DEVELOPMENT OF THE EUROPEAN ACTION PLAN FOR THE EUROPEAN ROLLER CORACIAS GARRULUS IN LITHUANIA
Breeding Migration Wintering Yes no no
1 Table 1 Population size and trend in …. (country) Maximum size Breeding of migrating or Q Population Q Q
u u non breeding u
Breeding a Year(s) of the trend in the a a Year(s) of the l l l
Country i i populations in i t t t
No. y estimate last 10 years y y estimate the last 10 (or 3 years (or 3 generations) generations) Lithuania 35-50 good 2007 Large decline good ? poor 2007 Totals
Breeding No. Specify if pairs or individuals. The same unit should be used for all breeding countries. Quality: o Good = Reliable quantitative data available (e.g. atlas, survey or monitoring data) for the whole period and country. o Medium = generally well known, but only poor or incomplete quantitative data available. o Poor = Poorly known with no quantitative data available. o Unknown = information on quality not available.
Breeding Population trend in the last 10 years (or three generations): If possible, calculate the actual trend in % or use the following categories: Large decline (>=30%), Moderate decline (10-29%), Small decline (0-9%), Stable (<10% decline and <10% increase), Small increase (0-9%), Moderate increase (10-29%), Large increase (>=30%), Unknown (insufficient data). Migration & Non Breeding No.: Population numbers in individuals.
2 2 - THREATS
The threats section should cover the following headings:
General overview of threats Which are the most important threats to the species in your country? What is their impact on the population?
No clear and scientifically proved information. It is evident that changes in the common agricultural practices and intensification of the forestry have significant impact on the local scale
List of critical and important threats Follow a descending priority order of threats, starting with the most important.
There no evident information. Seems, there are a pull of the threats with accumulative impact. See ANNEX 1
The issue should be discussed before the making of the solution.
However, the most likely, that the main threats on the national scale are related with the practices in the agricultural and forestry sector. But scoring is very problematic in the frame of the total negative impact around the annual cycle.
Problem tree
Prior to the workshop you will be presented with a draft Problem tree, analysing the cause-effect links between the most important threats and their impacts on a biogeographical population level (e.g. in Europe). National experts will be required to think about how correctly the problem tree reflects the specific situation for the species in their own country. They should bear in mind that there might be differences between regions and countries and the European level of threat analysis should capture the most important threats according to the size of their impact on the population in Europe.
The problem tree should be included as a figure.
3 It should be made clear and focused, covering the critical and important threats, not all threats. Threats that affect distinct biogeographical populations differently should be flagged up in the problem tree accordingly, showing to which biogeographic population they refer to. An example of a problem tree is given as Figure 2.
We are ready to discuss the issue during the workshop.
4 3 - POLICIES AND LEGISLATION RELEVANT FOR MANAGEMENT.
National policies, legislation and ongoing activities List national nature conservation and related legislation List sectoral programmes (e.g. Rural Development Plans, Forestry Development Plans, etc) which contain measures that may be relevant to the conservation of the species.
The species is included into the national Red Data Book (1 E).
The species also is protected by the Law of the Protected Species (full protection of the nests and the birds/individuals).
LOD-BirdLife Lithuania has proposed to stop the logging around the breeding sites (Changes of the Main Logging Rules).
However: the species is not related with a support/compensation in the agricultural sector; the species is not related with a support/compensation in the private forestry sector.
No game species with strict protection of the each individual (penalties by the Administrative Code).
5 Table 2 Current conservation actions for the species in your country.
Title of project/action 1: Monitoring of the breeding population
Objective Action Coverage Period Organisations responsible, Contact name, e-mail address 1. Monitoring of the breeding MoE (Funding), National population parameters: number of Started in Institute of Ecology of Vilnius breeding pairs,. 2005 University (co-ordination, Population decline implementation) halted. 2. Designation of breeding areas as MoE (Legal implementation), National Started in protected areas LOD-BirdLife Lithuania – initiate, 2004 lobbying Title of project/action 2: Improving the breeding conditions
Objective Action Coverage Period Organisations responsible, Contact name, e-mail address 1. Arrangement of the artificial nest- Started in Administration of the Aukstaitijas NP, boxes with protection against the Local 2005 LOD-BirdLife Lithuania, Druskininkai predators State Forest Enterprise 2. Improvement the legislation related Proposed LOD-BirdLife Lithuania National with logging practises in 2008
6 5 - REFERENCES
Please provide titles of the most important reference publication about the species in your country.
1. Balevičius K. (eds), 1992. Lithuanian Red Data Book. Vilnius. (in Lithuanian). 2. Ivanauskas T., 1959. Birds of Lithuania. vol.2. (in Lithuanian). 3. Kurlavičius P., Raudonikis L. 1999. Assesment of the Lithuanian Breeding Bird Abundance. Report of the Lithuanian Ornithofaunistic Commission, 1999. Ciconia. Vol. 7: 52-57. (in Lithuanian). 4. Kurlavičius P., Raudonikis L. 2001. Assesment of the Lithuanian Breeding Bird Abundance, 2001. Ciconia. Vol.9: 92-97. (in Lithuanian). 5. Kurlavičius P., Preikša Ž., Skuja S., Kirstukas M., Brazaitis G., Stanevičius V., Mačiulis M., Mačiulis M., Jusys V., Butleris A., Raudonikis L., Riauba G., Gražulevičius G., Pranaitis A., Šablevičius B., Dementavičius D. 2006. Lithuanian Bird Breeding Atlas. Lithuanian Ornithological Society. Kaunas: Lututė. (in Lithuanian). 6. Logminas V. (eds.), 1991. Lithuanian Fauna. Birds, vol.2. Vilnius: Mokslas. (in Lithuanian). 7. Raudonikis L. 2004. Important Bird Areas of the European Union Importance in Lithuania. Lithuanian Ornithological Society & Institute of Ecology of Vilnius University. Lutute, Vilnius. 8. Rasomavicius V. (eds.), 2007. Lithuanian Red Data Book. Institute of Botany & Institute of Ecology of Vilnius University. Lutute, Vilnius. (in Lithuanian).
7 ANNEX 1 Threats importance at population/group of countries level Threat score Population 1 1. Habitat Loss/Degradation (human induced) Threat score 1.1. Mature forest Unknown 1.2. Grazed pine forest area Unknown 1.3. Extensively used meadows on the forest margin Unknown 2. Direct mortality 2.1. For making of the stuffed birds Law 3. Predation 3.1. Predation by the marten Unknown 4. Lack/lost of the nesting sites 4.1. Not enough natural/woodpeckers made holes Unknown 4.2. Lost of the artificial nestboxes Unknown 5. Usage of the pesticides 5.1. For prevention against the pets in the commercial forest Unknown 5.2. For the agricultural purposes Unknown 6. Disturbance 6.1. Because of recreational developments Unknown 6.2. Because of urban developments Unknown 6.3 Because of forestry activities
Notes: The threats description should reflect the actual understanding of the situation with the species, according to the latest available knowledge and the workshop participants’ best judgement. It is not necessary to follow a formal threat classification as the logical analysis and cause-effect relationships among the main threats are the important aspects to focus the plan on.
8 Threats are not hierarchical, but clustered according to type of effect. Threat score: Critical, High, Medium, Low, Local, Unknown.
ANNEX 2
Participants will be provided with a set of maps to help them analyse the information.
Most important sites for the species and their status. International Protected areas Area Location Population Type of Protection status Country and national Year Season Accuracy name (ha) protected area name Lat Long Min Max Lithuania Dzukija IBA 50000 2 3 2007 Breedi Good Dzukija National National Park, Different, based ng Park SPA on the spatial planning scheme Lithuania Labanoras 50000 2 3 2007 Breedi Good Labanoras Regional Park, Different, based IBA ng regional Park SPA on the spatial planning scheme Lithuania Aukstaitija 36000 7 10 2007 Breedi Good Aukstaitija National Park, Different, based NP ng National Park SPA on the spatial planning scheme Lithuania Druskininkai 25000 10 15 2007 Breedi Good None None None State Forest ng Enterprise
NOTES
9 Population Min - Max. For breeding ('season' column), figures are usually given in pairs; for other seasons, figures are given in individuals Season: Breeding, Migration, Non breeding visitor(wintering) Accuracy: Good (Observed) = based on reliable or representative quantitative data derived from complete counts or comprehensive measurements. Good (Estimated) = based on reliable or representative quantitative data derived from sampling or interpolation. Medium (Estimated) = based on incomplete quantitative data derived from sampling or interpolation. Medium (Inferred) = based on incomplete or poor quantitative data derived from indirect evidence. Poor (Suspected) = based on no quantitative data, but guesses derived from circumstantial evidence. Protected Area name = Nature Reserve, National Park, Ramsar site, etc. Type of protected area: IUCN Category Protection status: level of overlap between the IBA and a National or International protected area.
10 ANNEX 3 All tables in this Annex to be filled in advance of workshop by questionnaire
National legal status. Country Legal protection For game species, give opening/closing dates Red data Book, 1 (E), individuals are fully Lithuania Never been games species in the country protected (Law on Protected Species)
Recent conservation measures. Country Is there a national action plan for the species? Is there a national {Species} project / working group? Lithuania No Not official group, annual observations of the species on voluntary basis/ annual meeting organised by LOD-BirdLife Lithuania
Ongoing monitoring schemes for the species. Is there a national survey / monitoring Country Is there a monitoring programme in protected areas? programme? Lithuania Yes, monitoring conducting every 2 years, almost 80% Yes, almost 100% coverage of the national population
Overview of the coverage of the species in networks of sites with legal protection status. Country Percentage of national Percentage of population Percentage of population included in IBAs Percentage of population included in SPAs1 population included
11 included in Ramsar sites in protected areas under national law Lithuania More than half Almost none More than half More than half This table could be generated automatically by BirdLife WBDB on request, SSAP compilers may use classes instead of real figures: 0-10 (almost none), 10-50 (less than half), 50-90 (more than half), 90-100% (all).
1 This is relevant only for European Union member states. Any other regional (legal) protection should be mentioned in next column.
12