Technical considerations in conjunction with the proposal to apply Autumn derogation for the live-capturing of seven finch species – Chaffinch ( Fringilla coelebs ), Linnet ( Carduelis cannabina ), European Goldfinch ( Carduelis carduelis ), European Greenfinch ( Carduelis chloris ), Hawfinch ( Coccothraustes coccothrausthes ), European Serin ( Serinus serinus ) and Eurasian Siskin ( Carduelis spinus ).
An analysis of the proposal presented by the Federation for Hunting and Conservation — Malta (FKNK)
Wild Birds Regulation Unit Parliamentary Secretariat for Agriculture, Fisheries and Animal Rights Ministry for Sustainable Development, the Environment and Climate Change
April 2014
Abbreviations
BTO British Trust for Ornithology BWP Birds of the Western Palearctic FKNK The Federation for Hunting and Conservation — Malta IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature KVM Das Kompendium der Vögel Mitteleuropas WBRU Wild Birds Regulation Unit
i
Executive Summary
On the 22 nd August 2013, the Federation for Hunting and Conservation — Malta (FKNK) submitted a proposal before Malta Ornis Committee concerning the application of a derogation under Article 9 of the EC Birds Directive to permit limited live capturing of seven species of finches under strictly supervised regime. The Committee requested the Wild Birds Regulation Unit to assess this proposal from a legal, technical and conservation point of view and to refer back its analysis for further consideration.
FKNK’s proposal concerns the opening of an autumn 2014 season for the live-capturing of seven finch species, namely Chaffinch ( Fringilla coelebs ), Linnet ( Carduelis cannabina ), Goldfinch ( Carduelis carduelis ), Greenfinch (Carduelis chloris ), Hawfinch ( Coccothraustes coccothraustes ), Serin ( Serinus serinus ) and Siskin ( Carduelis spinus ) from 7 October to 7 December.
This report reviews the technical and conservation issues arising out of this proposal with the aim of providing the Ornis Committee and the Government with an informed basis for further consideration and decision.
ii
Contents Page No. Abbreviations...... i Executive Summary...... ii Key to conservation status codes...... vi Categories of Species of European Conservation Concern (SPECs) and Non SPECs...... vi 1. FKNK’s proposal...... 1 2. Consideration of specific conditions in the application of the derogation...... 1 (i) Small numbers criteria...... 1 (ii) FKNK’s proposal with respect to small numbers...... 2 3. Methodology...... 3 a) Conservation status...... 3 b) Ring recoveries...... 4 c) Recruitment rate: breeding success vs. breeding rate...... 5 d) Partitioning of the <% mortality with other Member States...... 5 e) Formula for calculating <1% mortality of the reference population and proportionality to Carnet de Chasse data...... 6 Species Conservation Status and Small Numbers
4. Chaffinch ( Fringilla coelebs )...... 7 5. Linnet ( Carduelis cannabina )...... 13 6. European Goldfinch ( Carduelis carduelis )...... 20 7. Greenfinch ( Carduelis chloris )...... 26 8. Hawfinch ( Coccothraustes coccothraustes )...... 32 9. Serin ( Serinus serinus )...... 40 10. Siskin ( Carduelus spinus )...... 45
11. Conclusions regarding the reference populations and the <1% threshold...... 51 12. Conclusion...... 52 References...... 53 Appendix I: FKNK’s proposal for autumn live capturing of seven finch species...... 54
List of Figures
Fig. 1 Distribution and conservation status of the European Chaffinch ( Fringilla coelebs )...... 7 Fig. 2 Chaffinch EU population trend by Member State...... 10 Fig. 3 Chaffinch EU population trend (ring recoveries in Malta)...... 10 Fig. 4 Distribution and conservation status of the Linnet ( Carduelis cannabiba )...... 13 Fig. 5 Linnet EU population trend by Member State...... 16 Fig. 6 Linnet EU population trend (ring recoveries in Malta)...... 16 Fig. 7 Linnet EU ring recoveries: overall change (minimum pairs)...... 16 Fig. 8 Linnet EU ring recoveries: overall change (maximum pairs)...... 16 Fig. 9 Distribution and conservation status of the Goldfinch (Carduelis carduelis )...... 20 Fig. 10 Goldfinch EU population trend by Member State...... 23 Fig. 11 Goldfinch EU population trend (ring recoveries in Malta)...... 23 Fig. 12 Distribution and conservation status of the Greenfinch ( Carduelis chloris )...... 26 Fig. 13 Greenfinch EU population trend by Member State...... 29
iii
Fig. 14 Greenfinch EU population trend (ring recoveries in Malta)...... 29 Fig. 15 Distribution and conservation status of the Hawfinch ( Coccothraustes coccothraustes )...... 32 Fig. 16 Foreign ring recoveries of Hawfinches in Italy...... 35 Fig. 17 Foreign ringed Hawfinches recovered in Italy during the autumn migration period...... 35 Fig. 18 Hawfinch EU population trend by Member State...... 36 Fig. 19 Hawfinch EU population trend (ring recoveries in Italy)...... 36 Fig. 20 Hawfinch EU ring recoveries: overall change (minimum pairs)...... 37 Fig. 21 Hawfinch EU ring recoveries: overall change (maximum pairs)...... 37 Fig. 22 Distribution and conservation status of the Serin ( Serinus serinus )...... 40 Fig. 23 Serin EU population trend by Member State...... 43 Fig. 24 Serin EU population trend (ring recoveries in Malta)...... 43 Fig. 25 Distribution and conservation status of the Siskin ( Carduelis spinus )...... 45 Fig. 26 Siskin EU population trend by Member State...... 48 Fig. 27 Siskin EU population trend (ring recoveries in Malta)...... 48
List of Tables
Table 1 Carnet de Chasse live capturing data for the seven finch species (2002–2008)...... 2 Table 2 Short term and long term trend classifications of the seven finch species (Pan European)...... 3 Table 3 Percentage change in the minimum and maximum number of breeding pairs at Pan European, EU and reference population levels...... 4 Table 4 The five most commonly recorded countries from finch ring recoveries in Malta (six species)...... 4 Table 5 Partitioning of the <1% mortality (ring recoveries in Malta/Italy) with other EU Member States...... 5 Table 6 Short term and long term trend classification of the Chaffinch (Pan European)...... 8 Table 7 Chaffinch long term and short term percentage trend change (2010–2011)...... 8 Table 8 Chaffinch EU breeding population and ring recoveries...... 9 Table 9 Chaffinch ring recoveries in Malta from other EU Member States and corresponding population trend...... 10 Table 10 Chaffinch breeding population estimates (reference population)...... 10 Table 11 Carnet de Chasse live capturing data for Chaffinch (2002–2008)...... 11 Table 12 Minimum breeding population and mortality rate (Chaffinch)...... 11 Table 13 Short term and long term trend classification of the Linnet (Pan European)...... 14 Table 14 Linnet long term and short term percentage trend change (2010–2011)...... 14 Table 15 Linnet EU breeding population and ring recoveries...... 15 Table 16 Linnet ring recoveries in Malta from other EU Member States and corresponding population trend...... 16 Table 17 Linnet breeding population estimates...... 17 Table 18 Estimates of Linnet breeding populations with a favourable conservation status (reference population)...... 17 Table 19 Carnet de Chasse live capturing data for Linnet (2002–2008)...... 18 Table 20 Minimum breeding population and mortality rate (Linnet)...... 18 Table 21 Short term and long term trend classification of the Goldfinch (Pan European)...... 21 Table 22 Goldfinch long term and short term percentage trend change (2010–2011)...... 21 Table 23 Goldfinch EU breeding population and ring recoveries...... 22 Table 24 Goldfinch ring recoveries in Malta from other EU Member States and corresponding population trend...... 23 Table 25 Goldfinch breeding population estimates (reference population)...... 23 Table 26 Carnet de Chasse live capturing data for Goldfinch (2002–2008)...... 24 Table 27 Minimum breeding population and mortality rate (Goldfinch)...... 24 Table 28 Short term and long term trend classification of the Greenfinch (Pan European)...... 27 Table 29 Greenfinch long term and short term percentage trend change (2010–2011)...... 27 Table 30 Greenfinch EU breeding population and ring recoveries...... 28 Table 31 Greenfinch ring recoveries in Malta from other EU Member States and corresponding conservation status...... 29 Table 32 Greenfinch breeding population estimates (reference population)...... 29
iv
Table 33 Carnet de Chasse live capturing data for Greenfinch (2002–2008)...... 30 Table 34 Minimum breeding population and mortality rate (Greenfinch)...... 30 Table 35 Short term and long term trend classification of the Hawfinch (Pan European)...... 33 Table 36 Hawfinch long term and short term percentage trend change (2010–2011)...... 33 Table 37 Hawfinch EU breeding population and ring recoveries...... 34 Table 38 Hawfinch ring recoveries in Italy from other EU Member States and corresponding conservation status...... 36 Table 39 Hawfinch breeding population estimates (reference population)...... 37 Table 40 Carnet de Chasse live capturing data for Hawfinch (2002–2008)...... 38 Table 41 Minimum breeding population and mortality rate (Hawfinch)...... 38 Table 42 Short term and long term trend classification of the Serin (Pan European)...... 41 Table 43 Serin long term and short term percentage trend change (2010–2011)...... 41 Table 44 Serin EU breeding population and ring recoveries...... 41 Table 45 Serin ring recoveries in Malta from other EU Member States and corresponding conservation status...... 42 Table 46 Serin breeding population estimates (reference population)...... 43 Table 47 Carnet de Chasse live capturing data for Serin (2002–2008)...... 43 Table 48 Minimum breeding population and mortality rate (Serin)...... 44 Table 49 Short term and long term trend classification of the Siskin (Pan European)...... 46 Table 50 Siskin long term and short term percentage trend change (2010–2011)...... 46 Table 51 Siskin EU breeding population and ring recoveries...... 47 Table 52 Siskin ring recoveries in Malta from other EU Member States and corresponding conservation status...... 48 Table 53 Siskin breeding population estimates (reference population)...... 48 Table 54 Carnet de Chasse live capturing data for Siskin (2002–2008)...... 49 Table 55 Minimum breeding population and mortality rate (Siskin)...... 49 Table 56 Consideration of the <1% mortality of the reference population and harvest records...... 51
v
Key to conservation status codes
Category European Conservation Global species of status in population or global Europe range conservation concentrated concern in Europe SPEC 1 Yes – – SPEC 2 No Unfavourable Yes SPEC 3 No Unfavourable No Non-SPEC E No Favourable Yes Non-SPEC No Favourable No Source: BirdLife International (2004: xiii)
Categories of Species of European Conservation Concern (SPECs) and Non-SPECs
Each species is initially assessed against the IUCN Red List Criteria (IUCN 2001) at a European level, and then against the additional criteria derived mainly from Birds in Europe I (Tucker and Heath 1994). All population size thresholds refer to minimum population estimates. In descending order of threat, a species is evaluated as: Critically if its European population meets any of the IUCN Red List Criteria (A to E) for Critically Endangered. Endangered (CR) Such species have an Unfavourable conservation status in Europe because they are considered to be facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild (IUCN 2001). Endangered (EN) if its European population meets any of the IUCN Red List Criteria (A to E) for Endangered. Such species have an Unfavourable conservation status in Europe because they are considered to be facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild (IUCN 2001). Vulnerable (V) if its European population meets any of the IUCN Red List Criteria (A to E) for Vulnerable. Such species have an unfavourable conservation status in Europe because they are considered to be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild (IUCN 2001). Declining (D) if its European population does not meet any IUCN Red List Criteria, but declined by more than 10% over 10 years (i.e. 1990–2000) or three generations, whichever is longer. Such species have an Unfavourable conservation status in Europe because they are unable to maintain their populations and/or natural ranges in the long term. [Birds in Europe I classified species as SPECs if the size of their population or range declined between 1970–1990 by 20% or more in 33–65% of the population (or by 50% or more in 12–24% of the population). Given the shorter time period covered by Birds in Europe II, an overall decline exceeding 10% is comparable with this approach.] Rare (R) if its European population does not meet any IUCN Red List Criteria and is not Declining, but numbers fewer than 10,000 breeding pairs ( or 20,000 breeding individuals or 40,000 wintering individuals), and is not marginal to a larger non European population. Such species have an Unfavourable conservation status in Europe because the small size of their population renders them more susceptible to accelerated declines as a result of: • break up of social structure; • loss of genetic diversity; • large scale population fluctuations and catastrophic chance events; • existing or potential exploitation, persecution or disturbance by humans. Depleted (H) if its European population does not meet any IUCN Red List Criteria and is not Rare or Declining, but has not yet recovered from a moderate or large decline suffered during 1970–1990, which led to its classification as Endangered, Vulnerable or Declining in Birds in Europe I. Such species have an Unfavourable conservation status in Europe because they have already undergone a population
vi
decline of the type that various directives, conventions and agreements intend to prevent, and have not yet recovered. Localised (L) if its European population does not meet any IUCN Red List Criteria and is not Declining, Rare or Depleted, but is heavily concentrated, with more that 90% of the European population occurring at 10 or fewer sites (as listed in Heath and Evans 2000). Such species have an Unfavourable conservation status in Europe because their dependence on a small number of sites renders them more susceptible to accelerated declines as a result of: • large scale population fluctuations and catastrophic chance events; • existing or potential exploitation, persecution and disturbance by humans. Secure (S) if its European population does not meet any of the criteria listed above. Such species have a Favourable conservation status in Europe. In addition, a species is considered to be: Data Deficient if there is inadequate information to make a direct, or indirect, assessment of its risk of extinction (DD) based on its distribution and/or population status. A species in this category may be well studied, and its biology well known, but appropriate data on its abundance and/or distribution in Europe are lacking. Data Deficient is therefore not a category of threat (IUCN 2001). Not evaluated if its European population has not yet been evaluated against the criteria. (NE) Source: BirdLife International (2004: 8)
vii
1. FKNK’s proposal
FKNK’s proposal ‘ Conserving the Indigenous Socio-Cultural Tradition of Live-Finch Capturing on Malta ’ is attached as Appendix I to this report. FKNK have proposed the application of a derogation for the limited live- capture of seven finch species by traditional nets, known as clap-nets, under strictly supervised conditions, between 7 October and 7 December.
2. Consideration of specific conditions in the application of the derogation
(i) Small numbers criteria
According to the Guidance Document on Sustainable Hunting under the Birds Directive 1, there are two approaches which may be used to determine what is considered to be “small numbers”, as follows: (i) the figure must be much lower than the bag statistics of the species, a figure in the order of 1% usually meets this condition, or alternatively (ii) the figure is in the order of 1% of the total mortality of the population concerned with the derogation.
Paragraph 3.5.34 of the Guidance Document on Sustainable Hunting under the Birds Directive specifies that:
In order to determine an exact figure for the threshold [bag limit], two approaches are possible: - the figure must be much lower, by at least an order of size, than those figures characteristic of the taking of birds under Article 7. A figure of 1% meets this condition. - the taking must have a negligible effect on the population dynamics of the species concerned. A figure of 1% or less meets this condition as the parameters of population dynamics are seldom known to within less than one percentage point and bird taking amounting to less than 1% can be ignored from a mathematical point of view in model studies.
Reference is also made to the European Commission paper entitled ‘Second report on the application of Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds’ (COM (93) 572 final) of November 1993. In this paper, according to the EU ORNIS Committee, “small numbers” should be understood to mean any sample of less than 1% of the total annual mortality rate of the population in question (average value) for those species which are not to be hunted and a sample in the order of 1% for those species which may be hunted.
The document, however, argues that although hunting bags are generally proportionate to the population size, the hunting pressures do not necessarily provide an appropriate approach, since this focus is on the hunting rather than the population size. Furthermore, the implication that the greater the hunting bagged the greater the number of birds which could be taken under the derogation, would not be considered to be a good conservation practice. According to the EC Guidelines, for partial migrant species such as the seven species of finches (Hume, 2002), the population concerned means “ the population of the region from which the largest numbers of migratory birds come before passing through the region where the derogation is sought to be applied during the period ”. Hereinafter this is termed as the reference (or source) population, which, as discussed in Section 6(d), is partitioned with other Member States.
Carnet de Chasse data attests that in Malta the number of finches that were caught until 2008 falls below the 1% threshold (which is based on the minimum , not the average, number of breeding pairs and minimum recruitment rate of the reference population within the territory of the European Union, hereinafter referred to as the ‘<1% mortality’ or ‘<1% threshold’). Table 1 below collates all data for the seven finch species discussed in the subsequent sections. The average number of finches caught throughout the seven-year period (2002– 2008) is not only significantly lower than the <1% mortality for each species but also lower than the combined <1% mortality.
1 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/action_plans/guidance_en.htm 1
Table 1 Carnet de Chasse live -capturing data for the seven finch species (2002 –2008)
Species 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Average <1% mortality
Chaffinch 4,957 8,159 3,746 7,215 4,783 6,914 6,750 42,524 6,075 144,491
Linnet 18,946 22,321 14,362 13,534 9,252 28,094 19,143 125,652 17,950 36,717
Goldfinch 1,248 1,348 497 1,240 505 1,880 458 7,176 1,025 19,584
Greenfinch 8,231 12,449 2,494 4,130 3,062 6,202 2,619 39,187 5,598 85,058
Hawfinch 530 207 94 1,885 612 553 347 4,228 604 12,915
Serin 4,918 4,525 1,599 1,814 2,509 3,800 3,139 22,304 3,186 13,356
Siskin 670 380 296 7,877 1,449 10,120 1,503 22,295 3,185 5,364
Total 39,500 49,389 23,088 37,695 22,172 57,563 33,959 263,366 37,623 317,501
Source: Carnet de Chasse data, Environment Protection Directorate (Malta Environment and Planning Authority). Available at: http://www.mepa.org.mt/biodiversity reporting
(ii) FKNK’s proposal with respect to small numbers
FKNK based their small numbers criterion on the 1% mortality rate of each species. In their workings for establishing the reference population, FKNK excluded the populations of the Iberian Peninsula, France and UK, maintaining that “migrating birds move south/south-west during the autumn migration (post-nuptial) from the northern hemispheres” and that “[b]irds from the European continent disperse, albeit some partially (partial migrants), as is the case for the 7 European finches”.
The literature (e.g., BirdLife International, 2004) provides bird population estimates at a minimum and maximum range. However, for the purpose of calculating “small numbers”, only the minimum breeding populations (not the average number and recruitment rate (chicks per pair) were considered by FKNK in their calculation of the 1% mortality of each of the seven finch species. Similarly, the workings in this analysis are also based on the lowest threshold for each respective finch population estimate (minimum breeding pairs) and recruitment rate . With respect to the conservation status and reference population of each of the seven finch species, this analysis refers to five data sources as listed hereunder.
1) Birds of the Western Palearctic (Cramp and Perrins, 1994) 2) BirdLife International: Birds in Europe II (2004) and BirdLife International Species Factsheets (2014) 3) Ring recoveries in Malta for Chaffinch, Linnet, Goldfinch, Greenfinch, Serin and Siskin (Raine, 2007) 4) Ring recoveries in Italy for Hawfinch (Spina and Volpini, 2008) 5) European Bird Census Council (EBCC, 2012 and 2013)2
The methodology adopted in this analysis with respect to small numbers is discussed in more detail in Section 4.
2 http://www.ebcc.info/wpimages/video/Leaflet2012.pdf and http://www.ebcc.info/wpimages/video/Leaflet2013.pdf 2
3. Methodology
This section outlines the methodology used in assessing FKNK’s proposal with respect to the calculation of small numbers and the species’ conservation status. WBRU’s assessment is based on the population of the seven finch species within the EU territory (EU 28). Where the literature provides a minimum and maximum range, the assessment took into account the minimum number of breeding pairs (not the average), the minimum recruitment rat e (chicks per pair) and, with respect to the magnitude percentage change in the population, the maximum change was taken into account (e.g., if a population in an EU Member State decreased between 20% to 29%, then the latter percentage took precedence).
(a) Conservation status
Box 3, p. 8 ("Classification of European threat status") of Birds in Europe II (BirdLife International, 2004) specifies that a species is classified as declining "if its European population does not meet any IUCN Red List Criteria, but declined by more than 10% over 10 years (i.e., 1990-2000) or three generations, whichever is longer". The explanatory text further specifies that Birds in Europe I "classified species as SPECs if the size of their population or range declined between 1970-1990 by 20% or more in 33-65% of the population (or by 50% or more in 12-24% of the population). Given the shorter time period covered by Birds in Europe II, an overall decline exceeding 10% is comparable with this approach".
However, Box 3, p. 14, of Birds in Europe II ("Interpreting the data table") also specifies that when the overall population change is less than 20% , the overall direction of the population trend is considered to be stable. For the purpose of this technical report, when calculating the overall direction of the EU population trend of the respective species, a change by not more than 10% is considered as Stable . Table 2 provides a general overview of the trend classification of the seven finch species based on the latest European Bird Census Council data (EBCC, 2013 3). Further information on the conservation status of the seven finch species is provided in subsequent sections of this report.
Table 2 Short-term and long-term trend classifications of the seven finch species (Pan-European) Short-term trend (1990–2011) Long-term trend (1980–2011)
Carduelis cannabina Moderate decline Moderate decline Carduelis carduelis Stable Moderate increase Carduelis chloris Stable Moderate increase Carduelis spinus Moderate decline Moderate decline Coccothraustes coccothraustes Moderate decline Moderate increase Fringilla coelebs Stable Moderate increase Serinus serinus Moderate decline Moderate decline Source: European Bird Census Council, 2013 (http://www.ebcc.info/wpimages/video/Leaflet2013.pdf ).
It should be noted that the long-term (1980–2011) trend classification of the Goldfinch, Greenfinch, Hawfinch and Chaffinch is classified as “Moderate increase” at the Pan-European level (EBCC, 2013). Conversely, both the short-term (1990–2011) and the long-term (1980–2011) trend classification of the Linnet, Serin and Siskin are classified as “Moderate decline” at the Pan-European level (EBCC, 2013). However, noticeable differences exist in terms of the percentage change of the minimum and maximum pairs at Pan-European, EU and reference population levels (ring recoveries in Malta/Italy, hereinafter referred to as ‘EU ring recoveries’). As shown in Table 3, save for the maximum number of Linnet pairs within the EU territory, all percentage changes are within the Stable or Increasing category, denoting a Favourable conservation status .
3 http://www.ebcc.info/wpimages/video/Leaflet2013.pdf 3
Table 3 Percentage change in the minimum and maximum number of breeding pairs at Pan- European, EU and reference population levels
Species Pan-European EU Population Reference Population (EU Population Ring Recoveries in Malta)
Min Pairs Max Pairs Min Pairs Max Pairs Geomean Min Pairs Max Pairs
Carduelis cannabina Stable Stable Stable Decrease Stable Increase Increase ( 1.42%) ( 7.09%) ( 2.17%) ( 12.94%) ( 9.80%) (+30.95%) (+25.19%)
Carduelis carduelis Stable Stable Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase (+4.34%) (+5.12%) (+11.55%) (+12.17%) (+12%) (+46.06%) (+47.71%)
Carduelis chloris Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable (+4.41%) ( 0.73%) (+5.91%) ( 0.96%) (+1.06%) (+2.63%) (+2.31%)
Carduelis spinus Stable Stable Increase Increase Increase Stable Stable (+2.20%) (+5.51%) (+10.68%) (+20.54%) (+17.54%) (+0.60%) (+0.71%)
Coccothraustes Stable Increase Increase Increase Increase Increase* Increase* coccothraustes (+8.88%) (+10.27%) (+11.30%) (+13.01%) (+12.39%) (+11.99%) (+14.16%)
Fringilla coelebs Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable ( 1.21%) ( 1.64%) ( 2.53%) ( 3.04%) ( 2.87%) (0%) (0%)
Serinus serinus Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable (+1.31%) ( 1.48%) (+0.84%) ( 2.05%) ( 1.19%) (+4.52%) (+3.33%)
An asterisk (*) denotes ring recoveries in Italy Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007); Spina and Volpini (2008).
(b) Ring recoveries
The assessment on reference populations and small numbers is based on ring recoveries from EU Member States (Raine, 2007), with the exception of the Hawfinch since there are no ring recoveries of this species in Malta. In the latter case, ring recoveries in Italy (Spina and Volpini, 2008) were used as a proxy. A total of 112 foreign-ringed finches (six species, excluding Coccothraustes coccothraustes ) from 19 countries were recorded in Malta by Raine (2007). The five most common countries recorded from these ring recoveries are shown in Table 4. Combined, these top five countries make up 73.2% of all finch recoveries in Malta. The remaining 14 countries, including five non-EU Member States (Belarus, Norway, Russia, Switzerland and Ukraine), make up 26.8% of the remaining ring recoveries. For the purpose of calculating the reference population and <1% mortality, these five non-EU Member States were omitted.
Table 4 The five most commonly recorded countries from finch ring recoveries in Malta (six species)
Country No. of recoveries % of total recoveries
Czech Republic 23 20.5 Hungary 19 17.0 Italy 16 14.3 Slovenia 13 11.6 Croatia 11 9.8 Source: Raine (2007)
4
(c) Recruitment rate: breeding success vs. breeding rate
For the purpose of calculating the recruitment rate of each species, the minimum number of chicks per pair was used. Both the Birds of the Western Palearctic (BWP) [Cramp and Perrins, 1994] and the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) [Robinson, 2005] refer to the breeding rate when referring to the number of young per pair. However, Cramp and Perrins (1994) also refer to the breeding success (young per pair). It should be noted that since the values provided for the number of young per pair do not tally between BWP and BTO, for the purpose of calculating small numbers, only the lowest recruitment rate was considered. For example, the breeding rate for the Chaffinch ( Fringilla coelebs ) is 3–4 young per pair (BWP and BTO), yet the breeding success is 2.6 (BWP). In such instance, the breeding success of 2.6 is used in the formula for calculating small numbers. Whenever the breeding success specified by BWP is higher than the breeding rate, such as the case with the Greenfinch ( Carduelis chloris ) [breeding success 4.4; breeding rate 3–4], then the lower figure specified for the breeding rate (i.e., 3 chicks per pair) is used. This was purposely done so that the formula returns the lowest possible figure when calculating the potential bag limit for each species.
(d) Partitioning of the <1% mortality with other Member States
There are two EU Member States that apply derogations for the live-capturing of finches (and other passerines), namely Austria and Spain. Italy, on the other hand, has applied derogations for the hunting of Chaffinch (and other passerines). According to the EC’s Composite Report on derogations applied by Member States in 2008 (EC, 2011), it appears that Austria has a bag limit of 554 individuals from a total of 12 species (Linnet, Goldfinch, Siskin, Chaffinch and Hawfinch and seven other passerines). The situation with respect to the bag limits established by Spain and Italy is unclear. The 2008 Composite Report specifies that the total number of individuals affected by the Spanish activities is 187,967 (Linnet, Goldfinch, Siskin, Chaffinch, Serin, Greenfinch and two other passerine species). However, the July 2011 European Conference on Illegal Killing of Birds 4 held in Larnaca, mentions a figure of 400,000 individuals [5 finch species], composed of: 200,000 Goldfinches, 100,000 Linnets, 40,000 Greenfinches, 40,000 Serins and 20,000 Chaffinches.
This report partitions the reference population (minimum breeding pairs) with Austria, Italy and Spain very restrictively. For example, it could be argued, on the basis of EU ring recoveries in Malta (Raine, 2007) and taking into account the three principal flyways (Western Europe–Strait of Gibraltar, Central Europe–Tunisia and Eastern Europe–Bosporus), that it is very unlikely that Malta and Spain share the same reference populations. Notwithstanding that this assessment has based the reference population on ring recoveries in Malta (and on recoveries in Italy with respect to the Hawfinch), the <1% threshold is nonetheless partitioned as follows (Table 5):
Table 5 Partitioning of the <1% mortality (ring recoveries in Malta/Italy) with other EU Member States
Species Member State Partitioning value Chaffinch Austria, Spain, Italy 25% Linnet Austria, Spain 33% Goldfinch Austria, Spain 33% Siskin Austria, Spain 33% Hawfinch Austria 50% Serin Spain 50% Greenfinch Spain 50%
An alternative to the above partitioning methodology could have taken into account the entire EU population of the respective species and divide the <1% threshold with Austria, Italy and Spain, as opposed to the partitioning based on ring recoveries in Malta (and Italy in the case of the Hawfinch). However, the latter method returned a high <1% threshold notwithstanding that it was further divided by three (to account for the three principal flyways). Therefore, for the purpose of fulfilling the “small numbers” criterion, the reference population was partitioned solely on the basis of ring recoveries in Malta/Italy, which consist of a much smaller subset of the total EU population of the seven finch species.
4 “Control of illegal bird trapping practices in Spain”. Available at: http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/nature/bern/documents/072011_IKB/Presentations/IllegalBirdTrapping_Spain_Larnaca_July2011.pdf 5
(e) Formula for calculating <1% mortality of the reference population and proportionality to Carnet de Chasse data
In the following sections on the conservation status of the seven finch species, a formula is used to calculate the national harvest limit, as adapted from Allendorf and Luikart (2007) Conservation and the Genetics of Populations . The formula takes into account the <1% mortality of the reference population (which is based on the minimum number of breeding pairs and minimum recruitment rate per species (‘<1% mortality’ or ‘<1% threshold’) and the average number of birds harvested over a seven-year period (namely, the Carnet de Chasse 5 data from 2002 to 2008 ). The formula returns a figure ( Nh) that is not only lower than the partitioned <1% threshold of each species but also lower than the average number of birds caught between 2002 and 2008. It should be noted that the formula can only be applied when the partitioned <1% threshold exceeds the average bag limit. The formula is as follows:
Nh = [( N +Nm) x ( N /Nm)] [( N /Nm) x Nm x (√N /Nm)]
where,
Nh is the potential national harvest limit
Nm is the 1% mortality of the minimum number of breeding pairs of the reference population (<1%)
N is the Carnet de Chasse data (average number of finches per species harvested over a 7 year period: 2002–2008)
5 Available at http://www.mepa.org.mt/biodiversity-reporting 6
4. Conservation status of the Chaffinch ( Fringilla coelebs )
Non-SPEC E (1994: 4) Status: Secure; Criteria: —. European IUCN Red List Category: —; Criteria: — (BirdLife International, 2004) a) Distribution and conservation status
This species is present in all of Europe but is absent in Iceland (Hume, 2002). The geographical distribution of the Chaffinch in Europe (Fig. 1) is as follows:
Breeding Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta (few pairs), Czech Republic, United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium, Austria, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Denmark, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary and Romania.
Wintering Estonia, Italy, United Kingdom, Ireland, Malta (a few), Cyprus, Greece, Germany (a few), Belgium (a few), Luxembourg (a few)
Sedentary Northern breeders of the nominate race move west, southwest or south to winter mostly within the and range in central and southern Europe, around the Mediterranean, Cyprus, the Middle East and migratory Israel. It is a nocturnal and diurnal migrant. (Clement et al . 1993: 167).
Conservation status
Least Concern (IUCN 3.1 )[1]
Order: Passeriformes Family: Fringillidae Subfamily: Fringillinae Genus: Fringilla Species: coelebs Binomial name Fringilla coelebs Linnaeus , 1758
Summer Resident Winter Introduced canariensis spodiogenys Fig. 1: Distribution and conservation status of the European Chaffinch ( Fringilla coelebs ) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Chaffinch [Accessed 20 March 2014]. Distribution map compiled from Snow & Perrins Birds of the Western Palearctic , Harrison An Atlas of the Birds of the Western Palearctic , and Clement et al. Finches & Sparrows.
The Chaffinch is a widespread breeder across most of Europe, which constitutes >50% of its global range. Its European breeding population is extremely large (>130,000,000 pairs), and was stable between 1970 and 1990. Although there were slight declines in France and Sweden during 1990–2000, populations were stable across most of the rest of Europe—including the key one in Russia—and the species remained stable overall. Consequently, BirdLife International (2004) evaluates this species as Secure. According to the latest BirdLife
7
International Species Factsheet 6 the population size does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion (<10,000 mature individuals with a continuing decline estimated to be >10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure).
This species also has an extremely large range , and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence <20,000 km 2 combined with a declining or fluctuating range size, habitat extent/quality, or population size and a small number of locations or severe fragmentation).
According to the European Bird Census Council (EBCC, 2013)7, the long-term trend (1980–2011) for the Pan- European population of the Chaffinch is classified as Moderate Increase, whereas the short-term trend (1990– 2011) is Stable (Table 6). The overall change between 2010 and 2011 was -0.05% in the long-term slope and - 0.03% in the short-term slope (Table 7).
Within the territory of the European Union (EU 28), the minimum and maximum breeding pairs are Stable, with a change in the minimum number of pairs of -2.53% and a change of -3.04% in the maximum number of pairs, equating to a geomean change of -2.87% (Table 8). According to BirdLife International (2004), this equates to a Stable classification for the minimum, maximum and geomean number of breeding pairs (a change not more than 10% is considered to be Stable) . Table 8 also lists population counts and trends for each Member State within the territory of the European Union.
Table 6 Short-term and long-term trend classification of the Chaffinch (Pan-European)
Short-term trend (1990–2011) Long-term trend (1980–2011)
Fringilla coelebs Stable Moderate increase Source: EBCC (2013a)
Table 7 Chaffinch long-term and short term percentage trend change (2010–2011)
Year Species Trend 1980 Long-term % Trend Short- % change Habitat (%) Slope (SE) change 1990 term (%) Slope (SE)
2010 Fringilla coelebs 13 1.0021 0.21% 1 0.9996 0.04% oth 2011 Fringilla coelebs 8 1.0016 0.16% 4 0.9993 0.07% oth Overall change (2010–2011) -0.05% -0.03% Data sources: EBCC (2012, 2013b)
6 http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/speciesfactsheet.php?id=8755 7 http://www.ebcc.info/wpimages/video/Leaflet2013.pdf 8
Table 8: Chaffinch EU breeding population and ring recoveries (bold = ring recoveries in Malta) EU Ring Max % Breeding Max % Max % Recoveries Mag. % Change Country Pairs Trend Change Change in Malta (Max - Min) (Average (Min - Max) (Min Pairs) (Max Pairs) (n=5) Pairs)
Austria 1,600,000 3,200,000 Stable 0 19 Belgium 100,000 250,000 Stable 0 19 Bulgaria 2,000,000 6,000,000 Stable 0 19 Croatia 1,000,000 1,500,000 Decline 50 79 790,000 1,185,000 987,500 Cyprus 20,000 40,000 Stable 0 19 Czech Rep. 4,000,000 8,000,000 Stable 0 19 Denmark 1,500,000 2,000,000 Stable 0 19 Estonia 1,500,000 2,500,000 Stable 0 19 Finland 5,000,000 7,000,000 Stable 0 19 France 4,000,000 15,000,000 Decline 12 12 480,000 1,800,000 1,140,000 Germany 5,500,000 15,500,000 Stable 0 19 Greece 1,000,000 3,000,000 Stable 0 19 Hungary 40% 940,000 1,230,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Rep. Ireland 1,000,000 2,500,000 Stable 0 19 Italy 40% 1,000,000 2,000,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Latvia 2,600,000 3,200,000 Stable 0 19 Lithuania 2,500,000 3,500,000 Stable 0 19 Luxembourg 50,000 70,000 Stable 0 19 Malta 2 3 Stable 0 19 Netherlands 600,000 700,000 Increase 55 55 330,000 385,000 357,500 Poland 20% 5,000,000 10,000,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Portugal 500,000 2,500,000 Stable 0 19 Romania 2,450,000 6,300,000 Stable 0 19 Slovakia 3,000,000 5,000,000 Stable 0 19 Slovenia 1,000,000 1,500,000 Stable 0 19 Spain 2,600,000 6,400,000 ? Sweden 7,500,000 15,000,000 Decline 9 9 675,000 1,350,000 1,012,500 UK 5,974,000 5,974,000 Stable 3 3 Total 100% 63,934,002 129,864,003 -1,615,000 -3,950,000 -2,782,500 Percentage change -2.53% -3.04% -2.87% Trend (EU Population) Stable Stable Stable Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007) b) Ring recoveries in Malta
Table 9 provides data on the ring recoveries of this species in Malta, the respective number of breeding pairs, together with the overall direction of the population trend. The source (reference) population (ring recoveries in Malta) is Stable (0% change). Fig. 2 illustrates the EU population trend categories of this species per Member State whereas Fig. 3 illustrates the respective EU population trend categories on the basis of ring recoveries in Malta.
9
Table 9 Chaffinch ring recoveries in Malta from other EU Member States and corresponding population trend EU Ring Reference Population Max % Max % Recoveries Mag. % Country Breeding Pairs Trend Change (Min Change in Malta (Max - Min) (Min - Max) Pairs) (Max Pairs) (n=5)
Hungary 40% 940,000 1,230,000 Stable 0 19 Italy 40% 1,000,000 2,000,000 Stable 0 19 Poland 20% 5,000,000 10,000,000 Stable 0 19 Total 100% 6,940,000 13,230,000 - - Percentage change 0% 0% Trend (Ring Recoveries) Stable Stable Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007)
Fig. 2: Chaffinch EU population trend by Member State Fig. 3: Chaffinch EU population trend (ring recoveries in Malta) Data Sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007) c) The reference population
Table 10: Chaffinch ( Fringilla coelebs ) breeding population estimates (reference population) Country Chaffinch Breeding Population size Year/s [Ring recoveries in Malta] (pairs) [Chaffinch reference population] Hungary 940,000–1,230,000 1995–1999 Italy 1,000,000–2,000,000 1999–2002 Poland 5,000,000–10,000,000 2000–2002 Reference Population Size 6,940,000 –13,230,000 Total: 6,940,000 (minimum breeding population) Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007) d) Carnet de Chasse data (2002–2008)
According to the Carnet de Chasse data available from the Environment Protection Directorate of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, the following number of Chaffinches were captured alive in Malta during the years indicated (Table 11).
Table 11 Carnet de Chasse live -capturing data 8 for Chaffinch (2002 –2008) Species 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Average
10
Chaffinch 4,957 8,159 3,746 7,215 4,783 6,914 6,750 42,524 6,075
Source: Carnet de Chasse data, Environment Protection Directorate (Malta Environment and Planning Authority). Available at: http://www.mepa.org.mt/biodiversity reporting. e) Minimum breeding population and the <1% mortality
Table 12 shows the minimum number of breeding pairs of Chaffinches within the territory of the European Union that correspond with ring recoveries in Malta (the reference population), together with other relevant information required for the calculation of “small numbers”.
Table 12 Minimum breeding population and mortality rate
Common Chaffinch Source (Fringilla coelebs ) Minimum breeding population – 6,940,000 BirdLife International Species pairs Factsheet (2014) Mortality rate – juveniles 47% Bauer (2005): Das Kompendium der Vögel Mitteleuropas / Cramp & Perrins (1994): Birds of the Western Palearctic / Robinson (2005): British Trust for Ornithology Mortality rate – adults 43% Bauer (2005) and Robinson (2005) Breeding rate (young per pair) 3–4 Cramp & Perrins (1994: 467) and Robinson (2005) Breeding success 2.6 Cramp & Perrins (1994: 467)
Although the Pan-European population of the Chaffinch is estimated to be 130,000,000 minimum breeding pairs (BirdLife International Species Factsheet, 2014), for the purpose of calculating the <1% mortality rate and “small numbers”, the reference population is based solely on ring recoveries of this species in Malta, which were further restricted to ring recoveries from EU Member States. Specifically with respect to the Chaffinch, Ukraine was eliminated from the reference population notwithstanding that this country was included by Raine (2007) in the list of ring recoveries for this species. This equates to a reference population of 6,940,000 minimum breeding pairs (vide Tables 10 and 12 above). f) Calculation of the <1% mortality rate and “small numbers”
Chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs ) Minimum breeding success: 2.6 fledglings per pair (6,940,000 x 2.6) = 18,044,000 Mortality rate of 1 st year birds (18,044,000 x 47%) = 8,480,680 Mortality rate of adults (13,880,000 x 43%) = 5,968,400 Total annual mortality (8,480,680 + 5,968,400) = 14,449,080 1% of total annual mortality (14,449,080 x 1%) = 144,491
Total potential Chaffinch harvest figure is 144,491 Partitioning with other Member States (Austria, Spain and Italy: 144,491 × 25%) = 36,123
g) Autumn seasonal bags in relation to “small numbers”
Based on the <1% mortality rate of the reference population, the “small numbers” calculation with respect to the potential national bag limit of the Chaffinch is as follows:
• Chaffinch – potential maximum bag limit of 36,123 individuals (partitioned with Austria, Spain and Italy)
11
It should be pointed out that when calculating the 1% mortality, FKNK based the reference population of this species on the entire European population except those in the UK, Iberian Peninsula and France. FKNK’s 1% mortality (and bag limit) for this species resulted in a total of 4,179,020 Chaffinches.
Notwithstanding that the partitioned maximum bag limit arising out of the above calculations is 36,123 Chaffinches, given that the average bag limit over a seven-year period (2002–2008) is 6,075 birds, this analysis recommends that, should a bag limit for this species be considered, it should be substantially reduced further to 5,000. This calculation is based on the formula discussed in Section 4(c), which returns a figure that is not only considerably lower than the <1% threshold but also lower than the average number of birds caught over a seven-year period (2002–2008). Thus:
• Chaffinch – recommended sustainable and potential national bag limit of 5,000 birds.
12
5. Conservation status of the Linnet ( Carduelis cannabina )
SPEC 2 (1994: 4) Status: Declining; Criteria: Moderate recent decline. European IUCN Red List Category: —; Criteria: — (BirdLife International, 2004)
(a) Distribution and conservation status
The species is present in most of Europe except N. Scandinavia and Iceland (Hume, 2002). The geographical distribution of the Linnet in Europe (Fig. 4) is as follows:
Breeding Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta (a few), Czech Republic, United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium, Austria, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Denmark, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary and Romania.
Wintering Estonia, Italy, United Kingdom, Ireland, Malta (a few), Cyprus, Greece, Germany (a few), Belgium (a few), Luxembourg (a few).
Sedentary Northern breeders of races cannabina (nominate) and bella (Turkestan Linnet: Turkey, Middle and East, Israel, Caucasus and Iran) move south and southwest to winter mostly within the range migratory around the Mediterranean and Iran, Iraq and northern Baluchistan (Pakistan), also to coastal areas of North Africa, the Negev, northern Egypt and the Nile areas of Sudan. A diurnal and nocturnal passage migrant (Clement et al . 1993: 250).
Conservation status
Least Concern (IUCN 3.1 )[1]
Order: Passeriformes Family: Fringillidae Genus: Carduelis Species: cannabina Binomial name Carduelis cannabina (Linnaeus , 1758)
Fig. 4: Distribution and conservation status of the Linnet ( Carduelis cannabiba ) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Linnet [Accessed 20 March 2014] The Linnet is a widespread breeder across much of Europe, which constitutes >50% of its global breeding range. Its European breeding population is extremely large (>10,000,000 pairs), and was stable between 1970 and 1990. According to the latest BirdLife Species Factsheet 9 the population size is extremely large, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion (<10,000 mature individuals with a continuing decline estimated to be >10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure). In Europe, the breeding population is estimated to number 10,000,000–28,000,000 13 breeding pairs, equating to 20,000,000–56,000,000 individuals (BirdLife International Species Factsheet, 2014). Europe forms 50–74% of the global range, so a very preliminary estimate of the global population size is 40,500,000–168,000,000 individuals, although further validation of this estimate is needed. Although it was stable or increased across much of Europe during 1990–2000, there were declines in several north-western European populations—most notably the sizeable one in France—and the species underwent a moderate decline (>10%) overall. Consequently, this previously Secure species is now evaluated as Declining (BirdLife International, 2004). IUCN 10 maintains that notwithstanding that the population trend appears to be decreasing, the decline is not believed to be sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (>30% decline over ten years or three generations).
The Linnet also has an extremely large range and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence <20,000 km² combined with a declining or fluctuating range size, habitat extent/quality, or population size and a small number of locations or severe fragmentation).
According to the European Bird Census Council (EBCC, 2013) 11 , both the long-term trend (1980–2011) and the short-term trend (1990–2011) for the Pan-European population of the Linnet is classified as Moderate Decline (Table 13). The overall change at the Pan-European level between 2010 and 2011 was +0.17% in the long-term slope and +0.31% in the short-term slope (Table 14). Within the territory of the European Union (EU 28), the change in the minimum number of pairs is -2.17% and the change in the maximum number of pairs is -12.94%. Conversely, the change in the geomean population is -9.8% (Table 15). According to BirdLife International (2004), this equates to a Stable classification for the minimum and geomean number of breeding pairs (a change not more than 10% is considered to be Stable) but a Moderate Decline in the maximum number of pairs . Table 15 provides population counts and trends for each Member State within the territory of the European Union.
Table 13 Short-term and long-term trend classification of the Linnet (Pan-European)
Short-term trend (1990–2011) Long-term trend (1980–2011)
Carduelis cannabina Moderate decline Moderate decline Source: EBCC (2013)
Table 14 Linnet long-term and short term percentage trend change (2010–2011) Year Species Trend 1980 Long-term % Trend Short- % change Habitat (%) Slope (SE) change 1990 term (%) Slope (SE) Carduelis 2010 cannabina 62 0.9658 3.42% 51 0.9526 4.74% farm Carduelis 2011 cannabina 63 0.9675 3.25% 54 0.9557 4.43% farm Overall change (2010–2011) +0.17% +0.31% Data sources: EBCC (2012, 2013b) Table 15 Linnet EU breeding population and ring recoveries (bold = ring recoveries in Malta)
14
EU Ring Max % Max % Max % Recoveries Breeding Pairs Mag. % Change Country Trend Change Change in Malta (Min - Max) (Min - Max) (Average (Min Pairs) (Max Pairs) (n=52) Pairs)
Austria 6% 12,000 24,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Belgium 30,000 60,000 Decline 0 19 5,700 11,400 8,550 Bulgaria 40,000 100,000 Stable 0 9 Croatia 15% 500,000 800,000 Increase 80 80 400,000 640,000 520,000 Cyprus 10,000 30,000 Stable 0 9 Czech Rep. 24% 60,000 120,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Denmark 150,000 300,000 Decline 20 29 43,500 87,000 65,250 Estonia 20,000 40,000 Stable 0 19 Finland 20,000 30,000 Increase 100 100 20,000 30,000 25,000 France 1,000,000 5,000,000 Decline 49 49 490,000 2,450,000 1,470,000 Germany 380,000 830,000 Decline 20 29 110,200 240,700 175,450 Greece 50,000 100,000 Stable 0 19 Hungary 26% 85,000 150,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Rep. Ireland 100,000 250,000 Stable 0 19 Italy 22% 100,000 400,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Latvia 10,000 25,000 Stable 0 19 Lithuania 2% 150,000 300,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Luxembourg 14,000 18,000 Stable 0 19 Malta 5 10 Decline 20 29 1 3 2 Netherlands 40,000 50,000 Decline 17 17 6,800 8,500 7,650 Poland 2% 300,000 600,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Portugal 100,000 1,000,000 Stable 0 19 Romania 780,000 1,100,000 Increase 0 19 148,200 209,000 178,600 Slovakia 2% 40,000 60,000 Decline 20 29 -11,600 -17,400 -14,500 Slovenia 1% 5,000 10,000 Decline 0 19 -950 -1,900 -1,425 Spain 1,700,000 3,300,000 ? Sweden 100,000 150,000 Decline 37 37 37,000 55,500 46,250 UK 556,000 556,000 Stable 3 3 - - - Total 100% 6,352,005 15,403,010 -137,551 -1,993,403 -1,065,477 Percentage change -2.17% -12.94% -9.8% Trend (EU Population) Stable Decline Stable Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007)
(b) Ring recoveries in Malta
Table 16 provides data on the ring recoveries of this species in Malta, the respective number of breeding pairs, together with the overall direction of the population trend. Fig. 5 illustrates the EU population trend categories of this species per Member State. The respective EU source (reference) population trend categories, on the basis of ring recoveries in Malta, are shown in Fig. 6. The source (reference) population increased by 30.95% (minimum pairs) [Fig. 7] and by 25.19% (maximum pairs) [Fig. 8].
Table 16 Linnet ring recoveries in Malta from other EU Member States and corresponding population trend 15
EU Ring Max % Max % Recoveries Breeding Pairs Mag. % Change Country Trend Change (Min in Malta (Min - Max) (Max - Min) Pairs) (Max (n=52) Pairs) Hungary 26% 85,000 150,000 Stable 0 19 Czech Rep. 24% 60,000 120,000 Stable 0 19 Italy 22% 100,000 400,000 Stable 0 19 Croatia 15% 500,000 800,000 Increase 80 80 400,000 640,000 Austria 6% 12,000 24,000 Stable 0 19 Lithuania 2% 150,000 300,000 Stable 0 19 Poland 2% 300,000 600,000 Stable 0 19 Slovakia 2% 40,000 60,000 Decline 20 29 11,600 17,400 Slovenia 1% 5,000 10,000 Decline 0 19 950 1,900 Total 100% 1,252,000 2,464,000 387,450 620,700 Percentage change +30.95% +25.19% Trend (Ring Recoveries) Increase Increase Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007)
Fig. 5: Linnet EU population trend by Member State Fig. 6: Linnet EU population trend (ring recoveries in Malta) Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007)
Fig. 7: Linnet EU ring recoveries: overall change (minimum pairs) Fig. 8: Linnet EU ring recoveries: overall change (maximum pairs) Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007) (c) The reference population
16
Table 17 Linnet breeding population estimates
Country Linnet Breeding Population Size Trend* Year/s [Ring recoveries in Malta] (pairs) Austria 12,000–24,000 (0) 1998–2002 Croatia 500,000–800,000 (+) 2002 Czech. Rep. 60,000–120,000 0 2000 Hungary 85,000–150,000 0 1999–2002 Italy 100,000–400,000 (0) 2003 Lithuania 150,000–300,000 (0) 1999–2001 Poland 300,000–600,000 0 2000–2002 Slovakia 40,000–60,000 1990–1999 Slovenia 5,000–10,000 ( ) 2000 Reference Population Size 1,252,000 –2,464,000 Total : 1,252,000 (minimum breeding population) * ‘()’ = Uncertain; ‘0’ = Stable; ‘+’ = Increase; ‘ ’ = Decrease Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007) Table 18 Estimates of Linnet breeding populations with a favourable conservation status (reference population)
Country Linnet Breeding Population size Trend* Year/s [Ring recoveries in Malta] (pairs) having a Favourable Conservation Status.
Austria 12,000–24,000 (0) 1998–2002 Croatia 500,000–800,000 (+) 2002 Czech. Rep. 60,000–120,000 0 2000 Hungary 85,000–150,000 0 1999–2002 Italy 100,000–400,000 (0) 2003 Lithuania 150,000–300,000 (0) 1999–2001 Poland 300,000–600,000 0 2000–2002 Reference Population Size 1,207,000 –2,394,000 Total : 1,207,000 absolute minimum (Favourable conservation status) breeding population (i.e., the minimum breeding population of 1,252,000 is further reduced to 1,207,000, limiting the reference population to those countries whose Linnet populations have a favourable conservation status ) * ‘()’ = Uncertain; ‘0’ = Stable; ‘+’ = Increase; ‘ ’ = Decrease Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007)
(d) Carnet de Chasse data (2002–2008) 17
According to the Carnet de Chasse data available from the Environment Protection Directorate of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, the following Linnets were captured alive in Malta during the years indicated (Table 19). Table 19 Carnet de Chasse live -capturing data 12 for Linnet (2002 –2008) Species 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Average Linnet 18,946 22,321 14,362 13,534 9,252 28,094 19,143 125,662 17,952
Source: Carnet de Chasse data, Environment Protection Directorate (Malta Environment and Planning Authority). Available at: http://www.mepa.org.mt/biodiversity reporting.
Tables 16 and 17 above indicate that Linnets recorded in Malta (from ring recoveries) originate from nine EU Member States, seven of which have a Favourable conservation status (Stable or Increasing). The populations from Slovakia and Slovenia have been omitted from the reference population in view of their declining trend. The reference population of 1,207,000 minimum breeding pairs is thus restricted to seven countries whose Linnet populations have a Favourable conservation status (Table 18 above). As noted above, ring recoveries in Malta indicate that the reference population increased by 30.95% (minimum pairs) and 25.19% (maximum pairs), whereas the minimum EU population, the maximum EU population and its geomean decreased by 2.17% (Stable), 12.94% (Moderate Decline) and 9.8% (Stable) respectively.
(e) Minimum breeding population
In the case of the European breeding population, Table 20 shows the minimum number of breeding pairs of Linnets that correspond with ring recoveries in Malta (omitting two EU Member States with a moderate decline), together with other relevant information required for the calculation of “small numbers”.
Table 20 Minimum breeding population and mortality rate
Linnet Source (Carduelis cannabina ) Minimum breeding population – 1,207,000 BirdLife International Species pairs Factsheet (2014) Mortality rate – juveniles 66% Bauer (2005): Das Kompendium der Vögel Mitteleuropas (KVM) / Cramp & Perrins (1994): Birds of the Western Palearctic / Robinson (2005): British Trust for Ornithology Mortality rate – adults 63% Bauer (2005) and Robinson (2005) Breeding rate (young per pair) 3–4 Cramp & Perrins (1994: 620) and Robinson (2005) Breeding success 2.7 Cramp & Perrins (1994: 620)
The European population of the Linnet is estimated to be 10,000,000 minimum breeding pairs (BirdLife International Species Factsheet, 2014). However, for the purpose of calculating the <1% mortality rate and “small numbers”, the reference population is based solely on ring recoveries of this species in Malta, which was further restricted to ring recoveries from EU Member States with a Stable/Increasing trend. Specifically with respect to the Linnet, Switzerland was eliminated from the reference population notwithstanding that this country was included by Raine (2007) in the list of ring recoveries for this species. This equates to a reference population of 1,207,000 minimum breeding pairs (vide Tables 17, 18 an 20 above).
(f) Calculation of <1% mortality rate and “small numbers”
Linnet (Carduelis cannabina ) Minimum breeding success: 2.7 fledglings per pair (1,207,000 x 2.7) = 3,258,900 18
Mortality rate of 1 st year birds (3,258,900 x 66%) = 2,150,874 Mortality rate of adults (2,414,000 x 63%) = 1,520,820 Total annual mortality (2,150,874 + 1,520,820) = 3,671,694 1% of total annual mortality (3,671,694 x 1%) = 36,717
Total potential Linnet harvest figure is 36,717 . Partitioning with other Member States (Austria and Spain: 36,717 × 33%) = 12,239
At this juncture, note should be taken of the fact that in the composite European Commission report on Article 9 derogations, the Commission had concluded that the Austrian derogations were not “...in apparent conflict with the species protection measures” (EC, 2011).
(g) Autumn seasonal bags in relation to “small numbers”
Based on the <1% mortality rate of the reference population, the “small numbers” calculation with respect to the potential national bag limit of the Linnet is as follows:
• Linnet – potential maximum bag limit of 12,239 birds (partitioned with Austria and Spain).
It should be pointed out that when calculating the 1% mortality, FKNK based the reference population of this species on the entire European population except those in the UK, Iberian Peninsula and France. FKNK’s 1% mortality (and bag limit) for this species resulted in a total of 370,980 Linnets. FKNK’s proposed bag limit is deemed excessive for the purpose of fulfilling the “small numbers” criterion.
Given that the average bag limit over a seven-year period (2002–2008) is higher (17,952 Linnets) than the partitioned bag limit (12,239 Linnets), the formula discussed in Section 4(c) cannot be applied. This analysis recommends that, should a bag limit for this species be considered, it should be rounded down to 12,000 . Thus:
• Linnet – recommended sustainable and potential national bag limit of 12,000 birds.
19
6. Conservation status of the European Goldfinch ( Carduelis carduelis )
Non-SPEC (1994: —) Status: Secure; Criteria: —. European IUCN Red List Category: —; Criteria: — (BirdLife International, 2004)
(a) Distribution and conservation status
The Goldfinch is resident in most European countries (Hume, 2002). The geographical distribution of this species in Europe (Fig. 9) is as follows:
Breeding Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium, Austria, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Denmark, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Turkey, Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, Russia.
Wintering Estonia, Italy, United Kingdom, Ireland, Cyprus, Greece, Germany (a few), Belgium (a few), Luxembourg, Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia.
Sedentary Birds breeding in northern parts of the range move south and southwest to winter mostly within the and southern boundaries of the range or occasionally just beyond. Nominate race regularly (annually?) migratory reaches the Mediterranean, Malta, North Africa and southern Israel; about two-thirds of the British breeding population moves south to winter from Belgium to southern Spain, but some remain even in the northernmost parts of the British Isles (Clement et al . 1993: 242).
Conservation status
Least Concern (IUCN 3.1 )[1]
Order: Passeriformes Family: Fringillidae
Genus: Carduelis
Species: carduelis
Binomial name Carduelis carduelis (Linnaeus , 1758 )
Carduelis carduelis carduelis 1 summer 2 all year Carduelis carduelis caniceps 3 summer 4 all year Fig. 9: Distribution and conservation status of the Goldfinch ( Carduelis carduelis ) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Goldfinch [Accessed 20 March 2014]
20
The European Goldfinch is a widespread resident across most of Europe, which accounts for less than half of its global range. Its European breeding population is extremely large (>12,000,000 pairs), and was stable between 1970 and 1990. The species does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (>30% decline over ten years or three generations). The population size is extremely large, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion (<10,000 mature individuals with a continuing decline estimated to be >10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure).
Although there were declines in a few countries—notably Turkey—during 1990–2000, populations were stable or increased across the vast majority of Europe, and the species underwent a slight increase overall. Consequently, it is evaluated as Secure (BirdLife International, 2004). This species also has an extremely large range , and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence <20,000 km 2 combined with a declining or fluctuating range size, habitat extent/quality, or population size and a small number of locations or severe fragmentation).
In Europe, the breeding population is estimated to number 12,000,000–29,000,000 breeding pairs, equating to 36,000,000–87,000,000 individuals (BirdLife International Species Factsheet, 2014). Europe forms 25–49% of the global range, so a very preliminary estimate of the global population size is 73,500,000–348,000,000 individuals, although further validation of this estimate is needed. According to BirdLife International (2014), in Europe, trends since 1980 have been stable based on provisional data for 21 countries from the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (EBCC/RSPB/BirdLife/Statistics Netherlands, P. Vorisek in litt. 2008).
According to the European Bird Census Council (EBCC, 2013) 13 , the long-term trend (1980–2011) for the Pan- European population of the Goldfinch is classified as Moderate Increase, whereas the short-term trend (1990– 2011) is Stable (Table 21). The overall change at the Pan-European level between 2010 and 2011 was +0.25% in the long-term slope and -0.18% in the short-term slope (Table 22). Within the territory of the European Union (EU 28), the minimum and maximum breeding pairs increased by 11.55% and 12.17% respectively, with a geomean change of +12% (Table 23). According to BirdLife International (2004), this equates to a Moderate Increase for the minimum, maximum and geomean number of breeding pairs (a change not more than 10% is considered to be Stable) . Table 23 also provides population counts and trends for each Member State within the territory of the European Union.
Table 21 Short-term and long-term trend classification of the Goldfinch (Pan-European)
Short-term trend (1990–2011) Long-term trend (1980–2011)
Carduelis carduelis Stable Moderate increase Source: EBCC (2013)
Table 22 Goldfinch long-term and short term percentage trend change (2010–2011) Year Species Trend 1980 Long-term % Trend Short- % change Habitat (%) Slope (SE) change 1990 term (%) Slope (SE) Carduelis 2010 carduelis 3 1.0195 1.95% 8 1.001 0.10% oth Carduelis 2011 carduelis 4 1.022 2.20% 6 0.9992 0.08% oth Overall change (2010–2011) +0.25% -0.18% Data sources: EBCC (2012, 2013b) Table 23 Goldfinch EU breeding population and ring recoveries (bold = ring recoveries in Malta)
21
EU Ring Max % Max % Max % Recoveries Breeding Pairs Mag. % Change Change Change Country Trend in Malta (Min - Max) (Min - Max) (Min (Max (Average (n=3) Pairs) Pairs) Pairs)
Austria 25,000 50,000 Stable 0 19 Belgium 2,500 10,000 Increase 0 19 475 1,900 1,188 Bulgaria 200,000 600,000 Stable 0 9 Croatia 33% 500,000 1,000,000 Increase 80 80 400,000 800,000 600,000 Cyprus 50,000 150,000 Stable 0 9 Czech Rep. 200,000 400,000 Stable 0 19 Denmark 30,000 50,000 Increase 80 80 24,000 40,000 32,000 Estonia 20,000 30,000 Increase 20 29 5,800 8,700 7,250 Finland 10,000 20,000 Increase 150 150 15,000 30,000 22,500 France 1,000,000 5,000,000 Increase 26 26 260,000 1,300,000 780,000 Germany 33% 300,000 600,000 Stable 0 19 Greece 100,000 500,000 Stable 0 19 Hungary 690,000 910,000 Stable 0 19 Rep. Ireland 20,000 100,000 Increase 20 29 5,800 29,000 17,400 Italy 1,000,000 2,000,000 Stable 0 19 Latvia 15,000 50,000 Stable 0 19 Lithuania 50,000 100,000 Stable 0 19 Luxembourg 6,000 8,000 Stable 0 19 Netherlands 15,000 20,000 Increase 116 116 17,400 23,200 20,300 Poland 400,000 800,000 Stable 0 19 Portugal 500,000 2,500,000 Stable 0 19 Romania 887,000 964,000 Stable 0 19 Slovakia 100,000 150,000 Stable 0 19 Slovenia 50,000 60,000 Stable 0 19 Spain 800,000 2,900,000 ? Sweden 5,000 10,000 Increase 10 19 950 1,900 1,425 UK 33% 313,000 313,000 Increase 36 36 112,680 112,680 112,680 Total 100% 7,288,500 19,295,000 842,105 2,347,380 1,594,743 Percentage change +11.55% +12.17% +12.00% Trend (EU Population) Increase Increase Increase Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007)
(b) Ring recoveries in Malta
Table 24 provides data on the ring recoveries of this species in Malta, the respective number of breeding pairs, together with the overall direction of the population trend. Fig. 10 illustrates the EU population trend categories of this species per Member State. The respective EU source (reference) population trend categories, on the basis of ring recoveries in Malta, are shown in Fig. 11. The source (reference) population increased by 46.06% (minimum pairs) and by 47.71% (maximum pairs).
Table 24 Goldf inch ring recoveries in Malta from other EU Member States and corresponding population
22
trend
EU Ring Max % Max % Recoveries Breeding Pairs Mag. % Country Trend Change (Min Change in Malta (Min - Max) (Min - Max) Pairs) (Max Pairs) (n=3)
Croatia 33% 500,000 1,000,000 Increase 80 80 400,000 800,000 Germany 33% 300,000 600,000 Stable 0 19 UK 33% 313,000 313,000 Increase 36 36 112,680 112,680 Total 100% 1,113,000 1,913,000 512,680 912,680 Percentage change +46.06% +47.71% Trend (Ring Recoveries) Increase Increase Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007)
Fig. 10: Goldfinch EU population trend by Member State Fig. 11: Goldfinch EU population trend (ring recoveries in Malta) Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007)
(c) The reference population
Table 25 Goldfinch breeding population estimates (reference population) Country Goldfinch Breeding Population Size Year/s [Ring recoveries in Malta] (pairs) Croatia 500,000–1,000,000 2002 Germany 300,000–600,000 1995–1999 Reference Population Size 800,000 –1,600,000 Total : 800,000 (minimum breeding population)
Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007)
(d) Carnet de Chasse data (2002–2008)
According to the Carnet de Chasse data available from the Environment Protection Directorate of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, the following Goldfinches were captured alive in Malta during the years indicated (Table 26).
Table 26 Carnet de Chasse live -capturing data 14 for Goldfinch (2002 –2008)
23
Species 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Average Goldfinch 1,248 1,348 497 1,240 505 1,880 458 7,176 1,025
Source: Carnet de Chasse data, Environment Protection Directorate (Malta Environment and Planning Authority). Available at: http://www.mepa.org.mt/biodiversity reporting.
(e) Minimum breeding population
In the case of the European breeding population, Table 27 shows the minimum number of breeding pairs of Goldfinches correspond with ring recoveries in Malta (the reference population), together with other relevant information required for the calculation of “small numbers”.
Table 27 Minimum breeding population and mortality rate
Goldfinch Source (Carduelis carduelis ) Minimum breeding population – 800,000 BirdLife International Species pairs Factsheet (2014) Mortality rate – juveniles 66% Bauer (2005): Das Kompendium der Vögel Mitteleuropas (KVM) / Cramp & Perrins (1994): Birds of the Western Palearctic / Robinson (2005): British Trust for Ornithology Mortality rate – adults 63% Bauer (2005) and Robinson (2005) Breeding rate (young per pair) 3–4 Cramp & Perrins (1994: 583) and Robinson (2005) Breeding success 1.8 Cramp & Perrins (1994: 583)
The European population of the Goldfinch is estimated to be 12,000,000 minimum breeding pairs (BirdLife International Species Factsheet, 2014). However, for the purpose of calculating the <1% mortality rate and “small numbers”, the reference population is based solely on ring recoveries of this species in Malta from EU Member States. Specifically for this species, the reference population is based on ring recoveries from Croatia and Germany. This equates to a reference population of 800,000 minimum breeding pairs (vide Tables 25 and 27 above). The single UK record has been omitted from the reference population given the small sample size, as acknowledged by Raine (2007), and the fact that the literature does not support the belief that UK Goldfinches migrate towards the central Mediterranean (Clement, 1993). This is substantiated further from ring recoveries in Italy since none of the 195 foreign-ringed Goldfinches recovered in Italy had originated from the UK (Spina and Volpini, 2008).
(f) Calculation of <1% mortality rate and “small numbers”
Goldfinch (Carduelis carduelis ) Minimum breeding success: 1.8 fledglings per pair (800,000 x 1.8) = 1,440,000 Mortality rate of 1 st year birds (1,440,000 x 66%) = 950,400 Mortality rate of adults (1,600,000 x 63%) = 1,008,000 Total annual mortality (950,400 + 1,008,000) = 1,958,400 1% of total annual mortality (1,958,400 x 1%) = 19,584
Total potential Goldfinch harvest figure is 19,584. Partitioning with other Member States (Austria and Spain: 19,584 × 33%) = 6,528
(g) Autumn seasonal bags in relation to “small numbers”
Based on the <1% mortality rate of the reference population, the “small numbers” calculation with respect to the potential national bag limit of the Goldfinch is as follows:
24
• Goldfinch – potential maximum bag limit of 6,528 individuals (partitioned with Austria and Spain).
It should be pointed out that when calculating the 1% mortality, FKNK based the reference population of this species on the entire European population except those in the UK, Iberian Peninsula and France. FKNK’s 1% mortality (and bag limit) for this species resulted in a total of 492,050 Goldfinches. FKNK’s proposed bag limit is deemed excessive for the purpose of fulfilling the “small numbers” criterion.
Notwithstanding that the partitioned maximum bag limit arising out of the above calculations is 6,528 Goldfinches, given that the average bag limit over a seven-year period (2002–2008) is 1,025 birds, this analysis recommends that, should a bag limit for this species be considered, it should be substantially reduced further to 800 . This calculation is based on the formula discussed in Section 4(c), which returns a figure that is not only considerably lower than the <1% threshold but also lower than the average number of birds caught over a seven-year period (2002–2008). Thus:
• Goldfinch – recommended sustainable and potential national bag limit of 800 birds.
25
7. Conservation status of the European Greenfinch (Carduelis chloris )
Non-SPEC E (1994: 4) Status: Secure; Criteria: —. European IUCN Red List Category: —; Criteria: — (BirdLife International, 2004)
(a) Distribution and conservation status
This Greenfinch is present throughout Europe except Iceland (Hume, 2002).The geographical distribution of this species in Europe (Fig. 12) is as follows:
Breeding Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium, Austria, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Denmark, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Turkey, Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, Russia.
Wintering Estonia, Italy, United Kingdom, Ireland, Cyprus, Greece, Germany (a few), Belgium (a few), Luxembourg, Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, Malta.
Sedentary Birds from northern areas of breeding range move south and southwest to winter mostly within and or slightly to the south of the range with nominate race regular in winter in southern Spain, migratory southern France, Italy (possibly also Malta) and southwestern CIS (former USSR); aurantiiventris is largely sedentary, but some move south to reach Malta, Cyprus, Libya and northern Egypt south to the Suez Canal and the northern shores of the Red Sea. A diurnal and nocturnal migrant (Clement et al . 1993: 214).
European Greenfinch Conservation status
Least Concern (IUCN 3.1 )[1]
Order: Passeriformes Family: Fringillidae Genus: Carduelis Species: chloris Binomial name Carduelis chloris (Linnaeus , 1758 )
Fig. 12: Distribution and conservation status of the Greenfinch ( Carduelis chloris ) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Greenfinch and http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/speciesfactsheet.php?id=8808 [Accessed 20 March 2014].
26
The European Greenfinch is a widespread breeder across most of Europe, which constitutes >75% of its global range. Its European breeding population is extremely large (>14,000,000 pairs), and was stable between 1970 and 1990. The population size is extremely large , and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion (<10,000 mature individuals with a continuing decline estimated to be >10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure). Although there were declines in a few countries—most notably France—during 1990–2000, key populations in Germany and Russia were stable, and trends were stable or increasing across most of the rest of Europe. The species hence remained stable overall, and consequently is evaluated as Secure (BirdLife International, 2004).
The European Greenfinch also has an extremely large range , and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence <20,000 km2 combined with a declining or fluctuating range size, habitat extent/quality, or population size and a small number of locations or severe fragmentation).
In Europe, the breeding population is estimated to number 14,000,000–32,000,000 breeding pairs, equating to 42,000,000–96,000,000 individuals (BirdLife International Species Factsheet 2014). Europe forms 75-94% of the global range, so a very preliminary estimate of the global population size is 44,700,000–128,000,000 individuals, although further validation of this estimate is needed.
According to the European Bird Census Council (EBCC, 2013) 15 , the Pan-European population of the Greenfinch is classified as Moderate Increase for the long-term trend (1980–2011) and Stable for the short-term trend (1990–2011) (Table 28). The overall change at the Pan-European level between 2010 and 2011 was +0.05% in the long-term slope and +0.01% in the short-term slope (Table 29). Within the territory of the European Union (EU 28), the change in the minimum number of pairs is +5.91% and the change in the maximum number of pairs is -0.96% (Table 30). Conversely, the change in the geomean population is +1.06%. According to BirdLife International (2004), this equates to a Stable classification for the minimum, maximum and geomean number of breeding pairs (a change not more than 10% is considered to be Stable) . Table 30 provides population counts and trends for each Member State within the territory of the European Union.
Table 28 Short-term and long-term trend classification of the Greenfinch (Pan- European)
Short-term trend (1990–2011) Long-term trend (1980–2011)
Carduelis chloris Stable Moderate increase Source: EBCC (2013)
Table 29 Greenfinch long-term and short term percentage trend change (2010–2011) Year Species Trend 1980 Long-term % Trend Short- % change Habitat (%) Slope (SE) change 1990 term (%) Slope (SE)
2010 Carduelis chloris 28 1.0045 0.45% 16 0.9936 0.64% oth 2011 Carduelis chloris 29 1.005 0.50% 18 0.9937 0.63% oth Overall change (2010–2011) +0.05% +0.01% Data sources: EBCC (2012, 2013b)
Table 30 Greenfinch EU breeding population and ring recoveries (bold = ring recoveries in Malta)
27
EU Ring Max % Max % Max % Recoveries Breeding Pairs Mag. % Change Change Country Trend Change in Malta (Min - Max) (Min - Max) (Min (Average (Max Pairs) (n=16) Pairs) Pairs)
Austria 110,000 220,000 Stable 0 19 Belgium 40,000 80,000 Stable 0 19 Bulgaria 200,000 600,000 Stable 0 9 Croatia 18% 500,000 1,000,000 Increase 80 80 400,000 800,000 600,000 Cyprus 80,000 200,000 Increase 0 19 15,200 38,000 26,600 Czech Rep. 500,000 1,000,000 Stable 0 19 Denmark 500,000 700,000 Stable 0 19 Estonia 20,000 50,000 Stable 0 19 Finland 300,000 400,000 Increase 180 180 540,000 720,000 630,000 France 1,500,000 6,000,000 Decline 33 33 495,000 1,980,000 1,237,500 Germany 8% 1,500,000 3,000,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Greece 50,000 200,000 Decline 0 19 9,500 38,000 23,750 Hungary 25% 445,000 585,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Rep. Ireland 100,000 250,000 Stable 0 19 Italy 12% 400,000 800,000 Increase 0 19 76,000 152,000 114,000 Latvia 10,000 20,000 Stable 0 19 Lithuania 200,000 400,000 Stable 0 19 Luxembourg 15,000 20,000 Stable 0 19 Malta 2 3 Decline 0 19 0 1 0 Netherlands 50,000 100,000 Stable 4 4 Poland 400,000 700,000 Stable 0 19 Portugal 200,000 2,000,000 Stable 0 19 Romania 850,000 910,000 Decline 0 19 161,500 172,900 167,200 Slovakia 12% 100,000 130,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Slovenia 25% 50,000 80,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Spain 1,060,000 3,600,000 ? Sweden 250,000 650,000 Increase 3 3 7,500 19,500 13,500 UK 734,000 734,000 Increase 31 31 227,540 227,540 227,500 Total 100% 10,164,002 24,429,003 600,240 -233,861 183,190 Percentage change +5.91% -0.96% 1.06% Trend (EU Population) Stable Stable Stable Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007) (b) Ring recoveries in Malta
Table 31 provides data on the ring recoveries of this species in Malta, the respective number of breeding pairs, together with the overall direction of the population trend. Fig. 13 illustrates the EU population trend categories of this species per Member State. The respective EU source (reference) population trend categories, on the basis of ring recoveries in Malta, are shown in Fig. 14. The source (reference) population has a Stable trend (+2.63% change in the number of minimum pairs and +2.31% change in the number of maximum pairs).
Table 31 Greenfinch ring recoveries in Malta from other EU Member states and corresponding conservation 28
status
EU Ring Max % Max % Recoveries Breeding Pairs Mag. % Country Trend Change (Min Change in Malta (Min - Max) (Min - Max) Pairs) (Max Pairs) (n=16)
Hungary 25% 445,000 585,000 Stable 0 19 - - Slovenia 25% 50,000 80,000 Stable 0 19 - - Croatia 18% 500,000 1,000,000 Increase 80 80 400,000 800,000 Italy 12% 400,000 800,000 Increase 0 19 76,000 152,000 Slovakia 12% 100,000 130,000 Stable 0 19 - - Germany 8% 1,500,000 3,000,000 Stable 0 19 - - Total 100% 18,073,004 41,203,006 476,000 952,000 Percentage change +2.63% +2.31% Trend (Ring Recoveries) Stable Stable Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007)
Fig. 13: Greenfinch EU population trend by Member State Fig. 14: Greenfinch EU population trend (ring recoveries in Malta) Data Sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007)
(c) The reference population
Table 32 Greenfinch breeding population estimates (reference population) Country Greenfinch Breeding Population Year/s [Ring recoveries in Malta] Size (pairs) Croatia 500,000–1,000,000 2002 Germany 1,500,000–3,000,000 1995–1999 Hungary 445,000–585,000 1999–2002 Italy 400,000–800,000 2003 Slovakia 100,000–130,000 1990–1999 Slovenia 50,000–80,000 1994 Reference Population Size 2,995,000 –5,595,000 Total : 2,995,000 (minimum breeding population) Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007)
(d) Carnet de Chasse data (2002–2008)
29
According to the Carnet de Chasse data available from the Environment Protection Directorate of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, the following Greenfinches were captured alive in Malta during the years indicated (Table 33).
Table 33 Carnet de Chasse live -capturing data 16 for Greenfinch (2002 –2008) Species 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Average Greenfinch 8,231 12,449 2,494 4,130 3,062 6,202 2,619 39,187 5,598
Source: Carnet de Chasse data, Environment Protection Directorate (Malta Environment and Planning Authority). Available at: http://www.mepa.org.mt/biodiversity reporting.
(e) Minimum breeding population
In the case of the European breeding population, Table 34 shows the minimum number of breeding pairs of Greenfinches that correspond with ring recoveries in Malta (the reference population), together with other relevant information required for the calculation of “small numbers”.
Table 34 Minimum breeding population and mortality rate
Greenfinch Source (Carduelis chloris ) Minimum breeding population – 2,995,000 BirdLife International Species pairs Factsheet (2014) Mortality rate – juveniles 58% Bauer (2005): Das Kompendium der Vögel Mitteleuropas (KVM) / Cramp & Perrins (1994): Birds of the Western Palearctic / Robinson (2005): British Trust for Ornithology Mortality rate – adults 55% Bauer (2005) and Robinson (2005) Breeding rate (young per pair) 3–4 Cramp & Perrins (1994: 564) and Robinson (2005) Breeding success 4.4 Cramp & Perrins (1994: 564)
The European population of the Greenfinch is estimated to be 14,000,000 minimum breeding pairs (BirdLife International Species Factsheet, 2014). However, for the purpose of calculating the <1% mortality rate and “small numbers”, the reference population is based solely on ring recoveries of this species in Malta from six EU Member States. This equates to a reference population of 2,995,000 minimum breeding pairs (vide Tables 32 and 34 above).
(f) Calculation of <1% mortality rate and “small numbers”
Greenfinch (Carduelis chloris ) Minimum breeding success: 3 fledglings per pair (2,995,000 x 3) = 8,985,000 Mortality rate of 1 st year birds (8,985,000 x 58%) = 5,211,300 Mortality rate of adults (5,990,000 x 55%) = 3,294,500 Total annual mortality (5,211,300 + 3,294,500) = 8,505,800 1% of total annual mortality (8,505,800 x 1%) = 85,058
Total potential Greenfinch harvest figure is 85,058. Partitioning with other Member States (Spain: 85,058 × 50%) = 42,529 (g) Autumn seasonal bags in relation to “small numbers”
Based on the <1% mortality rate of the reference population, the “small numbers” calculation with respect to the potential national bag limit of the Greenfinch is as follows: 30
• Greenfinch – potential maximum bag limit of 42,529 individuals (partitioned with Spain).
It should be pointed out that when calculating the 1% mortality, FKNK based the reference population of this species on the entire European population except those in the UK, Iberian Peninsula and France. FKNK’s 1% mortality (and bag limit) for this species resulted in a total of 505,520 Greenfinches. FKNK’s proposed bag limit is deemed excessive for the purpose of fulfilling the “small numbers” criterion.
Notwithstanding that the partitioned maximum bag limit arising out of the above calculations is 42,529 Greenfinches, given that the average bag limit over a seven-year period (2002–2008) is 5,598 birds, this analysis recommends that, should a bag limit for this species be considered, it should be substantially reduced further to 4,500 . This calculation is based on the formula discussed in Section 4(c), which returns a figure that is not only considerably lower than the <1% threshold but also lower than the average number of birds caught over a seven-year period (2002–2008). Thus:
• Greenfinch – recommended sustainable and potential national bag limit of 4,500 birds.
31
8. Conservation status of the Hawfinch ( Coccothraustes coccothraustes )
Non-SPEC (1994: —) Status: Secure; Criteria: —. European IUCN Red List Category: —; Criteria: — (BirdLife International, 2004)
(a) Distribution and conservation status
The Hawfinch is a widespread but much localized breeder (Hume, 2002). The geographical distribution of this species in Europe (Fig. 15) is as follows:
Breeding Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, United Kingdom, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium, Austria, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Turkey, Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, Russia.
Wintering Estonia, Italy, United Kingdom, Cyprus, Greece, Germany, Belgium (a few), Luxembourg, Sicily, Corsica, and Sardinia.
Sedentary Birds in the southern and central parts of the range are largely resident or make only short- and distance movements. Northern breeders move south, southeast or southwest. Nominate race migratory (Coccothraustes c. coccothraustes ) winters from Ireland to southern Europe mostly around the Mediterranean, including Algeria and Tunisia, northwest Africa, Malta, Crete and Cyprus, east through the Balkans and the Black Sea sporadically to west and central Turkey, northern Iran, Central Asia, southern Mongolia to Manchuria, central and southern China, also Sakhalin. (Clement et al . 1993: 313).
Conservation status
Least Concern (IUCN 3.1 )[1] Order: Passeriformes
Suborder: Passeri
Infraorder: Passerida
Superfamily: Passeroidea
Family: Fringillidae
Subfamily: Carduelinae
Genus: Coccothraustes
Species: coccothraustes
Binomial name Coccothraustes coccothraustes (Linnaeus , 1758)
Ranges of C coccothraustes Summer Resident Winter Fig. 15: Distribution and conservation status of the Hawfinch ( Coccothraustes coccothraustes ) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawfinch [Accessed 20 March 2014].
32
The Hawfinch is a widespread breeder across much of Europe, which accounts for less than half of its global breeding range. Its European breeding population is very large (>2,400,000 pairs), and was stable between 1970 and 1990. The population size is extremely large, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion (<10,000 mature individuals with a continuing decline estimated to be >10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure). Although there were declines in a few countries during 1990–2000, populations were stable or increased across the vast majority of Europe, and the species remained stable overall. Consequently, it is evaluated as Secure (BirdLife International, 2004).
The Hawfinch also has an extremely large range , and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence <20,000 km 2 combined with a declining or fluctuating range size, habitat extent/quality, or population size and a small number of locations or severe fragmentation). The population trend appears to be stable, and hence the species does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (>30% decline over ten years or three generations).
In Europe, the breeding population is estimated to number 2,400,000–4,200,000 breeding pairs, equating to 7,200,000–12,600,000 individuals (BirdLife International Species Factsheet, 2014). Europe forms 25-49% of the global range, so a very preliminary estimate of the global population size is 14,700,000–50,400,000 individuals, although further validation of this estimate is needed. According to BirdLife International (2014), in Europe, trends since 1980 have been stable based on provisional data for 21 countries from the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (EBCC/RSPB/BirdLife/Statistics Netherlands; P. Vorisek in litt. 2008 ).
According to the European Bird Census Council (EBCC, 2013) 17 , the Pan-European population of the Hawfinch has a Moderate Increase in the long-term trend (1980–2011) but a Moderate Decline in the short-term trend (1990–2011) (Table 35). The overall change between 2010 and 2011 at the Pan-European level was -0.49% in the long-term slope and -0.06% in the short-term slope (Table 36). Within the territory of the European Union (EU 28), the change in the minimum number of pairs is +11.30%, the change in the maximum number of pairs is +13.01% and the change in the geomean population is +12.39% (Table 37). According to BirdLife International (2004), this equates to a Moderate Increase in the minimum, maximum and geomean number of breeding pairs (a change not more than 10% is considered to be Stable) . Table 37 also provides population counts and trends for each Member State within the territory of the European Union.
Table 35 Short-term and long-term trend classification of the Hawfinch (Pan-European)
Short-term trend (1990–2011) Long-term trend (1980–2011)
Coccothraustes coccothraustes Moderate decline Moderate increase Source: EBCC (2013)
Table 36 Hawfinch long-term and short term percentage trend change (2010–2011)
Year Species Trend 1980 Long- % Trend Short-term % change Habitat (%) term change 1990 Slope (SE) Slope (%) (SE)
Coccothraustes 2010 coccothraustes 474 1.0166 1.66% 31 0.9898 1.02% for
Coccothraustes 2011 coccothraustes 282 1.0117 1.17% 30 0.9892 1.08% for Overall change (2010–2011) -0.49% -0.06% Data sources: EBCC (2012, 2013b) Table 37 Hawfinch EU breeding population and ring recoveries (bold = ring recoveries in Italy)
33
Max % Max % Mag. % Max % Breeding Pairs Change Change Country Trend (Max - Change (Min - Max) (Min (Average Min) (Max Pairs) Pairs) Pairs) Austria 25,000 50,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Belgium 5,200 15,000 Decline 0 19 -988 -2,850 -1,919 Bulgaria 50,000 150,000 Stable 0 9 Croatia 200,000 300,000 Increase 80 80 160,000 240,000 200,000 Czech Rep. 140,000 280,000 Stable 0 9 - - - Denmark 15,000 30,000 Increase 50 79 11,850 23,700 17,775 Estonia 5,000 10,000 Increase 20 29 1,450 2,900 2,175 Finland 400 800 Increase 100 100 400 800 600 France 50,000 250,000 Increase 62 62 31,000 155,000 93,000 Germany 160,000 350,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Greece 5,000 20,000 Stable 0 19 Hungary 82,000 145,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Italy 5,000 15,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Latvia 3,000 10,000 Stable 0 19 Lithuania 40,000 60,000 Stable 0 19 Luxembourg 3,000 4,000 Stable 0 19 Netherlands 8,000 10,000 Increase 122 122 9,760 12,200 10,980 Poland 200,000 400,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Portugal 1,000 10,000 Stable 0 19 Romania 760,000 940,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Slovakia 110,000 220,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Slovenia 10,000 20,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Spain 2,500 10,000 ? - - - - - Sweden 5,000 15,000 Increase 10 19 950 2,850 1,900 UK 3,000 6,500 Decline 37 37 1,110 2,405 1,758 Total 1,888,100 3,321,300 213,312 432,195 332,754 Percentage Change +11.30% +13.01% +12.39% Trend (EU Population) Increase Increase Increase Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007)
(b) Ring recoveries in Italy
Since there are no known ring recoveries of this species in Malta (Raine, 2007), the reference population is based on ring recoveries in Italy (Spina and Volpini, 2008) since there is a high confidence level that birds migrating towards Italy may utilise the same Central European flyway. This subsection illustrates the distribution pattern of the species in Central Europe, with an emphasis on ring recoveries in Italy. The majority of foreign- ringed Hawfinches recovered in Italy originate from Germany (34%, n=187) followed by Czech. Republic (26%, n=142), Hungary (19%, n=101), Slovakia (5%, n=29) and Switzerland (3%), as illustrated in Figs. 16 and 17.
34
Fig. 16: Foreign ring recoveries of Hawfinches in Italy. Source: Spina and Volpini (2008)
Fig. 17: Foreign ringed Hawfinches recovered in Italy during the autumn migration period (n = 544). Source: Spina and Volpini (2008) Table 38 provides data on the ring recoveries of this species in Italy, the respective number of breeding pairs together with the overall direction of the population trend. Fig. 18 illustrates the EU population trend categories 35 of this species per Member State. The respective EU source (reference) population trend categories, on the basis of ring recoveries in Italy, are shown in Fig. 19. The source (reference) population increased by 11.99% (minimum pairs) [Fig. 20] and by 14.16% (maximum pairs) [Fig. 21].
Table 38 Hawfinch ring recoveries in Italy from other EU Member States and corresponding conservation status EU Ring Max % Max % Recoveries in Breeding Pairs Mag. % Country Trend Change Change (Min - Max) (Max - Min) Italy (n=522) (Min Pairs) (Max Pairs)
Austria 2.68% 25,000 50,000 Stable 0 19 Belgium 0.57% 5,200 15,000 Decline 0 19 988 2,850 Croatia 0.57% 200,000 300,000 Increase 80 80 160,000 240,000 Czech Rep. 27.20% 140,000 280,000 Stable 0 9 Denmark 0.19% 15,000 30,000 Increase 50 79 11,850 23,700 Estonia 0.38% 5,000 10,000 Increase 20 29 1,450 2,900 France 0.77% 50,000 250,000 Increase 62 62 31,000 155,000 Germany 35.82% 160,000 350,000 Stable 0 19 Hungary 82,000 82,000 145,000 Stable 0 19 Italy N/A 5,000 15,000 Stable 0 19 Luxembourg 0.19% 3,000 4,000 Stable 0 19 Netherlands 0.19% 8,000 10,000 Increase 122 122 9,760 12,200 Poland 2.49% 200,000 400,000 Stable 0 19 Romania 0.38% 760,000 940,000 Stable 0 19 Slovakia 5.56% 110,000 220,000 Stable 0 19 Slovenia 2.49% 10,000 20,000 Stable 0 19 Spain 0.19% 2,500 10,000 ? Sweden 0.96% 5,000 15,000 Increase 10 19 950 2,850 Total 100% 1,785,700 3,064,000 214,022 433,800 Percentage change +11.99% +14.16% Trend (Ring Recoveries in Italy) Increase Increase Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007)
Fig. 18: Hawfinch EU population trend by Member State Fig. 19: Hawfinch EU population trend (ring recoveries in Italy) Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Spina and Volpini (2008)
36
Fig. 20: Hawfinch EU ring recoveries: overall change (minimum Fig. 21: Hawfinch EU ring recoveries: overall change pairs) (maximum pairs) Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Spina and Volpini (2008)
(c) The reference population
Table 39 Hawfinch breeding population estimates (reference population) Country Hawfinch Breeding Population Size Year/s [Ring recoveries in Italy. Note that (pairs) there are no ring recoveries of this species in Malta] Austria 25,000–50,000 1998–2002 Belgium* Croatia 200,000–300,000 2002 Czech. Rep. 140,000–280,000 2000 Denmark 15,000–30,000 2000 Estonia 5,000–10,000 1998 France 50,000–250,000 1998–2002 Germany 160,000–350,000 1995–1999 Hungary 82,000–145,000 1999–2002 Italy 5,000–15,000 2003 Luxembourg 3,000–4,000 2002 Netherlands 8,000–10,000 1998–2000 Poland 200,000–400,000 2000–2002 Romania 760,000–940,000 2000–2002 Slovakia 110,000–220,000 1990–1999 Slovenia 10,000–20,000 2000 Spain 2,500–10,000 1998–2002 Sweden 5,000–15,000 1999–2000 Reference Population Size 1,780,500 –3,049,000 Total: 1,785,700 (minimum breeding population) * Belgian population omitted from the <1% threshold calculation in view of a decline in the number of breeding pairs. Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007)
37
(d) Carnet de Chasse data (2002–2008)
According to the Carnet de Chasse data available from the Environment Protection Directorate of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, the following Hawfinches were captured alive in Malta during the years indicated (Table 40).
Table 40 Carnet de Chasse live -capturing data 18 for Hawfinch (2002 –2008) Species 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Average Hawfinch 530 207 94 1,885 612 553 347 4,228 604
Source: Carnet de Chasse data, Environment Protection Directorate (Malta Environment and Planning Authority). Available at: http://www.mepa.org.mt/biodiversity reporting.
(e) Minimum breeding population
In the case of the European breeding population, Table 41 shows the minimum number of breeding pairs of Hawfinches that correspond with ring recoveries in Italy (the reference population), together with other relevant information required for the calculation of “small numbers”.
Table 41 Minimum breeding population and mortality rate
Hawfinch Source (Coccothraustes coccothraustes ) Minimum breeding population – 1,780,500 BirdLife International Species pairs Factsheet (2014) Mortality rate – juveniles 34% Bauer (2005): Das Kompendium der Vögel Mitteleuropas (KVM) / Cramp & Perrins (1994): Birds of the Western Palearctic / Robinson (2005): British Trust for Ornithology Mortality rate – adults 51% Bauer (2005) and Robinson (2005) Breeding rate (young per pair) 4–5 Cramp & Perrins (1994: 844) and Robinson (2005) Breeding success 3.4 Cramp & Perrins (1994: 844)
The European population of the Hawfinch is estimated to be 2,400,000 minimum breeding pairs (BirdLife International Species Factsheet, 2014). However, for the purpose of calculating the <1% mortality rate and “small numbers”, the reference population is based on ring recoveries of this species in Italy (given that there are no ring recoveries of this species in Malta). These ring recoveries exclude three countries that are non-EU Member States, namely Switzerland, Belarus and Russia, as well as Belgium in view that the number of breeding pairs in EU Member State declined (BirdLife International, 2004). This equates to a reference population of 1,780,500 minimum breeding pairs (vide Tables 39 and 41 above).
(f) Calculation of <1% mortality rate and “small numbers”
Hawfinch (Coccothraustes coccothraustes ) 38
Minimum breeding success: 3.4 fledglings per pair (1,780,500 x 3.4) = 6,053,700 Mortality rate of 1 st year birds (6,053,700 x 34%) = 2,058,258 Mortality rate of adults (3,561,000 x 51%) = 1,816,110 Total annual mortality (2,058,258 + 1,816,110) = 3,874,368 1% of total annual mortality (3,874,368 x 1%) = 38,744
Total potential Hawfinch harvest figure is: 38,744 = 12,915 (figure divided by three to account for the fact that only a fraction of the bird reference population actually migrates towards the Maltese Islands through the Central Flyway).
Partitioning with other Member States (Austria: 12,915 × 50%) = 6,457
(g) Autumn seasonal bags in relation to “small numbers”
Based on the <1% mortality rate (which is further divided by three), the “small numbers” calculation with respect to the Autumn 2014 seasonal bag limit of the Hawfinch is as follows:
• Hawfinch – maximum national bag limit of 6,457 individuals (one-third of the reference population partitioned with Austria)
It should be pointed out that when calculating the 1% mortality, FKNK based the reference population of this species on the entire European population except those in the UK, Iberian Peninsula and France. FKNK’s 1% mortality (and bag limit) for this species resulted in a total of 60,690 Hawfinches. FKNK’s proposed bag limit is deemed excessive for the purpose of fulfilling the “small numbers” criterion.
Notwithstanding that the partitioned maximum bag limit arising out of the above calculations is 6,457 Hawfinches, given that the average bag limit over a seven-year period (2002–2008) is 604 birds, this analysis recommends that, should a bag limit for this species be considered, it should be substantially reduced further to 500 . This calculation is based on the formula discussed in Section 4(c), which returns a figure that is not only considerably lower than the <1% threshold but also lower than the average number of birds caught over a seven-year period (2002–2008). Thus:
• Hawfinch – recommended sustainable and potential national bag limit of 500 birds.
39
9. Conservation status of the European Serin ( Serinus serinus )
Non-SPEC E (1994: 4) Status: Secure; Criteria: —. European IUCN Red List Category: —; Criteria: — (BirdLife International, 2004)
(a) Distribution and conservation status
The geographical distribution of this species in Europe (Fig. 22) is as follows:
Breeding Estonia (a few), Latvia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, United Kingdom (a few), Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium, Austria, Ukraine Luxembourg, Slovenia, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Turkey, Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, Russia (a few).
Wintering Italy, Cyprus, Greece, Germany Luxembourg, Sicily, Corsica, and Sardinia, Malta, Spain, Portugal, West France, Croatia.
Sedentary Breeding birds from the northern parts of the range move south to winter within southern Europe, and around the Mediterranean (including coastal North Africa), the Balkans (including the Hungarian migratory Plain), Cyprus, Lebanon, Israel, southern Iraq, Libya and northern Egypt (Clement et al . 1993: 173).
Conservation status
Least Concern (IUCN 3.1 )[1] Order: Passeriformes Family: Fringillidae Genus: Serinus Species: serinus Binomial name Serinus serinus (Linnaeus , 1766)
Range: orange, summer; green, all year; blue, winter Fig. 22: Distribution and conservation status of the Serin ( Serinus serinus ) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serinus [Accessed 20 March 2014].
The Serin is a widespread breeder across most of Europe (except for the north and east), which constitutes >75% of its global range. Its European breeding population is very large (>8,300,000 pairs), and increased between 1970–1990. The population size is extremely large , and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion (<10,000 mature individuals with a continuing decline estimated to be >10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure). Although there were 40 declines in France and Malta during 1990–2000, populations increased or were stable elsewhere in Europe— including the key Spanish population—and the species was stable overall. Consequently, it is evaluated as Secure (BirdLife International, 2004).
This species also has an extremely large range , and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence <20,000 km 2 combined with a declining or fluctuating range size, habitat extent/quality, or population size and a small number of locations or severe fragmentation). Despite the fact that the population trend appears to be decreasing, the decline is not believed to be sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (>30% decline over ten years or three generations).
According to the European Bird Census Council (EBCC, 2013) 19 , both the long-term trend (1980–2011) and the short-term trend (1990–2011) for the Pan-European population of the Serin is classified as Moderate Decline (Table 42). The overall change between 2010 and 2011 was -0.07% in the long-term slope and -0.15% in the short-term slope (Table 43). Within the territory of the European Union (EU 28), the change in the minimum number of pairs is +0.84%, the change in the maximum number of pairs is -2.05% and the change in the geomean population is -1.19% (Table 44). According to BirdLife International (2004), this equates to a Stable classification for the minimum, maximum and geomean number of breeding pairs (a change not more than 10% is considered to be Stable) . Table 44 also provides population counts and trends for each Member State within the territory of the European Union. Table 42 Short-term and long-term trend classification of the Serin (Pan-European)
Short-term trend (1990–2011) Long-term trend (1980–2011)
Serinus serinus Moderate decline Moderate decline Source: EBCC (2013)
Table 43 Serin long-term and short term percentage trend change (2010–2011)
Year Species Trend 1980 Long-term % Trend Short- % change Habitat (%) Slope (SE) change 1990 term (%) Slope (SE)
2010 Serinus serinus 31 0.9733 2.67% 23 0.9788 2.12% farm 2011 Serinus serinus 39 0.9726 2.74% 34 0.9773 2.27% farm Overall change (2010– 2011) -0.07% -0.15% Data sources: EBCC (2012, 2013b)
Table 44 Serin EU breeding population and ring recoveries (bold = ring recoveries in Malta) EU Ring Max % Max % Max % Recoveries Breeding Pairs Mag. % Change Change Change Country Trend in Malta (Min - Max) (Max - Min) (Min (Max (Average (n=16) Pairs) Pairs) Pairs)
Austria 45,000 90,000 Stable 0 19 Belgium 1,200 3,200 Stable 0 19 Bulgaria 50,000 150,000 Increase 0 19 9,500 28,500 19,000 Croatia 4% 150,000 200,000 Increase 0 19 28,500 38,000 33,250 Cyprus 2,500 10,000 Stable 0 9 Czech Rep. 58% 450,000 900,000 Stable 0 19 - - - 41
Denmark 1 11 Increase 30 49 0 5 3 Estonia 50 100 Stable 0 19 Finland 0 3 Stable 0 19 France 400,000 2,000,000 Decline 37 37 148,000 740,000 444,000 Germany 200,000 420,000 Stable 0 19 Greece 10,000 30,000 Stable 0 19 Hungary 160,000 245,000 Increase 20 49 78,400 120,050 99,225 Italy 500,000 1,000,000 Increase 0 19 95,000 190,000 142,500 Latvia 50 300 Increase 0 19 10 57 33 Lithuania 2,000 4,000 Stable 0 19 Luxembourg 2,000 2,500 Stable 0 19 Malta 2 5 Decline 0 19 0 1 1 Netherlands 400 500 Increase 50 79 316 395 356 Poland 150,000 250,000 Stable 0 19 Portugal 1,000,000 5,000,000 Stable 0 19 Romania 245,000 650,000 Stable 0 19 Slovakia 50,000 100,000 Stable 0 19 Slovenia 38% 30,000 40,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Spain 4,100,000 6,600,000 Stable 0 19 Sweden 1 15 Increase 10 19 0 3 2 Total 100% 7,548,204 17,695,634 63,726 -362,991 -149,632 Percentage Change +0.84% -2.05% -1.19% Trend (EU Population) Stable Stable Stable Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007) (b) Ring recoveries in Malta
Table 45 provides data on ring recoveries of this species in Malta, the respective number of breeding pairs, together with the overall direction of the population trend. Fig. 23 illustrates the EU population trend categories of this species per Member State. The respective EU source (reference) population trend categories, on the basis of ring recoveries in Malta, are shown in Fig. 24. The reference population is Stable: +4.52% (minimum pairs) and +3.33% (maximum pairs).
Table 45 Serin ring recoveries in Malta from other EU Member States and corresponding conservation status EU Ring Max % Recoveries Breeding Pairs Mag. % Max % Change Country Trend Change (Min in Malta (Min - Max) (Max - Min) (Max Pairs) Pairs) (n=16)
Czech Rep. 58% 450,000 900,000 Stable 0 19 Slovenia 38% 30,000 40,000 Stable 0 19 Croatia 4% 150,000 200,000 Increase 0 19 28,500 38,000 Total 100% 630,000 1,140,000 Total change 28,500 38,000 Percentage change +4.52% +3.33% Trend (Ring Recoveries) Stable Stable Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007)
42
Fig. 23: Serin EU population trend by Member State Fig. 24: Serin EU population trend (ring recoveries in Malta) Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007)
(c) The reference population
Table 46 Serin breeding population estimates (reference population)
Country Serin Breeding Population Size Trend* Year/s [Ring recoveries in Malta] (pairs) Croatia 150,000–200,000 (+) 2002 Czech. Rep. 450,000–900,000 0 2000 Slovenia 30,000–40,000 (0) 1992 Reference Population Size 630,000 –1,140,000 Total : 630,000 (minimum breeding population) * ‘()’ = Uncertain; ‘0’ = Stable; ‘+’ = Increase; ‘ ’ = Decrease Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007)
(d) Carnet de Chasse data (2002–2008)
According to the Carnet de Chasse data available from the Environment Protection Directorate of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, the following Serins were captured alive in Malta during the years indicated (Table 47).
Table 47 Carnet de Chasse live -capturing data 20 for Serin (2002 –2008) Species 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Average Serin 4,918 4,525 1,599 1,814 2,509 3,800 3,139 22,304 3,186
Source: Carnet de Chasse data, Environment Protection Directorate (Malta Environment and Planning Authority). Available at: http://www.mepa.org.mt/biodiversity reporting. (e) Minimum breeding population
In the case of the European breeding population, Table 48 shows the minimum number of breeding pairs of Serins that correspond with ring recoveries in Malta (the reference population), together with other relevant information required for the calculation of “small numbers”.
Table 48 Minimum breeding population and mortality rate
European Serin Source 43
(Serinus serinus ) Minimum breeding population – 630,000 BirdLife International Species pairs Factsheet (2014) Mortality rate – juveniles 44% Bauer (2005): Das Kompendium der Vögel Mitteleuropas (KVM) / Cramp & Perrins (1994): Birds of the Western Palearctic / Robinson (2005): British Trust for Ornithology Mortality rate – adults 40% Bauer (2005) and Robinson (2005) Breeding rate (young per pair) 3–4 Cramp & Perrins (1994: 518) and Robinson (2005) Breeding success 4 Cramp & Perrins (1994: 518)
The European population of the Serin is estimated to be 8,300,000 minimum breeding pairs (BirdLife International Species Factsheet, 2014). However, for the purpose of calculating the <1% mortality rate and “small numbers”, the reference population is based solely on ring recoveries of this species in Malta. This equates to a reference population of 630,000 minimum breeding pairs (vide Tables 46 and 48 above).
(f) Calculation of <1% mortality and “small numbers”
Serin (Serinus serinus ) Minimum breeding success: 3 fledglings per pair (630,000 x 3) = 1,890,000 Mortality rate of 1 st year birds (1,890,000 x 44%) = 831,600 Mortality rate of adults (1,260,000 x 40%) = 504,000 Total annual mortality (831,600 + 504,000) = 1,335,600 1% of total annual mortality (1,335,600 x 1%) = 13,356
Total potential Serin harvest figure is 13,356. Partitioning with other Member States (Spain: 13,356 × 50%) = 6,678
(g) Autumn seasonal bags in relation to “small numbers”
Based on the <1% mortality rate of the reference population, the “small numbers” calculation with respect to the potential national bag limit of the Serin is as follows:
• Serin – potential maximum bag limit of 6,678 birds (partitioned with Spain).
It should be pointed out that when calculating the 1% mortality, FKNK based the reference population of this species on the entire European population except those in the UK, Iberian Peninsula and France. FKNK’s 1% mortality (and bag limit) for this species resulted in a total of 202,230 Serins. FKNK’s proposed bag limit is deemed excessive for the purpose of fulfilling the “small numbers” criterion.
Notwithstanding that the partitioned maximum bag limit arising out of the above calculations is 6,678 Serins, given that the average bag limit over a seven-year period (2002–2008) is 3,186 birds, this analysis recommends that, should a bag limit for this species be considered, it should be substantially reduced further to 2,350 . This calculation is based on the formula discussed in Section 4(c), which returns a figure that is not only considerably lower than the <1% threshold but also lower than the average number of birds caught over a seven-year period (2002–2008). Thus:
• Serin – recommended sustainable and potential national bag limit of 2,350 birds
44
10. Conservation status of the Eurasian Siskin ( Carduelis spinus )
Non-SPEC E (1994: 4) Status: Secure; Criteria: —. European IUCN Red List Category: —; Criteria: — (BirdLife International, 2004)
(a) Distribution and conservation status
The geographical distribution of this species in Europe (Fig. 25) is as follows:
Breeding Estonia (a few), Latvia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, United Kingdom, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium, Austria ,Ukraine Luxembourg, Slovenia, Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Turkey, Russia.
Wintering Italy, Cyprus, Greece, Germany, Luxembourg, Sicily, Corsica, and Sardinia, Spain, Portugal, France, Croatia.
Sedentary and In the west of the range, those breeding in the northern regions move south and migratory southwest to winter within and south of the breeding range to southern Spain, Balearic Islands, throughout France and the British Isles, Italy, the Balkans to Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, central Iran and southern Central Asia; also occurs irregularly or rarely in Iceland, Faroe Isles, Sicily (has bred), Malta, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Tunisia, Libya (Tripoli), northern Egypt, Iraq, southern Iran, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait. Individuals do not necessarily winter in the same area in successive years. (Clement et al . 1993: 221).
Conservation status
Least Concern (IUCN 3.1 )[1] Order: Passeriformes
Family: Fringillidae
Genus: Carduelis
Species: spinus
Binomial name Carduelis spinus (Linnaeus , 1758)
Range of the Eurasian Siskin Summer Resident Winter
Fig. 25: Distribution and conservation status of the Siskin ( Carduelis spinus ) Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Siskin [Accessed 20 March 2014].
45
The Siskin is a widespread breeder across most of Europe, which constitutes >75% of its global range. Its European breeding population is extremely large (>10,000,000 pairs), and was stable between 1970–1990. Despite the fact that the population trend appears to be decreasing, the decline is not believed to be sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (>30% decline over ten years or three generations). The population size is extremely large, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion (<10,000 mature individuals with a continuing decline estimated to be >10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure). The stronghold population in Russia fluctuated between 1990 and 2000, and most other European populations— including sizeable ones in Finland and Sweden—either increased or were stable. The species probably remained broadly stable overall, and consequently is provisionally evaluated as Secure (BirdLife International, 2004).
The Siskin also has an extremely large range , and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence <20,000 km 2 combined with a declining or fluctuating range size, habitat extent/quality, or population size and a small number of locations or severe fragmentation).
In Europe, the breeding population is estimated to number 10,000,000–18,000,000 breeding pairs, equating to 30,000,000–54,000,000 individuals (BirdLife International Species Factsheet, 2014). Europe forms 75–94% of the global range, so a very preliminary estimate of the global population size is 31,900,000–72,000,000 individuals, although further validation of this estimate is needed.
According to the European Bird Census Council (EBCC, 2013) 21 , both the long-term trend (1980–2011) and the short-term trend (1990–2011) for the Pan-European population of the Siskin is classified as Moderate Decline (Table 49). The overall change between 2010 and 2011 was +0.01% in the long-term slope and +0.08% in the short-term slope (Table 50). Within the territory of the European Union (EU 28), the change in the minimum number of pairs is +19.72%, the change in the maximum number of pairs is +20.54% and the change in the geomean population is +20.29% (Table 51). According to BirdLife International (2004), this equates to a Moderate Increase classification for the minimum, maximum and geomean number of breeding pairs (a change not more than 10% is considered to be Stable) . Table 51 also provides population counts and trends for each Member State within the territory of the European Union.
Table 49 Short-term and long-term trend classification of the Siskin (Pan-European)
Short-term trend (1990–2011) Long-term trend (1980–2011)
Carduelis spinus Moderate decline Moderate decline Source: EBCC (2013)
Table 50 Siskin long-term and short term percentage trend change (2010–2011) Year Species Trend 1980 Long-term % change Trend Short- % change Habitat (%) Slope (SE) 1990 term (%) Slope (SE)
2010 Carduelis spinus 6 0.9903 0.97% 6 0.9823 1.77% for 2011 Carduelis spinus 11 0.9904 0.96% 3 0.9831 1.69% for Overall change (2010–2011) +0.01% +0.08% Data sources: EBCC (2012, 2013b) Table 51 Siskin EU breeding population and ring recoveries (bold = ring recoveries in Malta)
46
EU Ring Max % Max % Max % Recoveries Breeding Pairs Mag. % Change Change Change Country Trend in Malta (Min - Max) (Max - Min) (Min (Max (Average (n=9) Pairs) Pairs) Pairs)
Austria 30,000 140,000 Fluctuating 80 80 Belgium 160 1,100 Stable 0 19 Bulgaria 2,000 4,000 Stable 0 19 Croatia 5,000 10,000 Decline 30 49 2,450 4,900 3,675 Czech Rep. 22% 90,000 180,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Denmark 200 2,000 Increase Estonia 100,000 250,000 Fluctuating 20 29 Finland 700,000 2,000,000 Increase 35 35 245,000 700,000 472,500 France 500 2,500 ? Germany 25,000 100,000 Fluctuating 50 79 Greece 500 2,000 Fluctuating 80 80 Hungary 200 300 Increase 20 49 98 147 123 Rep. Ireland 20,000 100,000 Increase 20 29 5,800 29,000 17,400 Italy 22% 4,000 15,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Latvia 11% 100,000 200,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Lithuania 100,000 300,000 Stable 0 19 Luxembourg 1 10 Stable 0 19 Netherlands 22% 500 1,200 Increase 236 236 1,180 2,832 2,006 Poland 10,000 20,000 Stable 0 19 Romania 24,000 65,000 Stable 0 19 Slovakia 20,000 40,000 Stable 0 19 Slovenia 22% 2,000 3,000 Stable 0 19 - - - Spain 500 1,100 ? Sweden 500,000 1,000,000 Increase 10 19 95,000 190,000 47,500 UK 369,000 369,000 Increase 19 19 70,110 70,110 70,110 Total 100% 2,103,561 4,806,210 414,738 987,189 605,964 Percentage Change +19.72% +20.54% +20.29% Trend (EU Population) Increase Increase Increase Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007)
(b) Ring recoveries in Malta
Table 52 provides data on ring recoveries of this species in Malta, the respective number of breeding pairs, together with the overall direction of the population trend. Fig. 26 illustrates the EU population trend categories of this species per Member State. The respective EU source (reference) population trend categories, on the basis of ring recoveries in Malta, are shown in Fig. 27. The reference population is Stable: +0.60% (minimum pairs) and +0.71% (maximum pairs).
Table 52 Siskin ring recoveries in Malta from other EU Member States and corresponding conservation status 47
EU Ring Max % Max % Recoveries Breeding Pairs Mag. % Country Trend Change (Min Change (Max in Malta (Min - Max) (Max - Min) Pairs) Pairs) (n=9)
Czech Rep. 22% 90,000 180,000 Stable 0 19 Italy 22% 4,000 15,000 Stable 0 19 Netherlands 22% 500 1,200 Increase 236 236 1,180 2,832 Slovenia 22% 2,000 3,000 Stable 0 19 Latvia 11% 100,000 200,000 Stable 0 19 Total 100% 196,500 399,200 Total change 1,180 2,832 Percentage change +0.60% +0.71% Trend (Ring Recoveries) Stable Stable Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007)
Fig. 26: Siskin EU population trend by Member State Fig. 27: Siskin EU population trend (ring recoveries in Malta) Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007)
(c) The reference population
Table 53 Siskin breeding population estimates (reference population)
Country Siskin Breeding Population Size Trend* Year/s [Ring recoveries in Malta] (pairs) Czech. Rep. 90,000–180,000 0 2000 Italy 4,000–15,000 (0) 2003 Latvia 100,000–200,000 (0) 2000 Netherlands 500–1,200 + 1998–2000 Slovenia 2,000–3,000 (0) 1994 Reference Population Size 196,500 –399,200 Total : 196,500 (minimum breeding population) * ‘()’ = Uncertain; ‘0’ = Stable; ‘+’ = Increase; ‘ ’ = Decrease; ‘F’ = Fluctuating Data sources: BirdLife International (2004); Raine (2007) (d) Carnet de Chasse data (2002–2008)
48
According to the Carnet de Chasse data available from the Environment Protection Directorate of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, the following Siskins were captured alive in Malta during the years indicated (Table 54). Table 54 Carnet de Chasse live -capturing data 22 for S iskin (2002 –2008) Species 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Average Siskin 670 380 296 7,877 1,449 10,120 1,503 22,295 3,185
Source: Carnet de Chasse data, Environment Protection Directorate (Malta Environment and Planning Authority). Available at: http://www.mepa.org.mt/biodiversity reporting.
(e) Minimum breeding population
In the case of the European breeding population, Table 55 shows the minimum number of breeding pairs of Siskins that correspond with ring recoveries in Malta (the reference population), together with other relevant information required for the calculation of “small numbers”.
Table 55 Minimum breeding population and mortality rate
Siskin Source (Carduelis spinus ) Minimum breeding population – 196,500 BirdLife International Species pairs Factsheet (2014) Mortality rate – juveniles 55% Bauer (2005): Das Kompendium der Vögel Mitteleuropas (KVM) / Cramp & Perrins (1994): Birds of the Western Palearctic / Robinson (2005): British Trust for Ornithology Mortality rate – adults 54% Bauer (2005) and Robinson (2005) Breeding rate (young per pair) 3–5 Cramp & Perrins (1994) and Robinson (2005) Breeding success 3 Cramp & Perrins (1994)
The European population of the Siskin is estimated to be 10,000,000 minimum breeding pairs (BirdLife International Species Factsheet, 2014). However, for the purpose of calculating the <1% mortality rate and “small numbers”, the reference population is based solely on ring recoveries of this species in Malta. This equates to a reference population of 196,500 minimum breeding pairs (vide Tables 53 and 55 above).
(f) Calculation of <1% mortality rate and “small numbers”
Siskin (Carduelis spinus ) Minimum breeding success: 3 fledglings per pair (196,500 x 3) = 589,500 Mortality rate of 1 st year birds (589,500 x 55%) = 324,225 Mortality rate of adults (393,000 x 54%) = 212,220 Total annual mortality (324,225 + 212,220) = 536,445 1% of total annual mortality (536,445 x 1%) = 5,364
Total potential Siskin harvest figure is 5,364. Partitioning with other Member States (Austria and Spain: 5,364 × 33%) = 1,788
(g) Autumn seasonal bags in relation to “small numbers”
Based on the <1% mortality rate of the reference population, the “small numbers” calculation with respect to the potential national bag limit of the Siskin is as follows:
• Siskin – potential maximum bag limit of 1,788 birds (partitioned with Austria and Spain). 49
It should be pointed out that when calculating the 1% mortality, FKNK based the reference population of this species on the entire European population except those in the UK, Iberian Peninsula and France. FKNK’s 1% mortality (and bag limit) for this species resulted in a total of 398,698 Siskins. FKNK’s proposed bag limit is deemed excessive for the purpose of fulfilling the “small numbers” criterion.
Given that the average bag limit over a seven-year period (2002–2008) is higher (3,185 Siskins) than the partitioned bag limit (1,788 Siskins), the formula discussed in Section 4(c) cannot be applied. This analysis recommends that, should a bag limit for this species be considered, it should be rounded down to 1,700 . Thus:
• Siskin – recommended sustainable and potential national bag limit of 1,700 birds
50
11. Conclusions regarding the reference populations and the <1% threshold
The previous sections provided an overview of the conservation status of the seven finch species together with calculations of the <1% mortality of the reference populations. This section provides a general summary of the main conclusions. For each of the seven finch species considered in this analysis, the “small numbers” calculation falls considerably below the 1% threshold referred to in paragraph 3.5.34 of the Guidance Document on Sustainable Hunting. The <1% figure for each of the seven finch species is based on a much smaller subset of the total breeding population of the respective species within the territory of the European Union, since only those European countries (Member States) from which there are ring recoveries in Malta form part of the reference population, with the exception of the Hawfinch. In the absence of ring recoveries pertaining to the latter species, the reference population of the Hawfinch is based on ring recoveries in Italy.
The potential national bag limits are considerably much lower than <1% of the total annual mortality of the EU reference population of each respective finch species as they also take into account the average bag limits over a seven-year period (2002–2008), which in turn are all considerably below the <1% threshold (see Table 56). The bag limits have been partitioned restrictively with those Member States that in 2008 applied derogations for the live-finch capturing or hunting of these finch species (EC, 2011), namely Austria (Linnet, Goldfinch, Siskin, Chaffinch and Hawfinch), Spain (Linnet, Goldfinch, Siskin, Chaffinch, Serin and Greenfinch) and Italy (Chaffinch). It should be noted that these calculations resulted in much lower potential national bag limits than those proposed by FKNK and thus the small numbers criterion can be considered to be fully compliant with Article 9(c) of the Birds Directive.
Table 56 also provides a direct comparison between the <1% mortality (calculated on the basis of the minimum EU breeding population size and lowest recruitment rate), the harvest record (average of Carnet de Chasse data over a seven-year period: 2002–2008) and the national bag limit for each of the seven species. The potential national bag limit as a percentage of the bag limit partitioned with other EU Member States is also provided.
Table 56 Consideration of the <1% mortality of the reference population and harvest records
Species *Total Annual Maximum Bag Partitioned Average Potential Potential National Bag Mortality of Limit from Maximum Annual National Bag Limit as a percentage of Reference Reference Bag Limit Harvest Limit the Partitioned Bag Population Population (<1%) (2002– Limit (<1%) (Ring (<1%) 2008) Recoveries) Chaffinch 14,449,080 144,491 36,123 6,075 5,000 14%
Linnet 3,671,694 36,717 12,239 17,950 12,000 98%
Goldfinch 1,958,400 19,584 6,528 1,025 800 12%
Greenfinch 8,505,800 85,058 42,529 5,598 4,500 11%
Hawfinch 1,785,700 12,915 6,457 604 500 8%
Serin 1,335,600 13,356 6,678 3,186 2,350 35%
Siskin 536,445 5,364 1,788 3,185 1,700 95%
Total 112,342 26,850 24%
* Data sources: Cramp and Perrins (1994); Bauer (2005); Robinson (2005), based on the minimum EU population (breeding pairs) as specified by BirdLife International Species Factsheets (2014).
51
12. Conclusion
All seven finch species are characterised by extremely large populations and geographical range. BirdLife International (2004) classifies the Pan-European populations of Chaffinch, Goldfinch, Greenfinch, Hawfinch, Serin and Siskin as Secure and the Linnet as having undergone a Moderate Recent Decline . BirdLife International (2004) thus classifies the Linnet as having an Unfavourable conservation status in Europe (SPEC 2).
The most recent update on the conservation status is provided by the European Bird Census Council (EBCC, 2013). According to this most recent dataset, the Chaffinch, Goldfinch, Greenfinch and Hawfinch have retained a Favourable conservation status at the Pan-European level, but the Linnet, Siskin and Serin populations have experienced a Moderate Decline (EBCC, 2013) and thus have an Unfavourable conservation status at the Pan-European Level.
Within the EU territory (EU 28) , the situation is somewhat different. Based on BirdLife International (2004) definition of Stable (not more than 10% change in 10 years), the EU populations of Goldfinch, Siskin and Hawfinch increased in both the minimum and maximum number of pairs, whereas the EU populations of Greenfinch, Chaffinch and Serin remained stable . The minimum EU population of Linnet remained stable (-2.17%) but the maximum number of pairs decreased (-12.94%). On the other hand, the Linnet’s geomean population remained stable (-9.80%).
The situation with respect to the reference populations, which form a subset of the EU population based on ring recoveries in Malta for six finch species (Raine, 2007) and in Italy for Hawfinch (Spina and Volpini, 2008) also differs considerably. The minimum and maximum number of pairs of Linnet, Goldfinch and Hawfinch increased whereas the minimum and maximum number of Greenfinch, Siskin, Chaffinch and Serin pairs remained stable (not more than 10% change in 10 years).
Notwithstanding the overall stable or increasing trend of the source (reference) EU population (ring recoveries in Malta and Italy) the calculation of “small numbers” and the resultant hypothetical harvest quotas are based on only those European populations with a stable or increasing population. This meant that in the case of Linnet, two EU Member States, namely Slovenia and Slovakia, which collectively form 3% of all ring recoveries of this species in Malta (Raine, 2007) were eliminated from the reference population. In the case of Hawfinch, Belgium was eliminated from the reference population, which forms 0.57% of all ring recoveries of this species in Italy (Spina and Volpini, 2008). In the case of the other species, including Siskin and Serin, none of the source populations have experienced a decline (are all stable or increasing) thus no countries were omitted from the respective reference populations.
52
References
Allendorf FW and Luikart G (2007) Conservation and the genetics of populations . Blackwell Publishing. Bauer HG, Bezzel E, Fiedler W (2005) Das Kompendium der Vögel Mitteleuropas: Alles über Biologie, Gefährdung und Schutz. BirdLife International (2004) Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status . Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International. (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 12). BirdLife International (2014). IUCN Red Lists for Birds. BirdLife International Species Factsheets . Available at: http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species
Campbell D (1999) The encyclopaedia of British birds . Parragon Books, London. Clement P, Harris A and Davis J (1993) Finches and Sparrows . Helm Identification Guides, London. Cramp S and Perrins CM (eds) (1994) Handbook of the birds of Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa: The birds of the Western Palearctic. Vol. VIII: Crows to Finches. Oxford University Press.
EBCC (2012) Trends of common birds in Europe, 2012 update . European Bird Census Council. Available at: http://www.ebcc.info/trends2012.html EBCC (2013a) Population trends of common European birds 2013 . Pan European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS). European Bird Census Council. Available at: http://www.ebcc.info/wpimages/video/Leaflet2013.pdf EBCC (2013b) Trends of common birds in Europe, 2013 update . European Bird Census Council. Available at: http://www.ebcc.info/trends2013.html FKNK (2012) Conserving the indigenous socio-cultural tradition of live-finch capturing on Malta .
Hume R (2002) Complete birds of Britain and Europe . The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Dorling Kindersley. Raine (2007) The international impact of hunting and trapping in the Maltese Islands . BirdLife Malta. Available at: http://www.birdlifemalta.org/photos/otherfiles/206.pdf Robinson RA (2005) BirdFacts: profiles of birds occurring in Britain & Ireland (BTO Research Report 407). British Trust for Ornithology. Thetford. Available at: http://www.bto.org/birdfacts Spina F and Volpini S (2008) Atlante della migrazione degli uccelli in Italia [1455_vol 2 pp 488–557, 1456_vol 2 pp 558–625].
53
Appendix I: FKNK’s Proposal
Conserving the Indigenous Socio-Cultural Tradition of Live-Finch Capturing on Malta
54