Somateria mollissima -- (Linnaeus, 1758) ANIMALIA -- CHORDATA -- AVES -- ANSERIFORMES -- ANATIDAE Common names: Common Eider; Eider European Red List Assessment European Red List Status VU -- Vulnerable, (IUCN version 3.1) Assessment Information Year published: 2015 Date assessed: 2015-03-31 Assessor(s): BirdLife International Reviewer(s): Symes, A. Compiler(s): Ashpole, J., Burfield, I., Ieronymidou, C., Pople, R., Wheatley, H. & Wright, L. Assessment Rationale European regional assessment: Vulnerable (VU) EU27 regional assessment: Endangered (EN)

This widespread seaduck began undergoing rapid declines across the majority of its European breeding range during the 2000s. Extrapolated over a three generation period (27 years) these declines result in its classification as Vulnerable in Europe, and Endangered in the EU27 (where declines have been even more rapid). Occurrence Countries/Territories of Occurrence Native: Austria; Belarus; Belgium; Bulgaria; Czech Republic; Denmark; Faroe Islands (to DK); Greenland (to DK); Estonia; Finland; France; Germany; Iceland; Ireland, Rep. of; Italy; Latvia; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of; Netherlands; Norway; Svalbard and Jan Mayen (to NO); Poland; Romania; Russian Federation; Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Ukraine; United Kingdom Vagrant: Bosnia and Herzegovina; Croatia; Georgia; Greece; Hungary; Luxembourg; Montenegro; Portugal; Serbia; Turkey Population The European population is estimated at 791,000-955,000 pairs, which equates to 1,580,000-1,910,000 mature individuals. The population in the EU27 is estimated at 224,000-320,000 pairs, which equates to 449,000-640,000 mature individuals. For details of national estimates, see Supplementary PDF. Trend In Europe the population size is estimated and projected to decrease by 30-49% over the period from 2000, when the declines were estimated to have begun, to 2027 (three generations). In the EU27 the population size is estimated and projected to decrease by 50-79% over the same period. For details of national estimates, see Supplementary PDF. Habitats and Ecology The species breeds on offshore islands and islets (Kear 2005) along low-lying rocky coasts (Carboneras et al. 2014), on coastal shores and spits, on islets in brackish and freshwater lagoons (Kear 2005), lakes and rivers (Johnsgard 1978) close to the sea (Kear 2005) or on tundra pools, rivers (Carboneras et al. 2014) and lakes (Madge and Burn 1988) up to 5 or 6 km inland (Kear 2005). It shows a preference for boulder-strewn or grassy islands (Johnsgard 1978) with sheltered approaches (Snow and Perrins 1998) that are safe from nest predators, although in the high Arctic where such shelter is unavailable more open sites must be used (in which case the species often nests in closely packed groups for protection) (Snow and Perrins 1998). The species typically winters on shallow seashores, bays and estuaries (Carboneras et al. 2014), especially where there are high abundances of benthic molluscs (Camphuysen et al. 2002, Ens 2006). The species breeds from early-April (although the most northerly populations may not breed until mid-June (Madge and Burn 1988)), and generally nests in colonies. The nest is a slight hollow in the ground that is usually positioned in the shelter of rocks or vegetation but may also be in the open. Its diet consists predominantly of benthic molluscs although crustaceans, echinoderms, other marine invertebrates and fish may also be taken. During the breeding season incubating females frequently complement their diet with algae, berries and the seeds and leaves of surrounding tundra plants (Carboneras et al. 2014). The majority of this species is migratory (Flint et al. 1984), with some populations e.g. in Europe being largely sedentary (Scott and Rose 1996). Habitats & Altitude Habitat (level 1 - level 2) Importance Occurrence Marine Coastal/Supratidal - Coastal Brackish/Saline Lagoons/Marine Lakes suitable breeding Marine Coastal/Supratidal - Coastal Freshwater Lakes suitable breeding Marine Coastal/Supratidal - Sea Cliffs and Rocky Offshore Islands major breeding Marine Intertidal - Rocky Shoreline major breeding Marine Intertidal - Tidepools major breeding Marine Neritic - Macroalgal/Kelp major breeding Marine Neritic - Macroalgal/Kelp major non-breeding Marine Neritic - Pelagic marginal non-breeding Marine Neritic - Seagrass (Submerged) major breeding Marine Neritic - Seagrass (Submerged) major non-breeding Marine Neritic - Subtidal Loose Rock/pebble/gravel major breeding Marine Neritic - Subtidal Loose Rock/pebble/gravel major non-breeding Marine Neritic - Subtidal Rock and Rocky Reefs major breeding Marine Neritic - Subtidal Rock and Rocky Reefs major non-breeding Marine Neritic - Subtidal Sandy major breeding Marine Neritic - Subtidal Sandy major non-breeding Marine Neritic - Subtidal Sandy-Mud major breeding Marine Neritic - Subtidal Sandy-Mud major non-breeding Wetlands (inland) - Tundra Wetlands (incl. pools and temporary waters from suitable breeding snowmelt) Altitude Occasional altitudinal limits Threats The species is vulnerable to chronic coastal oil pollution (Nikolaeva et al. 2006), especially oil spills (Kear 2005, Nikolaeva et al. 2006, Carboneras et al. 2014), in areas where large moulting and wintering concentrations occur (Carboneras et al. 2014). It also comes into conflict with the shellfish aquaculture industry which depletes the species's food resources (Kear 2005, Ens 2006, Nikolaeva et al. 2006,) and has previously lead to mass starvation events due to the over-fishing of benthic molluscs (e.g. in the Dutch Wadden Sea) (Camphuysen et al. 2002, Ens 2006). On the breeding grounds, disturbance from the development of mineral resources along the coast (Nikolaeva et al. 2006) and from local shore-based activities (e.g. angling, dog-walking (Keller 1991) and scientific research (Bolduc and Guillemette 2003)) increases the likelihood of predation on young (Keller 1991). Unregulated tourism and shipping also cause disturbance to the species on its wintering grounds (Nikolaeva et al. 2006). The species commonly becomes entangled and drowned in monofilament nets (Kear 2005), and it is hunted unsustainably (Nikolaeva et al. 2006) Threats & Impacts Threat (level 1) Threat (level 2) Impact and Stresses Agriculture & Industrial Timing Scope Severity Impact aquaculture aquaculture Ongoing Majority (50-90%) Causing/Could Medium Impact cause fluctuations Stresses Species mortality Biological resource Fishing & harvesting Timing Scope Severity Impact use aquatic resources Ongoing Majority (50-90%) Slow, Significant Medium Impact (unintentional Declines effects: (large scale) [harvest]) Stresses Species mortality Threats & Impacts Threat (level 1) Threat (level 2) Impact and Stresses Biological resource Hunting & trapping Timing Scope Severity Impact use terrestrial animals Ongoing Majority (50-90%) Slow, Significant Medium Impact (intentional use - Declines species is the target) Stresses Species mortality Climate change & Habitat shifting & Timing Scope Severity Impact severe weather alteration Future Whole (>90%) Unknown Unknown Stresses Ecosystem degradation; Indirect ecosystem effects Energy production Mining & quarrying Timing Scope Severity Impact & mining Ongoing Minority (<50%) Negligible declines Low Impact Stresses Species disturbance Energy production Oil & gas drilling Timing Scope Severity Impact & mining Ongoing Majority (50-90%) Negligible declines Low Impact Stresses Ecosystem conversion; Indirect ecosystem effects Human intrusions & Recreational Timing Scope Severity Impact disturbance activities Ongoing Majority (50-90%) Negligible declines Low Impact Stresses Species mortality; Species disturbance; Reduced reproductive success Human intrusions & Work & other Timing Scope Severity Impact disturbance activities Ongoing Minority (<50%) Negligible declines Low Impact Stresses Species mortality; Reduced reproductive success Pollution Oil spills Timing Scope Severity Impact Ongoing Majority (50-90%) Causing/Could Medium Impact cause fluctuations Stresses Species mortality Conservation Conservation Actions Underway EU Birds Directive Annex II and III. CMS Appendix II. There are currently no known conservation measures for this species.

Conservation Actions Proposed Sustainable levels of hunting should be established in those areas where the species is harvested and legislation established and enforced to ensure this. Key areas should be protected from all forms of disturbance as well as oil exploration, drilling and transportation. Levels of shellfish harvesting should be monitored to ensure sustainability and measures to minimise bycatch in fishing nets promoted amongst fisheries. International monitoring plans should be developed and a programme of research put in place, while taking precautions to minimise the impact of scientific work. Bibliography Bolduc, F. and Guillemette, M. 2003. Human disturbance and nesting success of Common Eiders: interaction between visitors and gulls. Biological Conservation 110: 77-83. Bregnballe, T., Noer, H., Christensen, T.K., Clausen, P., Asferg, T., Fox, A.D. and Delany, S. 2006. Sustainable hunting of migratory waterbirds: the Danish approach. In: Boere, G., Galbraith, C. and Stroud, D. (ed.), Waterbirds around the world, pp. 854-860. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, UK. Camphuysen, C.J., Berrevoets, C.M., Cremers, H.J.W.M, Dekinga, A., Dekker, R., Ens, B.J., van der Have, T.M., Kats, R.K.H., Kuiken, T., Leopold, M.F., van der Meer, J. and Piersma, T. 2002. Mass mortality of common eiders (Somateria mollissima) in the Dutch Wadden Sea, winter 1999/2000: starvation in a commercially exploited wetland of international importance. Biological Conservation 106: 303-317. Bibliography Carboneras, C., Christie, D.A. and Kirwan, G.M. 2014. Common Eider (Somateria mollissima). In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D.A. and de Juana, E. (eds.) 2014. Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. (retrieved from http://www.hbw.com/node/52914 on 27 February 2015). Ens, B.J. 2006. The conflict between shellfisheries and migratory waterbirds in the Dutch Wadden Sea. In: Boere, G., Galbraith, C. and Stroud, D. (ed.), Waterbirds around the world, pp. 806-811. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, UK. Flint, V.E., Boehme, R.L., Kostin, Y.V. and Kuznetsov, A.A. 1984. A field guide to birds of the USSR. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Hagemeijer, W.J.M. and Blair, M.J. 1997. The EBCC Atlas of European Breeding Birds: Their Distribution and Abundance. T & A D Poyser, London. Johnsgard, P.A. 1978. Ducks, geese and swans of the World. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London. Kear, J. 2005. Ducks, geese and swans volume 2: species accounts (Cairina to Mergus). Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K. Keller, V.E. 1991. Effects of human disturbance on Eider ducklings Somateria mollissima in an estuarine habitat in Scotland. Biological Conservation 58: 213-228. Madge, S. and Burn, H. 1988. Wildfowl. Christopher Helm, London. Nikolaeva, N.G., Spiridonov, V.A. and Krasnov, Y.V. 2006. Existing and proposed marine protected areas and their relevance for seabird conservation: a case study in the Barents Sea region. In: Boere, G., Galbraith, C. and Stroud, D. (ed.), Waterbirds around the world, pp. 743-749. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, UK. Scott, D.A. and Rose, P.M. 1996. Atlas of Anatidae populations in Africa and western Eurasia. Wetlands International, Wageningen, Netherlands. Snow, D.W. and Perrins, C.M. 1998. The Birds of the Western Palearctic vol. 1: Non-Passerines. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Map (see overleaf)