 2 32.93 Assessment required for afforestation schemes, dam construction, power lines and any other infrastructure 1.2e & Poisoning is banned or strictly 33342 3 42.64 2.2.2 regulated 1.3 Bern, Bonn and CITES ratified 33443 4 42.43 2.1.1 All IBAs in which the species 34442 2 32.54 occurs are protected 2.1.4 Artificial nest platforms provided 10111 3 21.13 2.1.5 Abundance and availability of 33121 2 23.21 key prey species increased 2.2.1 Nest robbing and illegal trade 33141 3 32.85 prevented 2.2.3 Mortality caused by illegal 22301 3 12.15 hunting reduced 2.2.4 Mortality from electrocution 31141 2 23.21

98 Action Target API No. Czech Greece Cyprus Austria Priority Slovakia Republic Hungary

reduced by changes in pylon design or other means 2.2.5 Disturbance reduced 22141 2 32.05 2.2.6 Leg-hold traps prohibited by law 14444 4 40.72 3.1 Monitoring programme in place 33043 4 32.69 3.2 & National surveys carried out and 33143 4 42.42 3.5 IBAs for the species identified 3.3 Migration and wintering areas are 30101 2 13.58 better understood through satellite-tracking 3.4 Limiting factors and causes of 23322 3 41.86 mortality identified 4.1 Awareness of the need for 23123 3 21.95 protection of the species increased National and Average IS 2.34 1.93 3.10 1.78 2.65 2.54 2.39

99 Table 15 Implementation of the action plan for Spanish Imperial Eagle

Action Target API No. Spain Priority Portugal 1.1.1b Forestry planning instruments take into 2 3 1 1.33 consideration the ecological needs of the species. 1.1.1c Agricultural planning instruments take into 2 1 1 2.00 consideration the ecological needs of the species. 1.1.2 Regeneration of Holm and Cork Oak, as well as, 2 2 2 1.33 Stone Pine is promoted within the species range. 1.1.3 Any work or project likely to harm the species is 3 3 4 0.50 subject to environmental impact assessment. 1.1.4 Agreements established with private landowners on 2 3 3 0.67 habitat management 1.2a Rabbit hunting restricted to aid population recovery. 3 1 1 3.00 1.2b Rabbit restocking and other measures subsidised. 3 2 1 2.50 1.3a Technical regulations concerning high-voltage 3 2 2 2.00 power lines modified 1.3b New power lines avoid breeding colonies, dispersal 3 2 3 1.50 and re-colonisation zones. 1.3c, Electricity companies have necessary information. 3 3 3 1.00 2.6.1b 1.4 Potentially disturbing human activities near nests 3 3 1 2.00 are restricted with the possibility of compensating those affected as necessary 2.1.1 Suitable areas of protected habitat maintained and 4 3 2 2.00 managed. 2.1.2 All known breeding sites are protected and a 3 3 2 1.50 resource management plans in place. 2.1.3 Juvenile dispersal and re-colonisation zones are 2 3 2 1.00 protected and natural resources management plans implemented. 2.1.4 The most important areas for the species are owned 2 0 1 2.00 or rented by Regional administrations. 2.2 Mortality due to hunting activities is reduced 3 1 1 3.00 through better enforcement of hunting restrictions 2.3.1. Rabbit populations increased through active 3 2 1 2.50 restocking and vaccination 2.4.1 Unstable nests secured. 2 3 0 0.67 2.4.2 Artificial nests provided. 2 3 1 1.33 2.4.3 Chick mortality reduced by active management 2 3 2 1.00 2.4.4 & Chicks removed from the nests are returned to the 30 0 - 2.5 wild in the most appropriate way. 2.4.5 Supplementary food is provided when appropriate. 2 3 2 1.00 2.4.6 Human disturbance eliminated in breeding season. 3 3 1 2.00 2.4.7 All roads near nests are closed. 2 3 1 1.33 2.4.8 All breeding areas under appropriate surveillance. 2 3 1 1.33 2.6.1 Dangerous pylons are located and information 3 2 3 1.50

100 Action Target API No. Spain Priority Portugal provided to relevant bodies. 2.6.2 Corrective measures for pylons are in place. 4 2 2 2.67 2.7.1 Before any juveniles can be released, all potential 1 2 3 0.50 re-colonisation areas are listed and mapped; the information is compared with ground surveys of the population status and a list is drawn up of possible areas with details about their conservation status. 2.8 Captive breeding stocks are available for 2 1 0 2.00 reintroduction or restocking in the event of a natural catastrophe or disease. 3.1.1 Annual surveys of the breeding population carried 3 3 4 0.50 out. 3.1.2 Breeding pairs monitored during breeding period. 2 3 4 0.33 3.1.3, Radio and satellite tracking used for monitoring and 2.5 2 1 2.08 3.1.4 research. 3.1.5 Level of pollutants in eggs monitored. 2 2 1 1.67 3.1.6 Effect of supplementary feeding is monitored. 1 2 0 0.67 3.1.7 Efficiency of modified power lines monitored. 2 3 2 1.00 3.1.8 Any animal found analysed for poison. 3 3 4 0.50 3.2.1 Area requirements of the species understood. 2 3 3 0.67 3.2.2 Ecology of juvenile dispersal studied. 2 2 2 1.33 3.2.3 Population regulating factors and minimum viable 1 2 1 0.83 population evaluated. 3.2.4 Design for harmless electricity pylons developed. 3 2 3 1.50 Technical solutions for modifying pylons are largely complete, but their variety means that it would be better to design a new type of pylon which would be economical for electricity companiesand safe for birds 3.2.5 Cost effective techniques and methods for rabbit 3 2 2 2.00 restocking identified. 3.2.6 Effects of chemical contamination of eggs studied. 2 2 1 1.67 3.2.7 Breeding, dispersal and re-colonisation zone 1 2 4 0.33 mapped and directory updated. 3.2.8 Population size needed to remove the species from 3 3 1 0.67 the list of threatened birds determined. 4.1.1a Educational campaign for schoolchildren carried 2 1 1 2.00 out. 4.1.1b Awareness campaign targeted at relevant land-users 2 3 3 0.67 carried out. 4.1.2 Educational material prepared. 2 2 2 1.33 4.1.3 Travelling exposition and related material produced 1 1 1 1.00 and used across the species' range. National and Average IS: 2.37 2.01 2.19

101 Table 16 Implementation of the action plan for Lesser Kestrel

Action Target API

No. Italy Spain France Greece Priority Slovenia Portugal 1.1.3 Favourable land use patterns 4 3 1 1 3 1 1 4.31 maintained in the vicinity of colonies 1.2 Forestry practices do not 3 0 1 1 2 1 1 3.50 conflict with the conservation of the species. 2.2.1 Co-operation with 3 0 1 2 1 1 1 3.54 departments responsible for historic building results in conservation of breeding sites. 1.4 National action plan 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 3.36 developed and implemented 1.1 Positive incentives promote 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 3.29 the maintenance of the species habitat and schemes leading to reduction of suitable habitats through intensification are avoided 2.2.3 Colonies outside built-up 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 3.29 areas are protected. 1.1.2 Grazing pressure is adequate 3 4 1 1 3 1 1 3.21 to maintain suitable habitat for the species. 2.1 Key breeding and foraging 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 3.14 habitats are protected 3.2 Research into limiting 3 4 1 2 4 1 2 3.00 factors carried out. 3.1 Appropriate surveys carried 3 3 2 3 4 1 3 2.86 out at breeding, migrating and wintering areas. 1.3 The species is fully and 3 4 2 4 4 4 2 2.46 efficiently protected. 3.4.a Pesticide residuals and 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 2.41 heavy metal contamination in eggs and tissue monitored. 3.4.b Impact of pesticides on prey 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.38 studied. 1.1.4 Use of pesticides in feeding 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.38 habitat is regulated and monitored.

102 Action Target API

No. Italy Spain France Greece Priority Slovenia Portugal 4.1 Awareness campaign 2 4 1 2 2 1 1 2.14 concerning the protection of feeding habitats targeted at local authorities, farmers, shepherds and hunters carried out. 2.2.2 Artificial nests are provided. 2 4 1 2 3 1 1 2.10 3.5 Scientific information and 2 2 2 2 4 1 3 2.00 expertise between researchers exchanged. 4.2a Awareness campaigns on 2 4 1 2 1 1 1 2.15 the importance of breeding colonies carried out. 3.3 Reintroduction programmes 1 4 1 1 0 1 3 1.06 carried out closely following IUCN criteria. National and Average IS: 3.25 1.15 1.61 2.43 1.20 1.39 1.84

103 Table 17 Implementation of the action plan for Corncrake

Action Target ublic API UK p

No. Italy Czech Latvia France Poland Ireland Estonia Austria Sweden Finland Priority Belgium Slovenia Slovakia Hungary Re Denmark Germany Lithuania Netherlands Luxembourg 1.1.1 International support in place 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 3.69 to promote extensive, grass- based farming covering at least 10% of rural areas in CEE countries 1.1.2 & Agricultural subsidies support 3 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 3 2.97 1.2.3.3 maintaining Corncrake habitats and have clear, measurable conservation targets 1.1.4 Impacts on Corncrake of 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 3 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 2.24 capital investments in agriculture is understood 1.1.5 Relevant international 2 3 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 1.48 conventions (Bern, Bonn, Ramsar, Biodiversity) signed and ratified 1.2.1 National species action plan 3 2 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 2 3 3 4 1 1 4 1 4 1 2 3 2.95 prepared. 1.2.2 The species is legally 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2.13 protected 1.2.3.1 National policies on land 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 3.28 tenure, farm reconstructing and capital investment aid for agricultural improvements favour Corncrake. 1.2.3.2 National policies on taxation 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 2.28 and employment legislation give preference to labour- intensive, grass-based economy 1.2.3.4 Ecotourism developed where 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1.09 appropriate. 1.2.4 Organisations with 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 2 4 4 3 3 3 2 4 1 3 4 3 2 2.42 competence in the species' conservation are in place 1.2.5 Habitat for Corncrake 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 0 1 1 3 1 0 1 2 3 2.19 recreated in formerly

104 Action Target ublic API UK p

No. Italy Czech Latvia France Poland Ireland Estonia Austria Sweden Finland Priority Belgium Slovenia Slovakia Hungary Re Denmark Germany Lithuania Netherlands Luxembourg important areas. 2.1.1, 3.1a All key sites (that qualify as 3 4 4 4 2 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 2 2.35 IBA) for the species identified 2.1.2 All key sites are protected by 3 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 2 4 1 2 2 2 3 4 2.80 the most suitable statutory designation. 2.1.2.2 All proposed/existing 3 1 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 3.13 statutory sites have management plans, implemented and monitored 2.1.2.3 Any development potentially 2.5 3 3 1 2 1 3 3 4 2 2 1 1 2 3 3 1 3 1 2 3 2.46 damaging a Corncrake site is subject to adequate environmental impact assessment. 2.1.3 Land with important 2.5 0 4 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 3 2.61 concentrations of Corncrake acquired for nature reserves and managed for the species 2.2 Nature conservation 2 2 4 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 3 1.95 organisations co-operate between them and with local authorities and relevant land user groups to conserve the species. 2.3 Technical advice available for 2 2 2 1 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 1.82 land managers and their advisors 3.1 National Corncrake survey 3 0 4 4 4 2 4 3 2 2 3 4 3 2 4 4 1 3 4 3 3 2.59 implemented at least once in every five years 3.2 Impact of mowing on 3 3 0 2 2 1 3 3 4 1 3 3 1 1 2 3 1 3 2 2 4 2.89 Corncrake population understood 3.3 Survival rate data of juveniles 3 2 0 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3.26 and adults available 3.4 Ecological requirements of 3 1 1 4 1 1 0 2 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 4 3.13 Corncrake in habitats subject to infrequent management

105 Action Target ublic API UK p

No. Italy Czech Latvia France Poland Ireland Estonia Austria Sweden Finland Priority Belgium Slovenia Slovakia Hungary Re Denmark Germany Lithuania Netherlands Luxembourg understood 3.5 Effectiveness of conservation 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 3.28 measures quantified. 3.6 Rapid assessment method for 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 3.29 suitability of vegetation stands developed. 3.7 Impact of predation assessed 2 3 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 2.20 in breeding areas. 3.8a Association of Corncrake 2 4 1 0 1 1 3 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 4 1.72 with other important plant and animal species and communities is understood 3.9 Mortality caused by hunting 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.45 and trapping quantified. 3.11 National Corncrake research 3 1 3 4 1 1 1 2 4 1 4 4 3 1 2 4 1 3 1 2 1 2.95 groups in place 4.1.1 Decision-makers supporting 3 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 4 3.18 and undertaking actions for the Corncrake. 4.1.2 Farmers and their 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 3 3.15 organisations committed to undertake Corncrake-friendly policies and practices. 4.1.3 Local communities where the 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 3.15 species occurs feel ownership of the species. 4.1.4 Non agricultural land 2 2 1 0 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 3 2.19 managers and users are involved in the species' conservation. 4.1.5 General public supports 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 4 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 3.15 Corncrake conservation. 4.2 Materials promoting 3 2 3 4 4 3 4 2 3 2 4 2 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 2.85 Corncrake and its requirements are produced National and average IS: 2.41 2.40 2.25 2.16 1.51 2.20 2.51 2.36 2.20 2.86 1.88 1.84 1.60 1.84 2.67 1.34 2.11 1.65 2.09 2.93 2.14

106 Table 18 Implementation of the action plan for Great Bustard

Action Target API No. Spain Austria Priority Slovakia Portugal Hungary Germany Czech Republic 1.1.1 National agriculture policy 441412 3 22.10 supports the conservation of pseudo-steppes and of the Great Bustard. 1.1.2 Fragmentation of Great Bustard 341310 3 31.50 habitats through afforestation is prevented 1.1.3a Semi-natural habitats (steppes, 3.540414 3 40.78 pseudo-steppes, grassland) where the species occurs are protected. 1.1.4 Strategic environmental 241321 1 11.43 assessment applied to strategies, policies and programmes which may impact the species and its habitat. 1.1.5a Relevant international 243444 4 40.10 conventions and Great Bustard MoU is ratified. 1.1.6 The species is fully protected 344444 4 40.00 2.1.1 Traditional agriculture practices 441313 3 22.10 favourable for the species are promoted through incentives. 2.1.2 Effective set-aside schemes and 441223 3 22.10 other extensification schemes are implemented in Great Bustard areas. 2.1.3 Farming practices are adapted to 341213 2 21.86 the breeding cycle of the species. 2.1.4 Appropriate measures are taken to 2.532213 2 11.67 prevent disturbance at breeding and display sites. 2.1.5a Special measures are taken at sites 340112 2 22.00 with poor breeding success 2.1.6a Captive management 130404 0 10.33 implemented in emergency situations in full compliance with the IUCN criteria for reintroduction 2.1.7 Appropriate measures taken to 220312 2 11.44 control predators when it is a continuous cause of breeding failure

107 Action Target API No. Spain Austria Priority Slovakia Portugal Hungary Germany Czech Republic 2.2.1 Availability of alfalfa and rape at 342314 2 21.43 wintering grounds ensured 2.2.2a Fragmentation or isolation of 2.522232 3 21.43 Great Bustard habitats prevented and construction of linear infrastructure; irrigation and afforestation schemes are subject to environmental impact assessment 2.2.3 Power lines crossing Great 321212 1 22.43 Bustard areas are marked or buried. 3.1.1 Census methods are standardised. 341433 1 31.29 3.1.2 At all sites population size and 342434 2 40.71 trends are monitored. 3.1.3 Effect of habitat management 341333 2 31.29 monitored. 3.1.4 Success of release programmes 340303 0 11.25 monitored 3.1.5 & Transboundary populations are the 232330 1 31.00 3.3.2 subject of co-ordinated research and surveys 3.2.1 Comparative studies on different 240213 1 11.33 populations carried out 3.2.2 Mortality factors in different areas 340323 1 41.17 studied. 3.2.3 Factors affecting breeding success 330323 4 31.00 identified. 3.2.4 Migration patterns understood. 2.521244 2 31.19 3.3.1 Bibliography on the species is 241413 1 40.95 compiled and circulated 3.3.3 High priority conservation 341223 1 31.71 projects receive appropriate funding. 4.1 The species is used as a flagship 2.541434 2 40.71 for the conservation of steppes, dry grassland and traditional agricultural landscapes. 4.2 Awareness campaign targeted at 342314 2 21.43 farmers and landowners carried out. 4.3 Media used as a tool to inform 341333 2 21.43 public of the need to conserve the species and its habitat.

108 Action Target API No. Spain Austria Priority Slovakia Portugal Hungary Germany Czech Republic 4.4 Staff working in conservation 2.541422 1 41.19 bodies received specific training. 5.1 A stud-book of Great Bustards in 200102 0 01.67 captivity prepared 5.2 Criteria for the evaluation of the 200403 0 00.33 success of breeding stations developed. 5.3 Feasibility study for 100204 0 00.33 reintroduction carried out following IUCN criteria 5.4 Effective captive management 200404 0 00.00 stations receive adequate support. National and Average IS: 3.67 1.44 2.97 1.95 3.04 2.18 2.58 2.55

109 Table 19 Implementation of the action plan for Houbara Bustard

Action Target No. API Spain Priority 1.1 The Action Plan for the species in included in the relevant 4 1 4.00 legislation. 1.2 Regulations on the use and management of protected 3 1 3.00 countryside take into account the conservation of the species and its habitat. 1.3 At least 80% of the Houbara population is in areas 3 2 2.00 designated as SPA and effective measures are in place to prevent adverse changes to its habitats. 1.4 The species is fully protected. 3 4 0.00 1.5 Houbara Bustard habitats are effectively managed with 3 3 1.00 agro-environmental support 1.6 Off-road driving is effectively banned from Houbara 4 1 4.00 areas. 2.1.1 Illegal hunting is effectively prevented 3 2 2.00 2.1.2 Collision with power lines prevented 2 1 2.00 2.1.3 Feral dogs and cats are removed from Houbara areas. 1 1 1.00 2.2.1 Vehicle movement in critical areas restricted and this 4 2 2.67 restriction effectively enforced 2.2.2 Military manoeuvres are not taking place in critical areas 3 3 1.00 2.2.3 10 wardens allocated to Fuerteventura and five allocated 3 1 3.00 to Lanzarote with extra numbers during breeding and hunting seasons. 2.3.1 Any proposals for building and commercial projects in 4 2 2.67 critical areas are subject to environmental impact assessment. 2.3.2 At least one of the critical areas for the species has been 4 3 1.33 acquired (or leased) and managed. 2.4 Captive programme reviewed and compliance with IUCN 2 0 2.67 criteria for reintroduction ensured 3.1.1 Houbara's distribution fully mapped. 4 3 1.33 3.1.2 Population status and distribution in Lanzarorte and 3 4 - Graciosa known. 3.1.3 Census methods improved. 3 4 - 3.1.4 Simultaneous censuses carried out on all sites every 3-4 3 1 3.00 years. 3.1.5a Knowledge on breeding biology and limiting factors 4 2 2.67 improved. 3.1.5b Impact of predators (rats, cats and dogs) evaluated. 4 1 4.00 3.1.6 Breeding success monitored every two years. 3 1 3.00 3.2.1 Extent of Houbara movement and its use of space and 3 2 2.00 habitat known 3.2.2 Effect of grazing on the species' habitat understood. 2 2 1.33 3.2.3 Facilities at La Oliva Biological Station provide useful 2 2 1.33 help in the basic research on the species.

110 Action Target No. API Spain Priority 3.2.4 Study grants for the Houbara in the Canary Islands 1 1 1.00 developed. 4.1 Public awareness campaign on the ban on off-road driving 4 2 2.67 carried out. 4.1.2 Observation hide built. 2 1 2.00 4.1.3a Educational material on the species prepared. 2 3 0.67 4.1.3b Educational campaign launched. 2 2 1.33 4.2 Local monitoring network established. 4 2 2.67 National and Average IS 2.04 2.04

111 Table 20 Implementation of the action plan for Slender-billed Curlew

Action Target API

No. Italy Greece Priority Hungary 1.1.1 Memorandum of Understanding under CMS 2 4 4 4 1.52 signed. 1.1.2 & The species requirements feature in national 3 3 1 3.43 1.1.4 wetland conservation priorities and are supported by broad policy measures 1.1.3 International collaboration is in place 2 4 4 1 1.92 1.1.4a, All key sites are effectively protected including 3 3 4 3 2.75 2.1.1 introduction of hunting ban at these sites 1.2.1 The species is strictly protected. 4 4 4 4 3.33 1.2.2 All look-alike species are protected. 3 4 4 4 2.50 2.1.2 Legislation is enforced. 3 3 4 3 2.75 2.1.3 Disturbance at key sites prevented. 2 2 4 4 1.83 2.1.4 All key sites have management plans that take into 3 1 3 4 2.40 account the ecological need of the species. 2.1.5 A strategy for the protection of the breeding 3 0 0 0 4.00 grounds (when discovered) is in place. 3.2.1 Wintering and passage sites located. 3 3 4 3 2.00 3.2.2 Satellite tracking carried out (when suitable tags 3 0 0 0 4.00 available). 3.2.3a All known key sites monitored. 2 3 4 4 1.62 3.2.3b Research programme carried out at wintering sites. 2 4 0 2 2.00 3.2.3c Recommendation for beneficial management 2 4 0 1 2.19 developed. 3.2.3d Central database on the species developed. 2 4 4 4 1.67 3.3 Hunting and poaching monitored at key sites. 2 4 4 3 1.75 4.1 Awareness of the species increased among 3 4 2 1 3.13 politicians and decision-makers. 4.2 Awareness of the species increased among general 2 4 2 1 2.08 public. 4.3 Awareness of the species increased among hunters. 3 4 2 1 3.00 National and average IS: 3.41 3.51 2.70 3.21

112 Table 21 Implementation of the action plan for Audouin’s Gull

Action Target API No. Italy Spain France Greece Priority Portugal 1.1 Fishing moratoria do not undermine 3 1 0 1 1 2 2.75 the subsistence of the major breeding colonies. 1.2 & Targets set in National Coastal 2 3 1 1 1 1 1.73 1.6 Strategies ensure benefits to the species and its habitat,. 1.3 The species is fully protected. 3 4 3 4 4 4 0.20 1.4 Chemical pollution of sea and oil spills 3 2 1 1 2 2 2.40 are prevented 1.5 National action plan prepared and 3 1 1 3 1 3 2.20 implemented 1.7 Bilateral agreement for establishing 3 2 1 0 2 0 2.33 and managing protected areas and for undertaking research are in place among governments. 2.1.1 All recent breeding sites of the species 3 3 2 1 1 3 2.00 & 1.3, are protected and have adequate 1.6 management plan 2.1.2 Habitat alteration is prevented through 3 1 2 1 4 3 1.80 land-use planning and EIA instruments at current or traditional breeding sites, where protection status has not been completed. 2.2 Human access to colonies both from 3 3 1 3 1 4 1.60 land and sea is prevented. 2.2.2 Competitors and predators controlled 2 2 1 2 1 3 1.47 when have serious impact 2.2.3 Egg collection is prevented by keeping 1 3 1 1 1 4 0.67 location of unprotected colonies confidential and through surveillance of known sites 2.3.1 All wintering sites with more than 200 2 1 1 2 0 4 1.33 individuals are protected, with damage to habitats and over-fishing avoided 3.1.1a Population monitored. 3 4 2 3 3 4 0.80 3.1.2a Detailed population surveys carried out 3 0 1 0 3 0 2.00 in eastern and southern Mediterranean. 3.1.3 Extent and location of discrete 2 1 2 1 1 4 1.47 populations understood through colour-ringing 3.2.1 Most important passage and wintering 3 1 1 2 3 3 2.00 sites identified. 3.2.2 Knowledge of the species' winter 3 0 1 1 3 1 2.08 ecology improved.

113 Action Target API No. Italy Spain France Greece Priority Portugal 3.3.1 Predictive population model 3 0 1 1 1 3 2.50 developed. 3.3.2 Breeding biology and colony-site 2 1 2 2 2 2 1.47 selection is understood. 3.3.3 Diet in different parts of the range 2 1 1 2 1 3 1.60 determined. 3.4.1 Level of chemical pollution 2 1 2 3 1 3 1.33 determined. 3.4.2 Effect of fishing evaluated. 3 1 1 1 1 4 2.40 3.4.3 Habitat requirements understood. 2 3 2 2 2 2 1.20 3.4.4 Effect of human disturbance assessed. 2 1 2 3 1 0 1.50 3.4.5 The impact of the Yellow legged Gull 2 1 1 2 3 3 1.33 on the Audouin's Gull evaluated. 3.4.6 Impact of terrestrial predators 2 1 2 3 3 4 0.93 estimated. 3.4.7 Fishing activities monitored. 3 1 1 2 1 4 2.20 3.5 Protocol on low disturbance 2 1 2 3 1 2 1.47 monitoring and research agreed. 4.1.1 Awareness among politicians and 2 3 3 1 1 3 1.20 decision-makers increased. 4.1.2 Awareness amongst general public 2 3 3 1 1 1 1.47 increased. 4.1.3 Tourists and fishermen involved in 3 1 3 2 1 0 2.25 preventing disturbance. 4.1.4 Educational material prepared and 2 1 3 3 1 1 1.47 distributed. 4.1.5 Media used to increase awareness. 2 1 3 2 1 2 1.47 4.2 Audouin's Gull used as flagship for the 2 3 3 3 1 2 1.07 protection of Mediterranean coastal habitats and islands. National and Average IS: 1.81 1.69 1.97 1.73 2.85 2.01

114 Table 22 Overview of the level of implementation of individual actions for Madeira Laurel Pigeon

Action Target API No. Priority Portugal 1.1.1 A management plan for the Natural Park of Madeira that 3 2 2.00 addresses the species' needs developed and approved. 1.1.2 The species conservation received funds from the EU and 3 4 0.00 other international sources. 1.1.3 The species recovery plan is incorporated in national and 1 1 1.00 regional legislation. 1.1.4 The Natural Park of Madeira is a World Heritage site. 2 4 0.00 1.1.5 The species is listed in Annex II of the Bern Convention. 1 1 1.00 1.1.6 Abandonment of agriculture in key areas promoted 1 1 1.00 through appropriate policy mechanisms. 2.1.1 Hunting and poisoning prevented 3 2 2.00 2.1.2 Bird-scaring devices are provided to farmers 3 4 0.00 2.1.3 Adequate system of compensation for crop damages is in 2 1 2.00 place 2.2.1 All dense, high-canopy forest below 950 m. receives 3 4 0.00 maximum protection status. 2.2.2 All patches of laurel forest are identified and protected. 3 4 0.00 2.3.1 Predation by rats prevented through reducing amount of 2 2 1.33 litter 2.3.2 Visitor numbers are restricted when and where it is 2 1 2.00 necessary 2.4.1 Livestock grazing is prevented at the most sensitive areas 3 4 0.00 2.4.3 Fires posing risk to regenerating laurel forest are 3 1 3.00 prevented 3.1.1 Population monitoring ongoing. 3 4 0.00 3.1.2 Breeding success and factors influencing it are monitored. 3 3 1.00 3.1.3 Habitat selection understood in detail. 3 4 0.00 3.2.1 Interaction between rats and the laurel forest studied. 3 4 0.00 3.2.2 Rat control programme carefully monitored. 2 1 2.00 4.1.1a Information centre on the biotopes of the Park and on the 3 3 1.00 species created. 4.1.1.b Information material produced. 3 4 0.00 National and Average IS: 2.94 2.94

115 Table 23 Implementation of the action plan for Dark-tailed Laurel Pigeon

Action Target

No. API Spain Priority 1.1.1a All areas important for the species are designated as protected 3 3 1.00 areas and supported by relevant planning instruments 1.1.1b Species recovery plan adopted and implemented 3 3 1.00 1.1.2 The Canary Islands wildlife law adequately protects the species. 3 3 1.00 1.2.1 Damage to laurel forest by commercial forestry is avoided and 4 2 2.67 restoration of degraded areas started 1.2.2 Alternatives to commercial forestry in laurel forest developed. 3 3 1.00 1.3 New Hunting Reserves established and adverse human 3 2 2.00 activities diverted away from these areas. 1.4 Health controls on birds imported are efficient. 1 1 1.00 2.1 Illegal hunting is prevented. 4 2 2.67 2.2 Monterrey pines eradicated and replanted with native species 3 2 2.00 2.3 Important areas for the species have been acquired from private 3 2 2.00 owners. 2.4 Additional drinking points are provided. 2 2 1.33 2.5 Feasibility of a captive-breeding programme investigated. 1 0 1.33 3.1 Full census of the species carried out. 4 4 0.00 3.2 Monitoring methods improved through contact with experts in 3 1 3.00 Madeira. 3.3 Population census carried out every four years 3 1 3.00 3.4 Factors affecting the breeding success understood. 4 3 1.33 3.5 Economic importance of commercial forestry understood and 2 2 1.33 alternatives to current practices identified 4.1 Public awareness campaign targeted at general public carried 3 3 1.00 out. 4.1 Awareness campaign targeted at hunters to gain their support 3 2 2.00 carried out. 4.2 Dialogue between the bodies involved in the conservation of the 3 3 1.00 species and its habitat strengthened. 4.3 Wardens are trained and motivated. 3 2 2.00 National and Average IS 2.38 2.38

116 Table 24 Implementation of the action plan for White-tailed Laurel Pigeon

Action Target No. API Spain Priority 1.1.1a All areas important for the species are designated as protected 3 3 1.00 areas and supported by relevant planning instruments 1.1.1b Species recovery plan adopted and implemented 3 3 1.00 1.1.2 The Canary Islands wildlife law adequately protects the 3 3 1.00 species. 1.2.1 Damage to laurel forest by commercial forestry avoided and 4 2 2.67 restoration of degraded areas started 1.2.2 Alternatives to commercial forestry in laurel forest developed. 3 3 1.00 1.3 New Hunting Reserves established and adverse human 3 2 2.00 activities diverted away from these areas. 1.4 Health controls on imported birds are efficient. 1 1 1.00 2.1 Illegal hunting is prevented. 4 2 2.67 2.2 Monterrey pines eradicated and replanted with native species 3 2 2.00 2.3 Important areas for the species have been acquired from private 3 2 2.00 owners. 2.4 Additional drinking points are provided. 2 2 1.33 2.5 Feasibility of a captive-breeding programme investigated. 1 0 1.33 3.1 Full census of the species carried out. 4 4 0.00 3.2 Monitoring methods improved through contact with experts in 3 1 3.00 Madeira. 3.3 Population census carried out every four years 3 1 3.00 3.4 Factors affecting the breeding success understood. 4 3 1.33 3.5 Economic importance of commercial forestry understood and 2 2 1.33 alternatives to current practices identified 4.1 Public awareness campaign targeted at general public carried 3 3 1.00 out. 4.1 Awareness campaign targeted at hunters to gain their support 3 2 2.00 carried out. 4.2 Dialogue between the bodies involved in the conservation of 3 3 1.00 the species and its habitat strengthened. 4.3 Wardens are trained and motivated. 3 2 2.00 National and Average IS 2.38 2.38

117 Table 25 Implementation of the action plan for Aquatic Warbler

Action

Target ds UK No. API Spain Latvia France Poland Priority Hungary Germany Lithuania Netherlan 1.1.1 Incentives are available to maintain the 3 0 4 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 2.20 traditional farming practices at breeding sites. 1.1.2a The species is fully protected. 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 0.22 1.1.2b National action plan developed. 3 1 2 1 1 4 1 3 1 4 2.00 1.1.2d & All activities likely to damage the species' 3 2 3 3 1 2 4 1 1 4 1.67 2.1.2 habitat are subject to environmental impact assessment. 1.1.2e Insecticide use in water catchments is 3 0 2 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 2.40 regulated and limited. 1.1.2f National wetland strategy developed, taking 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 2.33 into consideration the species' needs. 2.1.1 & All sites regularly holding breeding Aquatic 3 0 2 3 3 2 0 1 0 0 1.80 2.1.2 Warblers are protected and have management plans 2.2.1 Traditional agriculture practices preventing 3 0 2 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 2.20 habitat succession are maintained. 2.2.2 Properly applied hand scything and mowing 3 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 2.08 covers all habitats on rotational basis 2.2.3 Appropriate grazing level is maintained. 3 0 2 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 1.83 2.2.4 Fire applied as part of management where 3 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 2.08 appropriate, but uncontrolled fires are prevented 2.2.5 Natural water conditions are restored, or 2 0 1 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 1.20 where this is not possible water level is controlled.

118 Action

Target ds UK No. API Spain Latvia France Poland Priority Hungary Germany Lithuania Netherlan 2.2.6 Land managers informed about best habitat 3 2 2 3 1 4 0 1 0 0 1.83 management techniques 2.3.1 All sites in Europe used by the birds on 3 2 2 1 3 0 4 1 3 4 1.50 passage are effectively protected. 2.4.1 In areas no longer used for agriculture, 3211110110 2.86 habitat restoration carried out. 3.1.1 Census methodology developed. 3 034440300 0.40 3.1.2 All potential breeding sites located and 4034430300 0.70 surveyed 3.1.3 Major passage and wintering sites identified. 2 301004133 1.00 3.1.4a Habitat requirements at passage and 2101003134 1.22 wintering sites understood. 3.2.1 Variation in breeding density and success 2011110100 2.00 understood through comparative studies. 3.2.2 Effects of different habitat management 3014110100 2.40 techniques and water conditions on breeding populations assessed. 3.2.3 Collaborative research and monitoring 3020340200 1.25 developed. 4.1 A strong network of committed organisations 4124430330 1.33 and individuals developed. 4.2 The species is used as a flagship for the 3010010120 2.75 conservation of lowland marshes and wet meadows. 4.3 Educational material on the species produced 3010140140 1.80 and distributed. National and Average IS 2.09 2.05 2.62 1.94 2.36 2.95 1.58 2.04 3.89 2.39

119 Table 26 Implementation of the action plan for Blue Chaffinch

Action Target No. API Spain Priority 1.1 Management plan prepared under national legislation. 3 3 1.00 1.2 The National Endangered Species List reflects the threat status 3 4 0.00 of the species 1.3 The regional wildlife law protects the species outside protected 3 0 0.00 areas. 1.4 The species' habitat is fully protected under the Canary Islands 3 3 1.00 Countryside law. 1.5 The species is listed in CITES. 3 1 3.00 2.1 Illegal trapping and trade eradicated through increased 3 1 3.00 surveillance and collaboration with other countries in particular Italy, Germany and Belgium 2.2 Habitat patches are connected through afforestation of suitable 4 1 4.00 places 2.3 Effective fire prevention measures are in place. 4 2 2.67 2.4 Recreational activities diverted to other areas 1 2 0.67 2.5 Access restrictions enforced at critical areas 2 3 0.67 2.6 Feral cat population controlled. 1 3 0.33 3.1 Full census of Tenerife population carried out and followed by 3 2 2.00 regular monitoring. 3.2 Detailed studies on the biology and ecology of the species 2 1 2.00 carried out in Tenerife. 3.3 Gran Canaria population monitored regularly 3 3 0.00 3.4 Limiting factors understood 3.5 3 1.17 3.5 Optimum habitat requirements understood. 3 3 1.00 3.6 Captive breeding programme implemented. 1 3 0.33 4.1, 4.2 Conservation problems and need for habitat conservation 2 3 0.67 understood by local people and tourists as a result of awareness raising campaign National and Average IS 2.51 2.51

120 Table 27 Implementation of the action plan for Azores Bullfinch

Action Target

No. API Priority Portugal 1.1a The species is protected 2 4 0.00 1.1b The habitat is protected. 2 3 0.67 1.1.1 All laurel forest patches are designated Natural Forest 2 3 0.67 Reserve and designated as SPA. 1.2 The Natural Forest Reserve has an appropriate 3 2 2.00 management body, management plan, regulations and funds. 1.1.3 The action plan for the species is incorporated in regional 1 1 1.00 and national legislation. 1.1.2 The legislation on planting exotic species efficiently 3 1 3.00 protects the species habitat. 2.1 Invasion of exotic flora stopped and laurel forests are 4 2 2.67 restored. 2.2 Population of native plant species providing food to Azores 4 2 2.67 Bullfinch increased. 2.3 Supplementary food is provided between February and 3 2 2.00 April. 2.4 Captive breeding attempted (only if the wild population 1 0 1.33 decreased dramatically). 3.1 Population dynamics monitored. 3 2 2.00 3.2 Invasion of laurel forest by exotic plants studied. 2 1 2.00 3.3 Taxonomic position of the species in relation to the 2 1 2.00 continental P. pyrrhula fully understood. 4.1 Information about the species provided to local people and 2 2 1.33 visitors National and Average IS 2.00 2.00

121

122