circabc.europa.eu · Web viewThe four short-term objectives of the plan are partially achieved. The...

THE N2K GROUP Ornis Committee 04.10.2013

Point 6 – Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for BirdsDoc. Ornis. 13-10/06

Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds

Preliminary draft

Important notice: All the replies received from Member States have not been incorporated yet.


SEPTEMBER 2013

Prepared by:

THE N2K GROUPEuropean Economic Interest Group

ATECMA ECOSYSTEMS COMUNITÁ AMBIENTE DAPHNE ECOSPHERECalle Isla de la Toja 2

28400 Villalba, MadridSpain

21 Bld General Wahis1030 Brussels

Belgium

P.za A. Capponi, 1300193 Rome

Italy

Podunaska 2482106 Bratislava

Slovakia

3bis rue des Remises94100 St-Maur-des Fossés

France

for the European Commission, Directorate General Environment, B3 Unitin the framework of the Service Contract N° 070307/2012/635359/SER/B2:

2


Contents

Background and objectives of the evaluation....................................................................................3

Methodology......................................................................................................................................4

Global results..................................................................................................................................... 7

Replies received............................................................................................................................................7

General observations....................................................................................................................................8

Achievements of the short-term objectives of the Plans............................................................................12

Implementation of the Plans......................................................................................................................12

Species Accounts..............................................................................................................................16

Limosa limosa.............................................................................................................................................16

Larus canus.................................................................................................................................................22

Pluvialis apricaria.......................................................................................................................................26

Vanellus vanellus........................................................................................................................................30

Tringa totanus............................................................................................................................................35

Alauda arvensis..........................................................................................................................................39

Melanitta fusca...........................................................................................................................................44

Numenius arquata......................................................................................................................................48

Anas acuta..................................................................................................................................................52

Coturnix coturnix........................................................................................................................................58

Netta rufina................................................................................................................................................63

Aythya marila.............................................................................................................................................68

Streptopelia turtur......................................................................................................................................73

Conclusions...................................................................................................................................... 81

3


Background and objectives of the evaluation

The “Birds Directive” allows for certain species listed in Annex II to be hunted provided this is done in a way that will not jeopardize the conservation efforts for the species. This is an important consideration when those huntable species that are considered to be in unfavourable conservation status are concerned. With the purpose of assisting Member States in fulfilling their obligations under the Birds Directive, in particular the provisions of Article 7, the Commission produced 13 Management Plans for huntable birds considered to be in an unfavourable conservation status:Alauda arvensis, Skylark, Larus canus, Common Gull, Streptopelia turtur, Turtle Dove,Coturnix coturnix, Common quail, Tringa totanu, Redshank redshank, Vanellus vanellus, Lapwing, Limosa limosa, Black-tailed Godwit, Aythya marila, Scaup, Anas acuta, Pintail, Numenius arquata, Curlew, Netta rufina, Red-crested Pochard, Pluvialis apricaria, Golden Plover, Melanitta fusca Velvet Scoter.

The Management Plans set for each species:- the goal (long-term objective), - the short term objectives to be reached within the first three-year of implementation,- the operational objectives or results and the corresponding management

recommendations and actions to be undertaken to achieve them.

Measures and results are grouped in five broad typologies:1. Policy and legislative2. Population management3. International cooperation4. Research and monitoring5. Management of human activities

Plans are not legally binding documents nor do they engage the Member States beyond their existing legal commitments under the Birds Directive. It is up to the relevant authorities of each Member State to decide how to implement the management recommendations and how to achieve the results.

As all plans have expired, it is time to assess whether they have been implemented and the results achieved.

The Management Plans are focused on 25 EU Member States (with the exception of the Management Plans on Corturnix coturnix and Pluvialis apricaria, which cover 27 EU Member States), because Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia were not Member countries of the European Union when the plans were drafted or updated. However the contribution of these three Member States to the implementation of the Management Plans has been evaluated, in particular for those Management Plans aimed at Member States with breeding, staging or wintering populations and ideally aimed at the entire geographical range of the species concerned.

The assessment of the impact of the Plans and their recommended actions on the bird populations is not part of this task.

3


Methodology

The evaluation methodology of the implementation of each Management Plan follows the one used by BirdLife on the base of the scoring system developed by (Gallo-Orsi, 2001) for the Species Action Plans.

As the task only requires to evaluate the Management Plans implementation, and not the correction or updating the species account nor the evaluation of the impact of the Management Plans on birds populations, the evaluation will follow only one of the three steps of the methodology developed by BirdLife:

Assessing the progress towards implementation of the actions and evaluation against the results set in the plan.

This exercise has been implemented through an excel electronic form questionnaire, where actions of the management plans were converted into their operational objectives/results, in order to enable measurement of progress in their achievement.

The questionnaire is subdivided in 13 spreadsheets, one for each species. The spreadsheet is subdivided into three tables: 1) general questions, which apply to all species, 2) questions related to the specific objectives of the Management Plan, and 3) questions related to activities/results obtained related to those foreseen in the 3 years management plans. There is finally an empty table for open comments.

Member States are asked to: Report on actions taken of which they are aware; Evaluate distance to result by assigning an Implementation score against each

action undertaken; The administrations/entities in charge of implementation/monitoring/evaluation; The geographical scale to which the measure/s apply.

The Priority of each Result is given in the Management Plans, according to the following scale:

Essential: an action that is needed to prevent a large decline in the population, which could lead to species or subspecies extinction.

High: an action that is needed to prevent a decline of more than 20% of the population in 20 years or less.

Medium: an action that is needed to prevent a decline of less than 20% of the population in 20 years or less.

Low: an action that is needed to prevent local population declines or which is likely to have only a small impact on the population across the range.

The Priority Score: What are the priority actions?

A Priority Score [PS], can be attributed to each Result as follows: Essential: 4 High: 3 Medium: 2 Low: 1

4


The Implementation Score: How far have the actions been implemented?

To evaluate the distance to result achievement, each responder was asked to provide for each action Implementation Scores [IS], ranging between 0–4 according to increasing level of progress towards the target:0: Action not needed/not relevant;1: Little or no work (0-10%) carried out, (only piecemeal actions not part of a strategic approach);2: Some work started (11-50%), but no significant progress yet;3: Significant progress (51-75%), but target still not reached;4: Action fully implemented, no further work required except continuation of on-going work (e.g. in case of monitoring).

Obviously, the IS is a subjective estimation from the responders of overall progress in the works carried out to reach each result. After receiving filled in forms from individual respondents, all answers were checked and some scores were corrected if there were inconsistencies between the answer and the score or if the action was not relevant for the particular country.

When different IS per result are asked for breeding or wintering/staging populations, the average was considered for calculations. Similarly, the average implementation score was determined when more than one action contributed to accomplish the result.

By comparing the scores attributed to each action and on average for the entire plan, one can judge the relative effort made to implement each species action plan, to compare across countries and to see which actions are implemented better than others.

The Action Priority Index: What should further action focus on?

An Action Priority Index (API) may be developed for each action across its geographical scope. It is calculated as follows (excluding “0” values):

Action Priority Index (API) = Priority Score (PS) × (4 – Implementation Score [IS]) ÷ 3

The range of the score is between 0 and 4. This index expresses the need for further action for each result. The API for a result of a high priority (e.g. PS=4) with a low level of implementation (IS=1) has the highest value (4). A result with a low priority (e.g. PS=1) and a high level of implementation (IS=3) has a low API value. (0.33). All the results with fully implemented actions have an API value of 0 (= no further work required).

The National Implementation Score: comparison between Member States taking into account the priority actions in each Member State

Additional analysis were carried out to find out the National Implementation Score (NIS) for each country which combines the urgency of an action with its implementation level. The Implementation Score (IS) of each target is to be multiplied by its Priority Score (PS), and the sum of all these scores was divided by the sum of the Priority Scores (PS). The formula to be used is:

5


National Implementation Score NIS = Σ (PSxIS) ÷ Σ (PS)

The range of the NIS is, as with the IS, between 1 and 4, with 1 representing little or no implementation and 4 full implementation. The NIS reflects the progress made by Member State to implement the plan, and thus to achieve the results set in the plan.

Output indicators, represented by the implementation scores: Average Implementation Score for each plan National Implementation Score representing the average progress with

implementation by the country Action Priority Index representing the need for further action

An overview evaluation of the implementation is given for each Management Plan and each Member State on the basis of the general questions on the implementation of the Management Plan, the existence of specific National/Regional plan for the species, or of other measures not included in the Management Plans, and whether the measures included in the Management Plans are integrated in other instruments. Further qualitative elements are provided on the geographical scale of implementation of the measures and the contribution given by the hunting communities in the implementation of the Management Plans recommendations in relation to the hunting status of the relevant species in the Member States.

Actions and results are also grouped in tables according to the short term objectives they contribute to achieve, in order to provide indications about the accomplishment of each short-term objective and the further work that has to be done to achieve it. The short-term objectives are considered achieved when all their related measures are implemented (IS>1); not achieved when measures are not or very little implemented (IS=1); partially achieved when some measures are scored >1 and others =1.

6


Global results

Replies received

The returned questionnaires were at the time of this analysis (September 2013) only 17 and therefore give a limited view of the EU Management Plans implementation across all EU Member States. They are often partial and do not allow a proper evaluation. Only 12 out of the 17 countries that replied to the review, provided sufficient information and were included in this initial analysis of management plans’ implementation.

Species

Lim

osa

limos

a

Laru

s can

us

Pluv

ialis

apr

icar

ia

Vane

llus v

anel

lus

Trin

ga to

tanu

s

Alau

da a

rven

sis

Mel

anitt

a fu

sca

Num

eniu

s arq

uata

Anas

acu

ta

Cotu

rnix

cot

urni

x

Nett

a ru

fina

Ayth

ya m

arila

Stre

ptop

elia

turt

ur

Member State

AT P P P P P P P P P P P P PBE C C C C C C C P C C C P CBG C C C C C P C P P P C C PCY NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRCZ P P P P P P P P P P P P PDE NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRDK NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NREE NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NREL NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRES C C C C C C C C C C C C CFI C P P P C P P P P P C C CFR C C P P P C C P C C C C CHR C P C C C C C C C P C P PHU C C C C C C C C C C C C CIE NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRIT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRLT NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRLU NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRLV C C C C C C C C C C C C CMT P P P P P P C P P P C C PNL C C C C C C P P P P C P PPL NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRPT P P P P P P P P P P P P PRO NR NR NR NR NR P NR NR P P NR P PSE C P P C C P P C P C C P CSI NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NRSK P C C P P P P P C C C C CUK P P P P P P P P P P P P P

Table 1. Distribution of responses to the questionnaire. C: complete; P: partial; NR: not received

7


General observations

A total of 105 Management Plans were evaluated from the 12 countries, which correspond to about 40% of the EU Member States.

The 13 species for which the Plans were drawn, are not listed as huntable in most of the 12 Member States.

Yes23%

No77%

Figure 1. Percentage of species listed as huntable (Yes) and not huntable (No) across the 12 Member States

The species most listed as huntable in the 12 countries is Anas acuta, which can be hunted in seven Member States. The country with the highest number of species listed as huntable, is France, where 12 out of the 13 species are huntable with an open season, followed by Malta with six huntable species. In Belgium, four species can be hunted, but there is no open season for any of them.

Species

Lim

osa

limos

a

Laru

s can

us

Pluv

ialis

apr

icar

ia

Vane

llus v

anel

lus

Trin

ga to

tanu

s

Alau

da a

rven

sis

Mel

anitt

a fu

sca

Num

eniu

s arq

uata

Anas

acu

ta

Cotu

rnix

cot

urni

x

Nett

a ru

fina

Ayth

ya m

arila

Stre

ptop

elia

turt

ur

Member State

BE N N Hn Hn1 N N N N Hn N N Hn NBG N N N N N N N N Ho Ho N N HoES N N N H N N N N H H H N HFI N N N N N N N2 N Ho N N N NFR Ho N Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho4 Ho Ho Ho Ho HoHR N N N N N N N N N Ho5 N N NHU N N N N N N N N N N N N NLV N N N N N N Ho N Ho N N Ho NMT N N Ho Ho N Ho N N Ho Ho6 N N Ho6

NL N N N N N N N N N N N N NSE N Ho N N N N N3 N N N N N NSK N N N N N N N N N N N N N

Table 2. Hunting status of the 13 species in the 12 Member States. H: huntable; Ho: huntable with open season; Hn: huntable with no open season; N: not huntable.

8


1 no hunting season for the years 2011-2016.2 hunting ceased in the mainland Finland in 1993. Following the European Court judgment in 2003, spring hunting on the Åland Islands is banned since 2006.3 hunting is banned since 2009.4 following a moratorium, hunting was banned from 2008 until 2013. The hunting ban was extended until the end of July 2018, but only on the terrestrial area.5 hunting is forbidden from 15th November to 31st July.6 Spring hunting was prohibited in 2008 and 2009. Derogations for spring hunting are issued since 2010.

Only three States have produced national plans specific for some species: France for 4 species (Limosa limosa, Melanitta fusca, Netta rufina and Aythya marila); The Netherlands for Netta rufina and Sweden for Limosa limosa.

In most cases (76%) the actions undertaken by the 12 Member States for the species have not been inspired/triggered by the EU Management Plans. Conversely, almost all Member States have carried out a number of measures independently from the Management Plans (74%), both included in the plans (for example, some actions recommended by the MP have been taken before the Plan has been developed) and/or other than those laid down in the plans (for example, the strictly protected status according to legislative acts).

Limosa

limosa

Larus c

anus

Pluvialis

apricaria

Vanellus v

anellus

Tringa to

tanus

Alauda arvensis

Melanitta fu

sca

Numenius arquata

Anas acu

ta

Coturnix co

turnix

Netta rufina

Aythya

marila

Streptopelia

turtu

r0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NoYes

Figure 2. Percentage of “Yes” and “No” replies to the question “Have the measures taken for the species at regional/national level been inspired/triggered by the EU MP?” for each Management Plan across the 12 Member States.

In particular, none of the measures taken for Melanitta fusca were inspired by their plan, while the Management Plan for Streptopelia turtur is the one that have most inspired the measures applied for the species from Belgium, Spain and France. Moreover, none of the measures undertaken by Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Sweden and Slovak Republic have been inspired by the Plans, while the measures implemented by Spain for all the species were inspired by the respective Plans.

9


Limosa

limosa

Larus c

anus

Pluvialis

apricaria

Vanellus v

anellus

Tringa to

tanus

Alauda arvensis

Melanitta fu

sca

Numenius arquata

Anas acu

ta

Coturnix co

turnix

Netta rufina

Aythya

marila

Streptopelia

turtu

r0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NoYes

Figure 3. Percentage of “Yes” and “No” replies to the question “Have other measures been taken independently from the EU MP?” for each Management Plan across the 12 Member States.

Measures have been taken independently from the plans mainly for Netta rufina and from Spain, Croatia, The Netherlands and Slovak Republic.

Limosa

limosa

Larus c

anus

Pluvialis

apricaria

Vanellus v

anellus

Tringa to

tanus

Alauda arvensis

Melanitta fu

sca

Numenius arquata

Anas acu

ta

Coturnix co

turnix

Netta rufina

Aythya

marila

Streptopelia

turtu

r0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

NoYes

Figure 4. Percentage of “Yes” and “No” replies to the question “Whether the actions has been integrated in other instruments” for each Management Plan across the 12 Member States.

The actions of the plans are mainly integrated in other instruments (65% of the instances). These generally are legislative instruments (covering species and habitat protection, sites designation, hunting, etc.), rural programmes (different agri-environmental measures), monitoring schemes and sectorial plans, but they also include projects (research, monitoring, restoration). The plan for Limosa limosa is the one whose actions have been integrated in other instruments by almost all Member States; Spain, Finland, Croatia and The

10


Netherlands are the countries that have undertaken one or more actions of all plans within other schemes.

In 64% of the cases, the contribution of the implemented measures to the conservation status of the species is not known, while it is supposed to have a positive contribution only in 8% of the replies.

Yes8%

No28%

Do not know64%

Figure 5. Percentage of “Yes”, “No” and “Do not Know” replies to the question “Have the implemented actions globally contributed to improving the population status of the species?”

All Member States do not know the impact of the actions on Melanitta fusca and Numenius arquata, while almost all of them do not think that actions implemented have had a positive impact on the population of Larus canus. The Slovakia Republic is the only country that assumes no effect of the actions on any of the species.The main reasons for believing that the actions did not contribute to the conservation status of the species, are related to:

the small size of the national populations to observe any impact, the negative trend of national populations, suggesting that the actions did not work, the low level of local implementation of the measures.

Yes13%

No87%

Figure 6. Percentage of plans to whose implementation the hunting community provided (“Yes”) or not provided (“No”) contribution.

Hunters and hunter’s organisations did not play any role in almost all plans implementation (87%).

11


Their contribution, mainly at their own initiative, occurs only in the case of huntable species. And often, hunting communities have no role even when the species are huntable (8 Plans). Hunters and hunter’s organisations have contributed to some plans action in Latvia, Spain and France: 6 plans in France (Limosa limosa, Alauda arvensis, Coturnix coturnix, Netta rufina, Aythya marila, Streptopelia turtur), 3 plans in Spain (Coturnix coturnix, Netta rufina, Streptopelia turtur), 2 plans in Latvia (Anas acuta and Aythya marila).

The measures where hunter associations are involved mainly relate to collection of data on individuals shot, controlling predators (Latvia), monitoring and surveys of populations (Spain and France) and to hunting and habitat management (France).

In one case the hunting community contributed at authorities’ request: to control hunting bags for Netta rufina and the lead ammunition ban within wetlands in Spain.

Achievements of the short-term objectives of the Plans

Ten EU Management plans identify the objectives to be achieved in 3 years. No objectives are set for the plans for Pluvialis pluvialis, Coturnix coturnix and Netta rufina. To achieve these short-term objectives the plans specify the measures to be accomplished during the three-year period. The number of objectives outlined in the plans ranges from a minimum of two, as in the plan for Vanellus vanellus, to a maximum of six, as in the plan for Aythya maryla. The proposed actions can thus be grouped according the objectives they contribute to achieve.

SpeciesShort-term objectives

Achieved Partially achieved Not Achieved

Limosa limosa 1/4 2/4 1/4Larus canus 1/5 4/5 0/5Vanellus vanellus 0/2 2/2 0/2Tringa totanus 0/3 3/3 0/3Alauda arvensis 0/3 3/3 0/3Melanitta fusca 4/5 1/5 0/5Numenius arquata* 1/3 1/3 0/3Anas acuta 0/4 4/4 0/4Aythya marila 1/6 4/6 1/6Streptopelia turtur 0/4 3/4 1/4

Overall (%)* 21% 69% 8%

Table 3. Short-term objectives achieved, partially achieved and not at all achieved per each plan in relation to the number of objectives respectively set.* the third objective set in the plan for Numenius arquata is deemed not relevant/needed in all Member States involved.

The short-term objectives set in the Plans require that some progress is achieved by Member States in: taking policy and legislative actions in relation to hunting (season, ban, levels, impact,

bag data, etc.), agriculture (incentives and regulations), etc. protection and management of breeding, wintering and staging habitats and sites; management of human activities (disturbance, hunting, fishery, oil spills, etc.);

12


research and monitoring, also at international level.

The plan for Melanitta fusca is the only one for which almost all the objectives have been achieved (one objective has been only partially reached). For all the other plans the objectives have been achieved only for a part. 69% of all objectives of all the ten plans has been partially reached. One objective per plan has not achieved at all (none of the relative actions have been implemented) in only three plans, Limosa limosa, Aythya marila and Streptopelia turtur.The most virtuous Member State is Latvia, which has accomplished a total of 20 objectives out of the 39 set in the 10 Management plans that it has implemented.

Implementation of the Plans

Often Member States declare not to implement some or all the plans. Some of the reasons reported are as follows:

1. the species is vagrant, irregular visitor, rare or not present;2. the species is present in few numbers and the general nature protection measures

are considered to be sufficient;3. the species is not huntable and the general protection measures are considered to

be sufficient;4. the species is stable, common, widespread or increasing and special plans or

measures are not needed;5. the EU Management Plan was not transposed at the national level, because of a lack

of funding (France);6. the Member State joined the European Union only recently (Croatia).

However in most of these cases one or more measures are carried out anyway.

On the basis of the replies received, from 12 MS, all EU Management plans are implemented or are in the process of implementation. Some plans have not - or only very partially- been implemented in some countries and some others are not relevant (Table 4).

Species

Lim

osa

limos

a

Laru

s can

us

Pluv

ialis

apr

icar

ia

Vane

llus v

anel

lus

Trin

ga to

tanu

s

Alau

da a

rven

sis

Mel

anitt

a fu

sca

Num

eniu

s arq

uata

Anas

acu

ta

Cotu

rnix

cot

urni

x

Nett

a ru

fina

Ayth

ya m

arila

Stre

ptop

elia

turt

ur

Member State

BE Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y YBG Y Y Y N Y Y Y YES Y NR Y Y Y Y NR Y Y Y Y NR YFI Y Y NR Y NRFR Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YHR Y Y N Y N NR Y Y YHU Y Y Y Y Y Y NR Y Y Y Y Y YLV Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y NR Y YMT NR NR NRNL Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

13


SE Y Y Y Y Y NR NRSK Y NR Y Y Y Y Y

Table 4. Management Plans implementation across the Member States. Y: Plan implemented/ongoing (at least one measure with IS > 1); N: Plan not at all or little implemented (all applicable measures with IS = 1); NR: Plan not relevant for the concerned Member State (all actions with IS = 0); Grey colour: Plan not evaluated for partial responses.

The comparison of the Average Implementation Score (AIS) of each plan across Member States (Figure 1), shows that the greatest efforts are made to implement the Management Plan for Melanitta fusca (AIS=3,0), while the least implemented is the Management Plan for Pluvialis apricaria (AIS=1,88).

Limosa lim

osa

Larus canus

Pluvia

lis apric

aria

Vanellus v

anellus

Tringa to

tanus

Alauda arvensis

Melanitta fusca

Numenius arquata

Anas acuta

Coturnix coturnix

Netta rufina

Aythya m

arila

Streptopelia

turtu

r

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

2.72.6

1.9 1.9

2.7

1.9

3.0

2.6

2.9

2.1

2.7

2.22.3

AIS

Figure 7. Average Implementation Score of the 13 Management Plans. 4 = full implementation; 3 = significant progress; 2 = some progress; 1 = no implementation

It should be considered that currently only 12 countries took part in this stage of the evaluation process and the number of countries assessed differs from plan to plan. For example, only five Member States have been considered in the implementation progress of the plan for Numenius arquata, since the other seven Member States (Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Malta, Netherlands and Slovakia) did not provide sufficient information to assess the plan implementation status in their countries. Only three Member States (Spain, Hungary and Latvia) provided complete data to evaluate the implementation of all 13 Management Plans in their countries. On average, only eight out of the 12 Member States overall considered, have been taken into account in the evaluation of the implementation of each Plan. The Plan for Netta rufina is the only one whose implementation has been evaluated across all the 12 States.

The progress with implementation of the plans in the 12 countries can be illustrated by comparing the National Implementation Scores (NIS), which represents the average progress with implementation of each plan by each country (Table 3). The country that has reached the highest level of implementation of the plans is Spain, which has the highest average NIS (2,81) and three plans with NIS>3,00. The country that would seems to have done the least

14


work to implement the plans is Croatia, with the lowest average NIS (1,82) and two plans with little or no implementation (NIS=1,00).However, data are very partial, since most of the countries are underrepresented because some of their plans could not be evaluated (up to eight plans for Finland), influencing their average NIS.

Considering the single NIS of each plan and Member State, the most implemented plan is the one for Netta rufina in Spain (NIS=3,56), while the least or not implemented (NIS=1,00) are those for Melanitta fusca in Belgium, Vanellus vanellus in Bulgaria and Croatia, and Alauda arvensis in Croatia.

Spec

ies

Lim

osa

limos

a

Laru

s can

us

Pluv

ialis

apr

icar

ia

Vane

llus v

anel

lus

Trin

ga to

tanu

s

Alau

da a

rven

sis

Mel

anitt

a fu

sca

Num

eniu

s arq

uata

Anas

acu

ta

Cotu

rnix

cot

urni

x

Nett

a ru

fina

Ayth

ya m

arila

Stre

ptop

elia

turt

ur

Ave.NIS

MS

BE 2,47 2,36 2,62 1,48 2,24 1,67 1,00 3,71 1,55 3,46 1,20 2,16BG 2,31 3,14 2,15 1,00 2,20 2,71 2,40 2,62 2,32ES 2,77 NR 2,45 2,54 2,47 2,57 NR 3,47 3,19 2,78 3,56 NR 2,33 2,81FI 2,25 2,38 NR 1,91 NR 2,18FR 2,67 1,36 2,34 2,91 2,85 2,62 2,69 2,20 3,12 2,53HR 1,77 1,26 1,00 2,41 1,00 NR 2,40 3,07 1,61 1,82HU 2,59 2,80 1,62 1,80 2,62 1,37 NR 2,85 2,25 1,53 2,31 2,20 1,60 2,13LV 2,27 2,23 1,21 1,77 2,75 2,05 3,24 2,50 3,35 2,60 NR 2,69 2,20 2,40MT NR NR NR -NL 2,54 3,33 2,67 2,53 3,53 1,58 2,92 2,73SE 3,17 1,82 3,00 1,36 2,09 NR NR 2,29SK 2,82 NR 1,91 1,81 2,03 2,63 1,20 1,96

Table 5. National Implementation Scores across countries and plans. 1 = little or no implementation; 4 = full implementation; NR = plan not relevant; Grey colour: Plan not evaluated for partial responses.

15


Species Accounts

Limosa limosa


Ten countries have contributed to the implementation of the management plan for the Black-Tailed Godwit, and Hungary, Latvia, The Netherlands and Sweden are still implementing it. The species is huntable only in France. However, a moratorium banning the hunting of the species from 2008 to 2013 was enacted.Both France and Sweden are producing a national plan specific for Limosa limosa. The Swedish National SSAP will include models of the species dynamics.Spain and Finland have taken measures inspired/triggered by the EU Management Plan, while measures have been undertaken before the entrance into the EU in Sweden, and before the plan was drafted in Bulgaria and The Netherlands. The hunting ban in France was triggered by the AEWA international SSAP, which is based on the EU management plan for the Black tailed Godwit.

With the only exception of France, Latvia and Sweden, all the other countries have taken measures independently from the management plan. Such measures include both those recommended by the plan and different from those of the plan: Protection actions: the species is strictly protected by law in Bulgaria, Hungary and

Croatia, and it was recently included in the list of Flemish priority species, because of its declining trend; some stop-over areas are Ramsar Sites and protected under the National Protected Areas Act, in Bulgaria;

Management actions: habitat restoration projects and agri-environmental schemes supporting wet grassland habitats in Hungary; agro-environmental measures in specified ‘meadow bird areas’ and compensation measures in Belgium;

Monitoring actions: monthly counts of all important wetland sites as part of the National Monitoring Scheme ‘NEM’ in Sweden.

The measures of the plan have been often integrated in a wide range of instruments: national legislations on nature conservation (habitat and species protection, Natura 2000 Network, periodic monitoring, etc), ornithological reserves designation, regulations, Rural Development Programmes, agricultural subsidy schemes, research projects, monitoring schemes, both national (the National Monitoring Programme in France and the Network Ecological Monitoring in The Netherlands) and international (International Waterbird Census), sectoral plans incorporating conservation measures (forestry, hunting, water management, physical plans).

Some limiting factors in the plan implementation are identified in: fragmented Flemish population in a series of core-areas with little suitable habitat in

between limited human resources in Finland and limited funding in both Finland and France.

The entities involved in the implementation of the measures of the plan are public bodies (ministries, National Game and Wildlife Agency, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency,

16


County Administrative Boards), BirdLife partners, scientific entities, Research labs, voluntary birdwatchers. In The Netherlands the local communities consider the Black tailed Godwit as an important species to protect and NGOs (e.g. BirdLife Netherlands) and local working groups made contributions.Hunters associations have been involved only in France (the only country where the Black-tailed Godwit is listed as a game species), where contributed to the hunting bag surveys and the conservation of wetlands.

In most cases, the impact of the implemented actions on population status of the Black-tailed Godwit is not known. It is believed that the contribution was nil in Sweden and Hungary. However, while it is considered positive in Finland, where the measures carried out in breeding sites and habitats in a wide scale resulted in the increase of the breeding population and its range.

Achievements of the short-term objectives

The four short-term objectives of the plan are partially achieved. The objective 2, relevant only in France, where the Black-tailed Godwit is included in the list of the huntable species, is the only achieved. Objective 3, also relevant only in France, is not achieved, since the last estimation at the national level was in 1999 and the Black-tailed Godwit was included in a package with others species of waders. The other two objectives have been achieved only in some countries. Objective 1 has been only partially achieved since in Belgium, Spain and Croatia management actions were not or very little implemented: Management Plans for SPAs important for breeding populations are not produced and implemented in Belgium, Management Plans for SPAs important for staging and wintering populations are not produced and implemented in Spain and in Croatia, and specific conservation measures and wise-use are not promoted in staging and wintering areas in Croatia.

Short-term objectives

MS

1. 2. 3. 4.Improving

management and protection of breeding and

wintering sites

Temporary hunting ban

Collection of up to date

information on hunting

Collection of data on breeding and

wintering population

Meas. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 1 11 8, 9, 10, 11 OverallBE Partially Not relevant Not relevant Partially PartiallyBG Yes Not relevant Not relevant No PartiallyES Partially Not relevant Not relevant Yes PartiallyFI Yes Not relevant Not relevant Partially PartiallyFR Yes Yes No Partially PartiallyHR Partially Not relevant Not relevant Partially PartiallyHU Yes Not relevant Not relevant Yes YesLV Yes Not relevant Not relevant Partially PartiallyNL Yes Not relevant Not relevant Yes YesSE Yes Not relevant Not relevant Partially Partially

Overall Partially Yes No Partially

Table 6. Achievement of the short-term objectives of the EU Management Plan for Limosa limosa in the relevant Member States in relation to the implementation of the related measures.

17


Monitoring on breeding and wintering population sizes are carried out by all countries, but ringing activities and/or ecological research are carried out only in Spain and The Netherlands, and partially in Croatia, Finland, France and Sweden. Therefore, also objective 4 is partially achieved.

Implementation of the Plan1

More information on the calculation and meaning of the calculated indicators can be found on p. 4 and 5.

Progress in the overall implementation of the management plan, across the 10 Member States that provided a feedback, is quite good but further work is still needed (AIS=2,7). The EU Management Plan has been most successfully implemented in Sweden (NIS=3,17).

BE BG ES FI FR HR HU LV NL SE AIS1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

3.17

2.70

NIS

/AIS

Figure 8. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation Score of the EU Management Plan for Limosa limosa.

Overall, the measures that have registered a lower level of implementation are ecological research on habitat management, EU-funded schemes affecting the species, food availability, grasslands conversion, species dynamics model (result 11), while the best progress has been achieved for the temporary hunting ban (result 1, implemented in France, the only country where the species is huntable, among the 10 Member States evaluated) and for the action related to annual mid-winter census of all areas of international importance for wintering as part of the International Waterbird Census (result 9), completed in Bulgaria, Spain, France and the Netherlands, and not applicable in the other four Member States.

Further work is still needed especially in the following fields listed according to their level of priority: Population management: Production and implementation of Management Plans for SPAs

important for both breeding (result 4), especially in Belgium and Netherlands, and staging and wintering populations (result 6), especially in Spain and Croatia;

1 for the complete list of actions and related indicators see able 7. BLACK-TAILED GODWIT - Limosa limosa

18


Research and monitoring: ecological research on links between habitat management and species dynamics (result 11) and ringing activities (result 10).

APIessential/critical 4high priority 3medium priority 2low priority 1

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 9. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action listed in the Limosa limosa EU Management Plan across all EU Member States. Colours represent Priority Score.

The following paragraphs provide an example of the implementation of the EU Management plan for Limosa limosa in some countries.

HungaryThe plan implementation is ongoing. There is no a specific national/regional plan for the species and actions are carried out at national scale through different instruments such as Natura 2000 management plans, agri-environmental schemes, wetland restoration projects (Environment and Energy Operational Programme) and hunting plans.

The progress implementation of the plan is quite good, with a NIS of 2,59 (about 65%). The species is not huntable (and strictly protected) and not wintering in Hungary, therefore measures concerning hunting and wintering populations are not relevant.

19


1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 10. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action for the Limosa limosa EU Management Plan in Hungary. Colours represent Priority Score.

Two are the actions fully implemented, the identification and designation as SPAs of important breeding (result 3) and staging sites, with no-hunting and disturbance - free areas covering at least 50% of the national staging population (result 5).Among the actions that need further work, those with highest priority are: Production and implementation of management plans for SPAs important for breeding

populations (result 4); Improving ringing activities for both breeding and staging populations (result 10); Improving ecological research (result 11).

The achievement of the short-term objectives set in the plan is showed below on the basis of the implementation of the corresponding measures.

Short-term objectives Measures

Implementation

Improving management and protection of breeding and wintering sites

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Yes. Important breeding and staging sites are designed. 44 wetland restorations projects (also covering 76.602 ha of Natura 2000 areas) are implemented under the Environment and Energy Operation Programme. Restrictions on hunting are in force for several wetlands where the species also occurs reducing disturbance of the sites. Agri-environmental programmes are in place, promoting wet grassland habitats management.

Temporary hunting ban 1 Not applicable, the species is not huntableCollection of information on hunting

11 Not applicable, the species is not huntable

Collection of data on breeding and wintering

8, 9, 10, 11

Yes, for breeding population. No systematic data collection exists for staging population numbers. No wintering population in Hungary.

Spain

20


The EU Management Plan is currently being implemented. There is no specific national/regional plan for the species and other measures have been taken independently from the EU Management Plan. All actions have been implemented according to species protection included in Spanish legislation (habitat and species protection, SPA designation, periodic monitoring, etc.). The species is not listed as a huntable species and the hunting community has no role in the implementation of the measures.On the basis of the IS entered in the questionnaire, the NIS is equal to 2,62 that corresponds to about 69% of the entire plan.

Most of the actions are considered to be not relevant in Spain (i.e. those relative to hunting, breeding areas and populations) since the species is not huntable and it is present in Spain with few breeding pairs. Conversely, Spain is an important wintering ground for the species.

The actions fully implemented are: Designation as SPA of all staging and wintering sites of international importance for the

species, as well as the establishment in SPAs of disturbance - free areas covering at least 50% of the national wintering or staging population (result 5);

Annual mid-winter census of all areas of international importance for wintering, as part of the International Waterbird Census.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 11. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action for the Limosa limosa EU Management Plan in Spain. Colours represent Priority Score.

The action with only a minimum work carried out is the production and implementation of Management Plans for SPAs important for staging and wintering populations (result 6).

Overall, the actions taken contributed to the following short-term objectives.


Implementation

Improving management of breeding and wintering sites

5, 6, 7 Partially. Little or no work for the production and implementation of Management Plans for SPAs important for staging and wintering populations.No significant progress in the promotion of specific

21


conservation measures and wise-use in staging and wintering areas.

Temporary hunting ban 1 Not applicable, the species is not huntableCollection of information on hunting

11 Not applicable, the species is not huntable

Collection of data on breeding and wintering

9, 10, 11 Yes, for wintering population: annual mid-winter census, ringing activities, further ecological research

22


Table 7. BLACK-TAILED GODWIT - Limosa limosa

RESULT/ACTION Priority Score Implementation Score (IS) Ave. IS

Action Priority Index

MEMBER STATE BE BG ES FI FR HR HU LV NL SE1. Hunting was temporary banned (minimum five years). 3 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,0 0,02. Agri-environmental schemes is promoted to encourage a management of

agricultural areas supporting breeding Black-tailed Godwit 3 4,00 0,00 0,00 2,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 3,0 1,0

3. Breeding sites of international importance for the species are identified and designated SPAs 3 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 3,00 1,00 0,00 3,0 1,0

4. Management Plans for SPAs important for breeding populations are produced and implementation initiated 3 1,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 2,00 0,00 2,00 3,00 1,00 4,00 2,3 1,7

5. Staging and wintering sites of international importance for the species are identified and designated SPAsSeveral SPAs with no-hunting and disturbance free areas are provided for that cover at least 50% of the national wintering or staging population

3 0,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 2,50 4,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 3,6 0,4

6. Management Plans for SPAs important for staging and wintering populations are produced and implementation initiated 2 0,00 2,00 1,00 0,00 2,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 1,8 1,4

7. Specific conservation measures and wise-use are promoted in staging and wintering areas 2 0,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 2,00 1,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 2,0 1,3

8. Up to date estimates of breeding populations size, trends and key demographic parameters from all important sites are made available 2 3,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 2,00 0,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 4,00 3,0 0,7

9. Annual mid-winter census of all areas of international importance for wintering is carried out as part of the International Waterbird Census 2 0,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 4,0 0,0

10. Ringing activities with a reinforcement of colour-marking, literature reviews, analyses of existing ringing data to identify population units, interactions between these units and annual estimates of mortality, are supported

2 1,00 1,00 3,00 1,00 1,50 3,00 1,00 1,00 2,50 1,00 1,6 1,6

11. Further ecological research on: (1) management prescriptions for Black-tailed Godwits breeding outside protected areas, (2) link between rice-fields and roosting sites in Iberia, (3) existence of any EU-funded scheme affecting the species, (4) food availability, (5) decline in breeding numbers that can be attributed to the conversion of grasslands to cereal fields vs. the intensification of grassland management, (6) development of a general model of the species dynamics, including the impact of habitat changes, hunting pressure, etc) is carried out

2 1,00 1,00 2,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 2,00 1,4 1,7

National Implementation Score 2,47 2,31 2,77 2,25 2,67 1,77 2,59 2,27 2,54 3,17 2,7 Overall IS

23


24


Larus canus


Seven countries have implemented the management plan for the Common Gull (the plan is not relevant in Spain) and in Latvia it is still being implemented. The species is not huntable in any of these countries.Species monitoring and wetland sites counting carried out in The Netherlands have been triggered by the plan.

All Member States, with the only exception of Bulgaria, have taken additional measures independently from the management plan: The species is protected by law in Hungary and strictly protected in Slovakia; Habitat restoration projects are implemented in Hungary; Some measures in France are carried out at regional level and managed by ONGs.

The measures of the plan have been incorporated in other tools: legislative (French national legislations on protected areas, including N2000, and the Dutch Flora and Fauna law), national monitoring schemes (National Breeding Bird Atlas and French Gulls census, in France, the Network Ecological Monitoring in The Netherlands, and the National Monitoring System on Biodiversity in place in Bulgaria), development plans and projects.Some limiting factors in the plan implementations are identified in: privately owned sites in Belgium and lack of human resources to negotiate with owners

and managers; breeding pairs are not very faithful to their breeding place making local conservation

measures difficult to implement in France.

In general, it is supposed that the measures applied have no effect on the population status of the Common Gull, because the long term trend of the populations is decreasing (in The Netherlands) or because the population is very low and at the limits of the species’ range (in France).

Achievements of the short-term objectives

All the short-term objectives of the management plan for the Common Gull could be considered achieved in Belgium and The Netherlands, but only one out of the five objectives has been achieved across the seven Member States that have implemented the plan.Acquiring data on population hunting (objective 4) is the only achieved objective with the only contribution of Bulgaria and The Netherlands, where data on individuals killed under derogations are collected. Objective 1 has been partially achieved because in France breeding sites are not protected from human disturbance and egg collection; in all the other countries the objective has been reached.Measures to restore former or create new breeding sites are not taken in France, Latvia and Slovakia, and therefore also the objective 2 has been achieved only to some extent. In the same way the objective 3 has not been achieved in France, Latvia and Slovakia, where

25


management actions to reduce nest loss due to predation are not taken, and objective 5 in Belgium, Bulgaria, France and Hungary, where a monitoring scheme with habitat description has not been implemented.


MS

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Increasing breeding

sites protection

Creation of breeding sites

or restoring breeding habitat

Predators management at large

colony sites

Acquiring data on population

regulation or hunting for impact

assessment

Improving population monitoring

scheme

Meas. 2.1, 4 2.3 3 1 5 (6) OverallBE Yes Yes Not relev. Not relevant No PartiallyBG Not relev. Not relev. Not relev. Yes No YesFR Partially No No Not relevant No PartiallyHU Not relev. Not relev. Not relev. Not relevant No NoLV Yes No No Not relevant Partially PartiallyNL Yes Yes Partially Yes Yes YesSK Yes No No Not relevant Yes Partially

Overall Partially Partially Partially Yes Partially

Table 8. Achievement of the short-term objectives of the EU Management Plan for Larus canus in the relevant Member States in relation to the implementation of the related measures.



BE BG FR HU LV NL SK AIS1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

3.33

2.55

NIS

/AIS

Figure 12. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation Score of the EU Management Plan for Larus canus.

2 for the complete list of actions and related indicators see Table 9.

26


Progress in the overall implementation of the management plan across the seven Member States implementing it, is quite good (Average IS=2,6). The Netherlands shows the highest progress in implementation (NIS=3,33).

The only action fully implemented is the availability of individuals taken (result 1), fully implemented in the only countries where hunting is allowed (Sweden) and derogations are granted (Bulgaria). Good progress has also been in effective species and habitat protection for the Common Gull: identification and protection of important wintering and breeding sites and restoring/creating them (result 2).

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 13. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action listed in the Larus canus EU Management Plan across all EU Member States. Colours represent Priority Score.

Major gaps are in the following actions with the highest API: reduce nest loss due to predation and unfavourable water level control (result 3); research on breeding populations (result 6); EU-wide monitoring scheme with habitat description (result 5).

The following paragraphs provide an example of the implementation of the EU Management plan for Larus canus in some countries.

HungaryThe Common Gull is a not huntable species in Hungary, with a probably stable but moderate staging and wintering population (the species has also appeared only recently as a breeding bird but numbers are extremely low, presently only 0-1 pair). Conversely, the EU Management Plan recommendations mainly focus on hunting activities and breeding populations. However, some actions have been undertaken also independently from the EU Management Plan (habitat restoration projects).

The National Implementation Score is 2,80, equal to 70%. The actions relating to hunting and breeding populations are not relevant (scored as “0”).

Out of the two actions relevant for Hungary, the most urgent was fully implemented (identification and protection as SPAs of important wintering sites, result 2). The remaining

27


one concern monitoring (results 5) and need further work since no work has been carried out.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 14. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action for the Larus canus EU Management Plan in Hungary. Colours represent Priority Score.

Overall, the activities implemented contributed to the following short-term objectives set in the EU Management Plan.


Implementation

Increasing breeding sites protection

2.1, 4 Not relevant. The species is present as staging and wintering

Creation of new potential breeding sites or restored breeding habitat

2.3 Not relevant. The species is present as staging and wintering

Implementation of terrestrial and avian predators management at large colony sites exposed to nest predation

3 Not relevant. The species is present as staging and wintering

Acquiring quantitative data on population regulation or hunting for impact assessment

1 Not relevant. The species is not huntable and no derogation issued

Improvement of population monitoring scheme

5, 6 No. No work has been done

SpainThe EU Management Plan is not implemented since the species is vagrant in Spain and therefore all measures recommended in the plan are not applicable.

28


Table 9. COMMON GULL - Larus canus

RESULT/ACTION PriorityScore Implementation Score (IS) Ave. IS

ActionPriorityIndex

MEMBER STATE BE BG ES FR HU LV NL SK1. Annual estimates are available of individuals taken:

- during hunting seasons- under derogations. Numbers killed and reasons for derogations are provided

2 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 4,0 0,0

2. 2.1. MS identified and protected, as SPAs where appropriate Important breeding sites2.2. MS identified and protected, as SPAs where appropriate Important wintering sites2.3. Measures to restore former or create new breeding sites are taken

3 3,00 4,00 0,00 2,33 4,00 3,00 4,00 3,00 3,3 0,7

3. Management actions are taken to reduce nest loss due to predation and unfavourable water level control 3 2,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 1,4 2,6

4. Key breeding sites are protected from human disturbance and egg collection. Alternative breeding sites are created 3 3,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 3,00 4,00 4,00 3,0 1,0

5. A monitoring scheme with habitat description is implemented: - for breeding populations- for wintering populations

2 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 3,00 4,00 3,50 2,1 1,3

6. MS supports research of survival rates and fecundity, allowing for population modelling and assessment of additional factors causing mortality

2 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 1,5 1,7

National IS 2,36 3,14 NR 1,36 2,80 2,23 3,33 2,82 2,6 Overall IS

29


Pluvialis apricaria


Seven countries have implemented the plan for the Golden Plover (the plan is not relevant in the Slovak Republic) and it is still in implementation in most of them (Spain, Hungary, Latvia and The Netherlands). The Golden Plover is listed as a huntable species only in Belgium, but there is no open hunting season.

The measures of the plan have inspired/triggered some measures taken for the Golden Plover in Spain and Latvia. All Member States, with the only exclusion of Latvia, have also undertaken further measures independently from the plan: Protection actions: the species is strictly protected by law in Hungary and Croatia;

designation of the most important Birds Areas for the species as protected areas and Ramsar sites, in Bulgaria;

Management actions: water level management wintering areas in Belgium; habitat restoration projects in Hungary not specifically aimed at the Golden Plover;

Sometimes the actions of the plan have not been specifically implemented for the species and most of them are covered by other instruments: national nature protection legislations, sectoral plans, agri-environmental schemes, Red Data Book identifying threats to wintering populations, National Monitoring Schemes.

Actions are generally taken at national level, but only at regional level in Belgium. The bodies involved in the implementation of the measures of the plan are ministries, Academies of Science, ornithologists, BirdLife partners and other NGOs.

The contribution of the actions on population status of the Golden Plover is generally unknown. It is supposed to be nil in Hungary, while the development of new sites, mostly within SPAs, could compensate the loss in wintering and staging habitats in Belgium.

Achievement of the short-term objectives

The EU Management plan for Pluvialis apricaria does not set short-term objectives.



Seven Member States contributed to the implementation of the management plan for Pluvialis apricaria. The progress in the implementation is moderate (AIS=1,9). National implementation score is highest in The Netherlands (NIS=2,67).

3 for the complete list of actions and related indicators see able 10.

30


BE BG ES HR HU LV NL AIS1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

2.67

1.88

NIS

/AIS

Figure 15. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation Score of the EU Management Plan for Pluvialis apricaria.

The species is not hunted in all seven countries (it is listed as huntable species in Belgium, but there is no open season) and therefore the bag size statistics (results 1 and 10) are not applicable. Latvia hosts only breeding population and therefore all action aimed at wintering and staging populations (results 3, 4, 8 and 9) are not relevant (IS and API=0); on the contrary, none of the other six countries host breeding populations and therefore measures specifically aimed at such populations (results 2 and 5) are not relevant in their countries.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 16. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action listed in the Pluvialis apricaria EU Management Plan across all EU Member States. Colours represent Priority Score.

Overall, the measures related to the population management have been well implemented: the management of staging grounds and stop-over routes (result 3), the communication of management options for breeding, staging and wintering habitat enhancement (result 7), the identification of threats on breeding, staging and wintering grounds (result 6) and the management of wintering habitat (result 4).

31


Also the knowledge about wintering numbers of the Golden Plover in South-West Europe and North Africa (result 8) has been improved with a good average implementation score, but it has been carried out only in Spain, which achieved the result.

The measures in greater need of further work are: To improve management of breeding habitat (result 2); To take measures to minimize predation (result 5); To support an international study to determine movements of birds from Britain and

Ireland to France and Portugal where they are hunted (result 12); To supports research programmes to determine optimum management options for

breeding/wintering habitat quality (result 13).

The following paragraph provides an example of the implementation of the EU Management plan for Pluvialis apricaria in Spain.

SpainThere is no a national or regional plan aimed at the species. The EU Management Plan was partially implemented, it is still ongoing and other measures have also been taken independently from the EU Management Plan.The actions contributing to the plan implementation have been carried out under the Spanish legislation for habitat and species protection, SPA designation, periodic monitoring, etc. They have been undertaken mainly at regional level by public bodies and are integrated in sectorial plans.

The plan was implemented for about 61% (NIS is 2,45). Since the species is not huntable in Spain and occurs only with wintering or staging populations, all the actions concerning hunting (results 1 and 10) and breeding areas (results 2 and 5) are not relevant for Spain and do not contribute to the plan implementation. International study to determine movements of birds from Britain and Ireland to France and Portugal (result 12) do not concern Spain.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 17. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action for the Pluvialis apricaria EU Management Plan in Spain. Colours represent Priority Score.

32


Only one measure is fully implemented and its result achieved: the improved knowledge about wintering numbers in South-West Europe and North Africa (result 8). All the others actions need further work to be done and in particular, in order of API: to pursue ringing schemes and to start new ones in order to monitor the long-term

trends in survival of the species (result 11); to support research programmes to determine optimum management options for

wintering habitat quality (result 13); to agree and implement with all Member States a European-wide survey of winter

populations (result 9).

33


Table 10. GOLDEN PLOVER - Pluvialis apricaria


ActionPriorityIndex

MEMBER STATE BE BG ES HR HU LV NL SK1. Hunting relies on reliable bag size statistics and on appropriate evaluations

of the harvest potential 3 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,0 0,0

2. Breeding habitat is managed favouring breeding productivity. In particular:a. Afforestation is stopped on breeding groundsb. Sheep grazing schemes focus on maintaining the open structurec. Muirburn is encouraged to control heather vegetation heightd. Traditional Red Grouse hunting is supported where appropriate

3 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,0 3,0

3. Important staging grounds and stop-over routes are managed securing access to feeding opportunities 3 3,00 4,00 3,00 1,00 3,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 2,7 1,3

4. Wintering habitat is managed favouring winter survival. In particular, nature-friendly agriculture (especially conservation and appropriate management of permanent pasture) is encouraged to maintain soil earthworms and other invertebrates biodiversity

3 2,00 0,00 3,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 2,3 1,8

5. Measures are taken to minimize predation in areas with breeding populations of the nominate subspecies 3 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,0 3,0

6. Common and specific threats on breeding, staging and wintering grounds are identified 2 4,00 1,00 3,00 1,00 1,00 3,00 3,00 0,00 2,3 1,1

7. Management options for breeding, staging and wintering habitat enhancement, resulting from research promoted under Result 13 is communicated

2 3,00 4,00 3,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 3,00 0,00 2,4 1,0

8. Knowledge about wintering numbers of the Golden Plover in South-West Europe and North Africa is improved and made available. 2 0,00 0,00 4,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,5 1,0

9. A European-wide survey of winter populations is agreed and launched in coordination by all MSs, to be repeated every 5 years 2 4,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 2,3 1,2

10. Bag statistics are available where hunting is allowed 2 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,0 0,011. Ringing schemes are pursued, new ones are started and data are

disseminate to monitor the long-term trends in survival of the species 3 4,00 1,00 1,00 3,00 1,00 1,00 3,00 0,00 2,0 2,0

12. MS supports an international study to determine movements of birds from Britain and Ireland to France and Portugal where they are hunted 3 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,0 3,0

13. MS supports research programmes to determine optimum management options for breeding/wintering habitat quality 3 1,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 1,3 2,7

National IS 2,62 2,15 2,45 1,26 1,62 1,21 2,67 NR 1,9 Overall IS

34


35


Vanellus vanellus


Eight Member States have contributed to the implementation of the management plan for the Lapwing and four of them (Belgium, Spain, Hungary and Latvia) are still implementing it. The species is huntable in Spain and Belgium, but in this latter country there is no open season from 2011 to 2016.

In most cases countries have not carried out any measure for the Lapwing inspired/triggered by the EU Management Plan. In particular, most measures for the species have been already taken before the plan.With the only exception of Sweden, all countries have also carried out measures for the species regardless those recommended in the plan: Protection actions: the species is protected by law in Bulgaria, and strictly protected in

Hungary, Latvia and Croatia; nest sites protection supported by several local organizations in The Netherlands in cooperation with farmers.

Management actions: habitat restoration projects in Hungary; agri-environment schemes in Hungary, Belgium (AEM in specified ‘meadow bird areas’, subsidies for planting hedges and for game crops) and Sweden (grazed meadows);

Monitoring actions: monthly counts of all important wetland sites as part of the National Monitoring Scheme ‘NEM’ in Sweden.

Moreover, in Bulgaria the project “Field studies of species distribution / assessment of the status of species and habitats throughout the country - I phase” is running under the Operational Programme Environement 2007-2013. The project aims to develop a National Biodiversity Monitoring System to collect information on distribution of 253 breeding birds in Bulgaria, including the Lapwing, and implement new/modern methods to assess the status of the species and their habitats.

The actions of the plan have been often integrated in other instruments or undertaken in the framework of the initiatives started independently from the plan: nature protection legislations, Rural Development Programs (including agro-environmental measures and Natura 2000 compensation on grassland), provincial regulations concerning the extensification of grassland management, the Walloon program to reduce the use of pesticides, sectorial plans, atlas of breeding birds, national and regional monitoring schemes.

Most of the measures advised by the plan are related to the management of agricultural areas. Here the persistence of conflicting interests between farmers and species protection (economy vs ecology; harvesting date etc.) has been found limiting the implementation of the plan.

It is thought that the plan implementation has not had any effect on the population status of the Lapwing in Sweden and Belgium and that the increase of the Walloon population is due to adult birds settling down from neighbouring countries. On the contrary, it could be possible that measures have worked in the Netherlands, since there is an increase in breeding numbers on the short term (2007-2011).

36



All the short-term objectives of the management plan for the Lapwing are achieved in The Netherlands, which hosts important breeding and wintering Lapwing populations. However, considering overall the eight Member States, the objective have been reached only partly.

Bulgaria and Croatia have not implemented any measure and therefore they have not contributed to the achievement of the plan objectives.

Even though all countries have put in place different agri-environment schemes, no significant progress has been made, and often the incentives suggested by the plan are not put into force. Also measures to minimize predation are often not taken. Objective 1 is accordingly not achieved.

With the only exception of Bulgaria and Croatia, in all countries the monitoring actions for both breeding and wintering populations are fully implemented. Nevertheless, further studies on productivity and relations with habitat managements are not carried out in any country (excluding The Netherlands). Objective 2 cannot therefore be considered to be reached.


MS

1. 2.Regulations,

incentives and other initiatives to restoring the

Lapwing FCS

Collection of more robust

scientific data on key population

parametersMeas. 1 - 8, 12 9, 13 - 16 Overall

BE Partially Partially PartiallyBG No No NoES Yes Partially PartiallyHR No No NoHU Partially Partially PartiallyLV Partially Partially PartiallyNL Yes Yes YesSE Partially Partially Partially

Overall Partially Partially

Table 11. Achievement of the short-term objectives of the EU Management Plan for Vanellus vanellus in the relevant Member States in relation to the implementation of the related measures.




37


The progress in the implementation of the management plan across the eight MS that contributed to its implementation is insufficient (Average IS=1,9), with the highest progress in Spain (NIS=2,54) and no work undertaken in Bulgaria and Croatia (NIS=1,00).

BE BG ES HR HU LV NL SE AIS1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

1.00

2.54

1.00

1.90

NIS

/AIS

Figure 18. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation Score of the EU Management Plan for Vanellus vanellus.

Lapwing hunting is allowed only in Spain (in Belgium the species is huntable, but there is no open season for the hunting period 2011-2016) and the measures relating to hunting (results 9, 10 and 11) are therefore not applicable in the other seven countries (AIS and NIS=0).The only measure fully implemented is the development of a national programme for monitoring wintering populations (result 15), implemented only in Spain and The Netherlands, the only countries with more than 100.000 wintering individuals, as requested by the action.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 19. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action listed in the Vanellus vanellus EU Management Plan across all EU Member States. Colours represent Priority Score.

38


Major efforts need to be made for three actions with the highest API, all of them policy and legislative: making available and promote incentives to farmers for sowing crops in spring instead of in autumn (result 2), for retaining and restoring pastoral pockets in arable areas (result 1) and for retaining and restoring damp or wet areas (result 3).

The following paragraph provides an example of the implementation of the EU Management plan for Lapwing in Spain.

SpainNo national/regional plan targeted at the species. The EU Management Plan is currently being implemented.

All actions have been implemented according to the species protection system set in the Spanish legislation (habitat and species protection, SPA designation, periodic monitoring, etc.). They are integrated in sectorial plans and carried out mostly at regional scale.

The species is listed as huntable in Spain, but it is not significantly important for hunters’ interests (very few numbers are shot) in the whole Spain, so that the hunting community has not played a role in the plan implementation.

The plan has a National Implementation Score of 2,54 (equal to about 64%).Since the species is hunted in very few numbers, no restriction on hunting has been taken (result 10) and no awareness-raising campaign targeted at hunters has been launched (result 11), being these measures not relevant for the species in Spain.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 20. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action for the Vanellus vanellus EU Management Plan in Spain. Colours represent Priority Score.

The actions fully implemented are: to put in place incentives for retaining and restoring damp or wet areas taken up by

farmers (result 3); to implement a national programme for monitoring breeding populations of common

farmland birds (result 13);

39


to developed a national programme for monitoring wintering populations (result 15).

The action still requiring, according to the API, the greatest efforts is to make available incentives for sowing crops in spring instead of in autumn, to be taken up by farmers (result 2).



Implementation

To put into force regulations, incentives and other initiatives to restoring the Lapwing to a Favourable Conservation Status

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Yes, in particular for retaining and restoring damp or wet areas (result 3)

Collection of more robust scientific data on key population parameters (population size, trends and productivity, bag-statistics)

9, 13, 14, 15, 16

Partially. No data available on hunting bags, but very few numbers in the whole Spain (result 9).

40


Table 12. LAPWING - Vanellus vanellus


ActionPriorityIndex

MEMBER STATE BE BG ES HR HU LV NL SE1.Incentives exist and are taken up by farmers for:

- retaining and restoring pastoral pockets in arable areas 4 1,00 1,00 3,00 1,00 2,00 2,00 1,00 2,00 1,6 3,2

2.- sowing crops in spring instead of in autumn 4 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 2,00 1,3 3,73.- retaining and restoring damp or wet areas 4 1,00 1,00 4,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 2,00 2,00 1,8 3,04.- extensification of grassland management (e.g. through less effective

drainage, low or no input of fertilizer/manure) 3 2,00 0,00 2,00 1,00 2,00 2,00 3,00 1,00 1,9 2,1

5.- maintaining and restoring extensive grazing regimes 3 2,00 1,00 3,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 2,00 2,00 2,0 2,06.- using low or no input of pesticides and biocides 2 2,00 1,00 3,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 2,00 2,00 2,0 1,37.- for organic farming, for omitting mechanical weeding, rolling and similar

operations between 10 and 60 days after sowing of spring cereals or root crops

2 1,00 1,00 3,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 1,5 1,7

8.Special efforts to improve the breeding success are made by MS where Lapwings breed and are hunted 3 1,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,0 2,0

9.Reliable bag statistics are available and hunting/trapping pressure is estimated 2 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,0 2,0

10.Restrictions on hunting are taken until 2011 if there are clear evidences of excessive local hunting pressure 2 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,0 0,0

11. Awareness-raising campaigns exist on the conservation status and decrease of Lapwing population targeted at Lapwing hunters 2 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,0 0,0

12.In areas with breeding Lapwings, measures are taken to minimize predation 2 2,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 0,00 1,7 1,513.A national programme for monitoring breeding populations of common

farmland birds exists 2 4,00 1,00 4,00 1,00 4,00 3,00 4,00 4,00 3,1 0,6

14.A study of the Lapwing fledging success and causes of chick loss under different management regimes has been carried out 2 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 4,00 1,00 1,4 1,8

15.A national programme for monitoring wintering populations is developed (for MSs with more than 100,000 wintering Lapwing) 2 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 4,0 0,0

16.Studies to determine means of habitat management minimising predation rates are carried out 2 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 4,00 1,00 1,4 1,8

National IS 1,48 1,00 2,54 1,00 1,80 1,77 2,53 1,82 1,9 Overall IS

41


Tringa totanus


The management plan for the Redshank has been undertaken by nine Member States and its implementation is still ongoing in four countries, Spain, Finland, Hungary and Latvia.The Redshank is not huntable in any of these country.

The actions suggested by the plan have inspired those taken in Spain and Latvia, while the plan did not have any influence on the actions taken in the other countries. In The Netherlands, many actions started well before the plan was drawn up.

With the only exception of Hungary, the other countries have taken many initiatives independently from the management plan: Protection actions: the species is strictly protected by law in Croatia and Hungary; Management actions: wetland restorations and management measures (grazing instead

of mowing, elimination of invasive species) in Hungary; agro-environmental measures in specified ‘meadow bird areas’, special mowing programs, and agricultural subsidy schemes are in place in Belgium, The Netherlands and Sweden;

Monitoring actions: the project “Field studies of species distribution / assessment of the status of species and habitats throughout the country - I phase” aiming to collect information on distribution of 253 breeding birds, including the Redshank, is running in Bulgaria.

The above initiatives and other instruments represent the frameworks within which the actions plan have been included: national legislations on nature conservation, sectorial plans, EU LIFE and other projects, national bird monitoring programs, rural programmes.

It is envisaged that the actions carried out do not contribute to improving the population status of the Redshank in Sweden and Finland, but probably they have at least counteracted negative factors in Hungary and they might have worked in The Netherlands, since the species is stable both on the short and long term


All the short-term objectives of the management plan for the Redshank could be considered achieved in Hungary, Latvia and The Netherlands. However, considering the nine countries altogether, none of the three objectives have been achieved fully.Progress has nevertheless been made in achieving Objective 2 and to a greater extent Objective 3.

While all Member States have accomplished the protection of the breeding and wintering sites for the Redshank, many of them have not drafted/implemented the relative management plans or taken measures to minimize predation, and therefore objectives 1 and 2 are not totally achieved. In the same way, all countries have collected better data on population sizes and trend, but two of them (Spain and Sweden) have not taken the ringing

42


activities recommended by the plan. Therefore, even if Objective 3 is very close to being reached, it is not yet fully reached.


MS

1. 2. 3.

Improving management

and protection of breeding sites

Improving management

and protection of staging and wintering sites

Collection of better data on hunting impact and population

dynamicsMeas. 2 3, 4, 5 1, 6, 7, 8 Overall

BE Yes Partially Yes PartiallyBG No Partially Yes PartiallyES No Partially Partially PartiallyFI No Not relevant Yes Partially

HR No Partially Yes PartiallyHU Yes Yes Yes YesLV Yes Not relevant Yes YesNL Yes Yes Yes YesSE Yes Yes Partially Partially

Overall Partially Partially Partially

Table 13. Achievement of the short-term objectives of the EU Management Plan for Tringa totanus in the relevant Member States in relation to the implementation of the related measures.

Implementation of the plan5


BE BG ES FI HR HU LV NL SE AIS1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

3.53

2.68

NIS

/AIS

Figure 21. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation Score of the EU Management Plan for Tringa totanus.


43


Nine Member States implemented the EU management plan for the Redshank. Progress in the overall implementation of the action plan across these nine countries is quite good (overall IS=2,7). The plan has been most successfully implemented in The Netherlands, which hosts greater breeding and wintering/staging numbers of the Redshank.

The estimate of the annual number of the Redshank shot (result 1.) is not applicable (AIS and NIS=0), since the species is not huntable in any of the nine countries.

The most relevant progresses have been made in enforcement of species protection through the designation as SPAs of all staging and wintering sites of international importance for the species and the establishment of hunting and disturbance-free areas in at least 2 SPAs (result 3). The measure has been fully implemented in all relevant countries, with the exception of Belgium, where no or little work has been done.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 22. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action listed in the Tringa totanus EU Management Plan across all EU Member States. Colours represent Priority Score.

There are still major gaps and further work must be done mainly to improve habitat and species management: preparation and implementation of management plans for important breeding sites (result 2) and for SPAs of importance for staging and wintering (result 4).

The following paragraph provides an example of the implementation of the EU Management plan for Tringa totanus in Spain.

SpainNo national/regional plan targeted at the species exists. The EU Management Plan was partially implemented and it is currently being implemented. All the actions have been implemented according to the species protection system set in the Spanish legislation (habitat and species protection, SPA designation, periodic monitoring, etc.). They have been mainly undertaken at regional level by public bodies and are integrated in sectorial plans.

The NIS of the plan is 2,47, corresponding to about 62%.

44


The estimate of the annual number of the Redshank shot is considered as not relevant, since its hunting is not permitted.

The measures fully implemented are: All staging and wintering sites of international importance for the species are designed as

SPAs. At least 2 SPAs include hunting and disturbance-free areas (result 3); Annual mid-winter censuses of all areas of international importance for wintering are

carried out (result 7).

The management of staging and wintering sites other than SPAs (result 5) and the up to date estimates of breeding populations (result 6) have also a good progress.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 23. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action for the Tringa totanus EU Management Plan in Spain. Colours represent Priority Score.

All the other measures need further efforts and in particular: Preparation and implementation of Management Plans for important breeding sites

(result 2) and for SPAs of importance for staging and wintering (result 4); Support to national ringing, colour-marking activities, analyses of existing ringing data

(result 8).



Implementation

Improvement of management and protection of breeding sites

2 Partially. Improved protection (49 sites, all of them Natura 2000 sites). Management plans are not prepared and implemented.

Improvement of management and protection of staging and wintering sites

3, 4, 5 Partially. Improved protection (all key staging and wintering sites are designed as SPAs and at least 2 SPAs include hunting and disturbance-free areas). Promoted conservation and wise-use, but not prepared and

45


implemented management plans.Collection of better data on the impact of hunting and more robust data on population dynamics

1, 6, 7, 8 Partially. Collected data on breeding and wintering populations. No ringing activities exist.

46


Table 14. REDSHANK - Tringa totanus


ActionPriorityIndex

MEMBER STATE BE BG ES FI HR HU LV NL SE

1. An estimate of the annual number of the Redshank shot is available where hunting is permitted 3 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,0 0,0

2. Management Plans are prepared and implemented for important breeding sites. Measures are taken to minimize the predation as

3 2,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 3,00 3,00 1,9 2,1

3. All staging and wintering sites of international importance for the species are designed as SPAs. At least 2 SPAs include hunting and disturbance-free areas

3 1,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 3,6 0,4

4. Management Plans are prepared and implemented for SPAs of importance for staging and wintering 2 2,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 2,1 1,2

5. Conservation and wise-use is promoted in staging and wintering sites other than SPAs 2 3,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 4,00 3,0 0,7

6. Up to date estimates of breeding populations from all important sites are available 3 3,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 4,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 2,00 3,0 1,0

7. Annual mid-winter censuses of all areas of international importance for wintering are carried out 2 2,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 3,2 0,5

8. National ringing, colour-marking activities, analyses of existing ringing data are supported 2 3,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 2,00 3,00 2,00 2,50 1,00 1,9 1,4

National IS 2,24 2,20 2,47 2,38 2,41 2,62 2,75 3,53 3,00 2,7 Overall IS

47


Alauda arvensis


Seven countries have applied the measures recommended in the management plan for the Skylark and Belgium, Spain, Hungary and Latvia are still applying them.

Only in Spain measures have been taken for the species that are inspired by the plan. In most cases other measures have been taken independently from the plan. These are specific for the Skylark or they benefit also the species: Protection actions: the species is protected by law in Hungary and strictly protected in

Croatia; Management actions: agro-environmental measures to create plots specific to Skylark or

to be applied in specified ‘meadow bird areas’, subsidies for planting hedges and for game crops (Belgium), set-aside strips in crop fields and fields managed for wintering Skylarks (The Netherlands).

The implemented plan actions have been integrated in several instruments: nature conservation legislations, Rural programmes, legal incentives, national legislation regulating organic farming (Croatia), single window system to assist farmers in pesticide use (Belgium), Plan Ecophyto2018 (Directive 2009/128/CE), management rules for water resource, national acts implementing the Nitrate Directive, sectorial plans, development plans, national monitoring schemes (NEM, Network Ecological Monitoring).

The species is huntable only in France, with the hunting community providing some contribution. It contributed at its own initiative to develop wildlife set-aside land, to maintain cereal stubble in autumn and winter and to collect hunting bag data.

The limiting factors in the plan implementation are identified in: lack of available funding for the transposition of the EU management plan at national

level in France; difficulty in Belgium in encouraging farming practices changes/regulation/incentives with

constant budget; difficulty in The Netherlands in solving the problems related to farmland management

and in putting concrete conservation measures into practice on a large scale.

The contribution of the implemented actions is considered not relevant for improving the population status of the Skylark in Belgium, Hungary and The Netherlands, because there is a sharp population decrease in Belgium, a significant decline in recent years in Hungary and because the measures have been put into practice on a locale scale in The Netherlands.


The three short-term objectives of the management plan for the Skylark have been achieved only in Spain. In Croatia, no action of the plan was implemented. Taking into account the seven countries altogether, the objectives of the plan have been accomplished to some extent.

48


Actions related to farmland management (objective 1) have been often not implemented across the seven countries. Objective 2 is relevant only in France, where, notwithstanding data on hunting bags and sex-ratio of harvested Skylark are collected, little or nothing has been done to ensure that harvesting i conforms with the Birds Directive and does not hinder the recovery of the species to FCS, missing therefore the aim for collecting data and the goal of the whole plan. Moreover, further efforts should be made also in collection data, since annual data are only partial and the last estimation of the national hunting bag dates back to 1998/99.

Objective 3 is near to be achieved. France, Spain and The Netherlands, which are the countries holding substantial numbers of the species in winter, have fully reached it. Belgium and Croatia, even though not so important for wintering Skylark, might start some work.


MS

1. 2. 3.Improving

management of farmland as

breeding and wintering sites

Collection of more robust

data on hunting impact

Improving monitoring of

wintering populations

Meas. 1-8 9, 10, 12 11 OverallBE Partially Not relevant No PartiallyES Yes Not relevant Yes YesFR Partially Partially Yes PartiallyHR No Not relevant No NoHU Partially Not relevant Not relevant PartiallyLV Partially Not relevant Not relevant PartiallyNL Partially Not relevant Yes Partially

Overall Partially Partially Partially

Table 15. Achievement of the short-term objectives of the EU Management Plan for Alauda arvensis in the relevant Member States in relation to the implementation of the related measures.



Progress in the overall implementation of the action plan across the seven Member States that contributed to its implementation is insufficient (Average IS=1,9), with the highest progress in Spain (NIS=2,57) and no work undertaken in Croatia (NIS=1,00).


49


BE ES FR HR HU LV NL AIS1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

2.57

1.00

1.91

NIS

/AIS

Figure 24. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation Score of the EU Management Plan for Alauda arvensis.

The species is huntable only in France and therefore actions relating to harvesting (results 9, 10 and 11) are not applicable in the other countries.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 25. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action listed in the Alauda arvensis EU Management Plan across all EU Member States. Colours represent Priority Score.

Overall, the implementation of the measures has no significant progresses.The measure with some progress is the availability of data on the number of Skylark annually harvested (result 9), applicable only in France, the only country where the species is huntable. However, the other two actions relating to harvesting (results 10, harvesting is conform with the Birds Directive and does not hinder the recovery of the species to Favourable Conservation Status; and 12, sex ratio of harvested birds is being monitored) have a low level of implementation.

Greatest efforts are required by almost all the measures, and, on the basis of the API score, in particular:

50


To ensure the harvesting in France is conform with the Birds Directive and does not hinder the recovery of the species to Favourable Conservation Status (results 10);

To put in place incentives to be taken up by farmers for sowing crops in spring instead of in autumn (result 2) in all the seven countries;

To put in place incentives to be taken up by farmers for leaving cereal stubbles over winter (result 3), mainly in France, Croatia and The Netherland;

To increase the percentage of agricultural land that is farmed organically (result 1), mainly in Croatia, Hungary and Latvia.

The following paragraph provides an example of the implementation of the EU Management plan for Alauda arvensis in Spain.

SpainThe EU Management Plan is currently being implemented. There is no specific national/regional plans for the species and other measures have been taken independently from the EU Management Plan. All actions have been implemented according to the species protection system set in the Spanish legislation (habitat and species protection, SPA designation, periodic monitoring, etc.). They have been mainly undertaken at regional level, by public bodies, landowners and NGO, and are integrated in sectorial plans.

The species is not listed as a huntable species and the hunting community has no role in the implementation of the measures.

The overall progress with the plan implementation is NIS = 2,57, corresponding to about 64%. The measures concerning hunting activities (results 9, 10, 12) are evaluated as not relevant since the species is not huntable.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 26. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action for the Alauda arvensis EU Management Plan in Spain. Colours represent Priority Score.

Only one measure has been fully implemented, the establishment of programmes for monitoring the size of the winter population (result 11), while the other actions need further

51


work to be carried out, in particular to make available and attractive to farmers incentives for sowing crops in spring instead of in autumn (result 2).Overall, the activities implemented contributed to the following short-term objectives set in the EU Management Plan.


Implementation

Improvement of management of farmland as breeding and wintering sites

1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8

Yes

Collection of more robust data on hunting impact

9, 10, 12 Not relevant, since the species is not huntable

Improvement of monitoring of winter populations

11 Yes

52


Table 16. SKYLARK - Alauda arvensis


ActionPriorityIndex

MEMBER STATE BE ES FR HR HU LV NL

1. The percentage of agricultural land that is farmed organically has increased 3 3,00 3,00 4,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 2,1 1,9

2. Incentives exist and are taken up by farmers for:- sowing crops in spring instead of in autumn (except in boreal regions)- securing sowing of winter cereals and increasing their areas (only in boreal regions)

3 1,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 1,3 2,7

3. - leaving cereal stubbles over winter 3 0,00 3,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 2,00 1,00 1,7 2,34. - leaving unsown patches in autumn-sown cereal crops 2 2,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 1,4 1,75. - extensification of grassland management (e.g. through reduced or

no input of fertiliser/manure, later and less frequent mowing) 2 2,00 2,00 2,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 1,00 1,9 1,4

6. MS ensures that rules for set-aside prevent nests destruction and encourage the retention of weed-rich stubbles over winter 2 1,00 2,00 4,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 1,7 1,5

7. Decision support systems for optimisation of pesticide use are available to farmers 2 2,00 2,00 2,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 2,00 2,0 1,3

8. Regulations restricting irrigation to the minimum amount necessary for optimum crop growth exist 2 1,00 3,00 4,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 2,0 1,3

9. Data on the number of Skylark harvested annually are available where harvesting of the species is permitted 3 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,0 1,0

10. Harvesting is conform with the Birds Directive and does not hinder the recovery of the species to Favourable Conservation Status 3 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,0 3,0

11. Programmes for monitoring the size of the winter population exist 2 1,00 4,00 4,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 2,8 0,812. Sex ratio of harvested birds is being monitored at different sites

through a co-operation with hunters 2 0,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,0 1,3

National IS 1,67 2,57 2,34 1,00 1,37 2,05 1,58 1,9 Overall IS

53


Melanitta fusca


The management plan for the Velvet Scoter has been applied in four countries, while it is considered as not relevant in another four, where the species is not present (Spain and Malta) or occurs only as irregular winter visitor (Croatia, where the species is however strictly protected, and Hungary). The plan is still under implementation in Latvia.

A national plan specific for Melanitta fusca is currently in preparation in France.

None of the measure taken for the species in the four Member States have been inspired/triggered by the plan. The Velvet Scoter has been included on the list of protected species in Bulgaria, as a measure taken independently from the plan. Furthermore, one action of the plan, the mid-winter census, is annually carried out in Bulgaria as a part of the National Monitoring System on Biodiversity.

Most actions of the plan are specifically aimed at countries holding significant numbers of Velvet Scoter (those focused to areas of international importance for the species) or at countries that border on the Baltic Sea. This limits the actions that can be applied in Belgium and Bulgaria, where the species occurs with small populations.

Even though the species is huntable both in France and Latvia, there has not been any contribution in the actions implementation from the hunting community.

The contribution of the actions carried out to the population status of the Velvet Scoter is not known for all countries.


The five short-term objectives of the management plan for the Velvet Scoter have been achieved both in France and Latvia, hosting greater numbers of wintering/staging Velvet Scoter, and not in Belgium, where the only applicable action has not been implemented.

It should be considered that the two actions of the plan concerning hunting do not seem to be related to any of the 5 objectives of the plan. Therefore, the achievement of all the objectives of the plan from France does not take into account that in France no or little work has been done to make available estimates of annual numbers shot.

Four out of the five objectives have been achieved in four Member States. The fifth objective (objective 2) has been reached partly, since no work has been done in Belgium and Bulgaria to assess the need for restrictions of fishing activities to reduce by-catch. However, considering that the species occurs in Belgium and Bulgaria with very small wintering populations, the contribution of the two countries to this objective could be regarded as not very significant. Therefore the objective 2 might be evaluated as achieved or on the way to being achieved.

54



MS

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Halting the degradation of breeding and

wintering habitats

Taking action to stop

drowning in fishing nets

Taking action to avoid oil

spills

Taking action to reduce

disturbance in breeding and

wintering areas

Collection of better data on size of winter

population and breeding success

Meas. 3, 5 8 7 4, 6 9, 10 OverallBE Not relevant No Not relev. Not relevant Not relevant NoBG Not relevant No Not relev. Yes Yes PartiallyFR Yes Not relevant Not relev. Yes Yes YesLV Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Overall Yes Partially Yes Yes Yes

Table 17. Achievement of the short-term objectives of the EU Management Plan for Melanitta fusca in the relevant Member States in relation to the implementation of the related measures.



The species is not present in Spain and Malta, and it is an irregular and scarce wintering visitor in Croatia and Hungary, and therefore the plan is not relevant in any of these countries.

BE BG FR LV AIS1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

1.00

3.243.02

NIS

/AIS

Figure 27. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation Score of the EU Management Plan for Melanitta fusca.

Progress in the overall implementation of the management plan in the four Member States where it is relevant, is quite good (AIS=3,0). The National implementation score is highest for Latvia (NIS=3,24) where the species regularly occurs in greater numbers, and lowest in


55


Belgium (NIS=1,00), where the species is rare and most of the measures listed in the management plan are not applicable. However, the country could implement the monitoring actions (result 9) and reduce by-catch (result 8) for which nothing has been done up today.

Measures relating to breeding populations (result 3, 4 and 10) are not applicable in all the four Member States since in these countries the species occurs as wintering and/or migrating.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 28. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action listed in the Melanitta fusca EU Management Plan across all EU Member States. Colours represent Priority Score.

The two actions resulting fully implemented are: Ensuring that hunting does not affect birds on spring migration or breeding (result 1). The

species is huntable with an open season both in France and Latvia. Estimates of annual numbers shot are available in Latvia (result 2), while no or little work has been carried out in France.

Designation as SPAs of all offshore staging and wintering areas of international importance for the species (result 5), fully implemented both in France and Latvia.

The least implemented action requiring greater work to be done is the restriction of fishing activities to reduce by-catch (result 8), especially in Latvia, as recommended by the plan.

The following paragraphs provide an example of the implementation of the EU Management plan for Velvet Scoter in some countries.

FranceThe EU Management Plan was not transposed at national level, but the plan’s measures have been implemented. A specific national plan for the species is in preparation.The hunting community has no a specific role, but it is involved in the estimation of the individuals shot and in the establishment of hunting - free areas in SPAs.

56


The implementation progress of the plan (NIS) is 2,91 (about 73%). The species is present in France as wintering only and therefore measures related to breeding populations are scored as not relevant (results 3, 4 and 10). Also measures targeted at Member States on the Baltic Sea (results 7 and 8) are scored as not relevant.

The actions fully implemented are: Ensuring that hunting does not affect birds on spring migration or breeding nor hinder

the recovery to favourable conservation status (result 1); The designation as SPAs of all offshore staging and wintering areas of international

importance (result 5).

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 29. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action for the Melanitta fusca EU Management Plan in France. Colours represent Priority Score.

The least undertaken measures that require further action are: Estimating annual numbers shot (result 2); Establish a programme for census including surveys of moulting areas every 6 years

(currently the programme just includes a mid-winter count in January) (result 9).

The contribution of the implemented measures to the short-term objectives of the EU Management Plan are:


Implementation

Halting the degradation of breeding and wintering habitats

3, 5 Yes.

Taking action to stop drowning in fishing nets

8 Not relevant

Taking action to avoid oil spills 7 Not relevantTaking action to reduce disturbance in breeding and wintering areas

4, 6 Yes

Collection of better data on size of winter population and

9, 10 Yes, but just a mid-winter count

57


breeding success

SpainThe EU Management Plan is not implemented since the species is not present in Spain and therefore all measures recommended in the plan are not relevant.Spain therefore does not contribute to the plan implementation in EU.

58


Table 18. VELVET SCOTER - Melanitta fusca


ActionPriorityIndex

MEMBER STATE BE BG ES FR HR HU LV MT

1. Hunting does not affect birds on spring migration or breeding nor hinder the recovery to favourable conservation status 2 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 4,0 0,0

2. Estimates of annual numbers shot are available where hunting is permitted 2 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 2,5 1,0

3. Important breeding sites along the coast of the Baltic Sea are identified and protected 3 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,0 0,0

4. The inland breeding populations in Sweden and Finland are assessed to determine the need for special conservation efforts

2 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,0 0,0

5. All offshore staging and wintering areas of international importance for the species are designated SPAs 3 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 4,0 0,0

6. Hunting and disturbance-free areas are established in at least 2 SPAs of international importance for wintering and/or staging

2 0,00 4,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 3,3 0,4

7. Improved pollution prevention and improved oil spill contingency planning is in place in the Baltic Sea and other marine areas important to Velvet Scoter

3 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 3,0 1,0

8. The need for restrictions of fishing activities to reduce by-catch is assessed where moulting and wintering birds regularly occur and in the breeding areas

3 1,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 1,3 2,7

9. By the end of 2007 a program for a census of all wintering and moulting areas of international importance for Velvet Scoter is developed and implemented. The programme includes at least mid-winter counts every 3 years and surveys of moulting areas every 6 years

2 0,00 4,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 3,0 0,7

10. MS supports research, including ringing, on survival rates and fecundity, allowing modelling of population development and assessing effects of additional mortalities

3 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,0 0,0

National IS 1,00 2,71 NR 2,91 NR NR 3,24 NR 3,0 Overall IS

59


Numenius arquata


Five Member States have contributed until today to the implementation of the management plan for the Curlew in the EU, and three of them are still applying it.

The actions of the plan have inspired those taken in Spain; other measures have been also taken both in Spain and Croatia (e.g., the species is strictly protected by law in Croatia) independently from the plan; some of the actions of the plan have been applied through other instruments in four countries. These instruments are legislative (Spanish nature conservation legislation, Nature Protection Act and protected reserves designation with no hunting in Croatia), planning (sectoral plans in Croatia and Hungary: forestry, hunting, water management and physical plans), financing (agri-environmental schemes in Hungary) and of assistance and promotion to farmers (BirdLife Sweden projects).

The impact of the measures carried out on the population status of the Curlew is unknown in all countries.


The three short-term objectives of the management plan for the Curlew have been fully achieved in Spain, Hungary and Latvia, and only partly in Croatia and Sweden.


MS

1. 2. 3.Improving

management and protection of breeding and wintering sites

Improving protection

from disturbance

Collection of more robust data on

hunting impact/population

regulationsMeas. 2-7 8 1, 10 Overall

ES Yes Not relevant Not relevant YesHR Partially Yes Not relevant PartiallyHU Yes Yes Not relevant YesLV Yes Not relevant Not relevant YesSE Partially Not relevant Not relevant Partially

Overall Partially Yes Not relevant

Table 19. Achievement of the short-term objectives of the EU Management Plan for Numenius arquata in the relevant Member States in relation to the implementation of the related measures.

The achievement of the three objectives across all the five countries is partial. In particular, objective 2 has been achieved, but objective 1 only to some extent. Sweden has not started the protection and restoration of breeding sites where the species is declining and has not prepared management plans or schemes for key Curlew breeding areas and for designated sites (SPAs) of importance for staging and wintering. The preparation of management plans Croatia is ongoing, but slowly.

60


The achievement of the objective 3 cannot be evaluated since the species in not huntable in any of the five Member States and therefore none of them can contribute to its achievement.



The progress in the overall implementation of the management plan in the five Member States that have applied it, is quite good (AIS=2,6). The plan has been most successfully implemented in Spain (NIS=3,47), with four measures fully implemented.

ES HR HU LV SE AIS1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

3.47

2.57

NIS

/AIS

Figure 30. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation Score of the EU Management Plan for Numenius arquata.

Measures relating to hunting (results 1 and 10) are not applicable in all the five Member States since in these countries the hunting of the species is not permitted. The greatest progress has been achieved in implementing effective species and habitat protection policy, designating as SPAs all staging and wintering areas of international importance for Curlew (result 5.).

The wintering monitoring (result 9) also shows a good progress.The measures that have the greatest need of further action are: Protection and restoration of breeding sites (result 2); Promotion of agro-environmental schemes to encourage management of agricultural

areas (result 3); Establishment of hunting and disturbance-free areas in a minimum of two SPAs of

international importance (result 8).


61


1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 31. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action listed in the Numenius arquata EU Management Plan across all EU Member States. Colours represent Priority Score.

The following paragraph provides an example of the implementation of the EU Management plan for Curlew in Spain.

SpainThe EU Management Plan is being implemented. There is no specific national/regional plan for the species and other measures have been taken independently from the EU Management Plan. All actions have been implemented according to the species protection system set in the Spanish legislation (habitat and species protection, SPA designation, periodic monitoring, etc.). They have been undertaken at regional level, by public bodies and scientific entities. The species is not listed as huntable and the hunting community has no role in the implementation of the measures.

The NIS is quite good (3,47), corresponding to about 87%. Since the species occurs in Spain mainly as wintering, while only few breeding individuals are present, some measures related to breeding areas were not implemented because considered as not needed (result 4 concerning management plans, and result 3 concerning agro-environmental schemes). Similarly, measures related to hunting are not relevant (results 1, 8 and 10), since the species is not huntable.

Four measures are fully implemented: the designation as SPAs of all staging and wintering areas of international importance for

Curlew (result 5); the preparation and implementation of Management Plans or Schemes for SPAs of

importance for staging and wintering (result 6); the promotion of conservation and wise-use in wetlands other than SPAs supporting

staging and wintering (result 7); the annual mid-winter census of all areas of international importance for wintering

Curlew (result 9).

62


1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 32. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action for the Numenius arquata EU Management Plan in Spain. Colours represent Priority Score.

Only two actions require further implementation, mainly the protection and restoration of breeding sites where the species is declining (result 2).The short-term objectives of the EU plan can be considered reached.


Implementation

Improving management and protection of breeding and wintering sites

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Yes. Protection and restoration of breeding sites (further measures for breeding areas are not relevant) and of all staging and wintering areas: 30 sites, all of them Natura 2000 sites. Management Plans for SPA of importance for staging and wintering.

Improving protection from disturbance

8 Hunting-free areas are not relevant.

Collection of more robust data to better understand the potential importance of hunting and other types of population regulations

1, 10 Not relevant, the species is not huntable.

63


Table 20. CURLEW - Numenius arquata


ActionPriorityIndex

MEMBER STATE ES HR HU LV SE

1. An estimate of the annual number of Curlew shot is available where hunting is permitted 3 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,0 0,0

2. Protection and restoration of breeding sites is initiated where the species is declining 3 2,00 0,00 3,00 3,00 1,00 2,3 1,8

3. Agro-environmental schemes are promoted to encourage management of agricultural areas supporting breeding Curlew including evidence-based prescriptions to benefit Curlew

3 0,00 0,00 3,00 2,00 2,00 2,3 1,7

4. Management Plans or Schemes have been prepared and implementation initiated for key Curlew breeding areas 2 0,00 0,00 2,00 4,00 1,00 2,3 1,1

5. All staging and wintering areas of international importance for Curlew are designated SPAs 3 4,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 4,0 0,0

6. Management Plans or Schemes have been prepared and implementation initiated for designated sites (SPAs) of importance for staging and wintering

2 4,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 1,00 2,0 1,3

7. Conservation and wise-use is promoted in wetlands other than SPAs supporting staging and wintering 2 4,00 2,00 2,00 0,00 2,00 2,5 1,0

8. Hunting and disturbance-free areas are established in SPAs. These disturbance-free areas should include feeding and roosting habitat 3 0,00 2,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 2,5 1,5

9. Annual mid-winter census of all areas of international importance for wintering Curlew are carried out 3 4,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,0 1,0

10. An estimate of the impact of hunting in Member States on Curlew populations in EU has been carried. The study analyses changes in population size to variation in hunting mortality temporally (between years) and spatially (between areas)

3 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,0 0,0

11. National ringing activities and analyses of existing ringing data is supported 2 3,00 3,00 3,00 1,00 1,00 2,2 1,2

National IS 3,47 2,40 2,85 2,50 1,36 2,6 Overall IS

64


Anas acuta


Seven Member States have contributed to the implementation of the management plan for the Pintail. Three of them, Spain, Hungary and Latvia are still applying it.

Only Spain has adopted for the species measures inspired/triggered by the EU Management Plan, while most of the Member States have taken actions regardless of the plan. In Croatia and Slovakia the species is strictly protected by law.

A number of actions of the plan have been carried out as part of different instruments: nature conservation legislation (covering habitat and species protection, Natura 2000 Network and other protected areas, periodic monitoring, etc.), sectoral plans providing for nature conservation measures. In Belgium and Hungary there have been carried out conservation measures not focusing on the species itself, but on wetlands and its habitat (alkaline marshes), a conservation priority in Hungary: swamp areas restoration, habitat management, e.g. grazing, water level and quality control.

The Pintail is listed as a huntable species in Belgium (with no open season), Spain, France and Latvia. However, only in Latvia the hunting community has played some role in the implementation of the plan by providing individuals shot data.

In general, the impact of the measures carried out is not known, since it has not been assessed. However, actions taken are believed to have not contributed to improving the population status of the Velvet Scoter both in France and Slovakia, while it is believed that protected areas and the status of protection play probably a key role and that local measures contribute to maintain the population in Belgium.


Three Member States have fully reached all the four short-term objectives set in the management plan for the Pintail. However, considering altogether the seven Member States implementing the Plan, the four objectives have been only partially achieved.

Neither Spain nor France, the only countries in addition to Latvia where the Pintail is hunted, have assessed the impact of hunting or collected updated data on hunting bags. In particular, in France bag statistics at the national scale are available every 10 years and the next national inquiry for hunting bags is going to take in place for the 2013-2014 hunting season. The objective 1 is therefore reached only in part.

Four out of the five actions concerning the restoration, conservation and management of habitats and sites for the Pintail have not or very little carried out in Slovakia, prejudicing thus the accomplishment of the objective 2.

As regards the objective 3, it could be considered as partially reached, because Hungary has collected and analysed records of the Pintail for nine months of the year (Aug-Apr) since

65


2003, but has not assessed the annual productivity, as instead required by the only action referable to this objective for breeding populations.

Similarly, the objective 4 is partially achieved, because ringing activities and analyses are not supported in three countries, Spain, France and Slovakia.


MS

1. 2. 3. 4.Hunting impact assessment and

collection of annual bag data

Restoration and management of

breeding and wintering sites

Monitoring population sizes and

trends

Collection of more robust data on

population units, mortality and regulations

Meas. 1, 2 3 - 7 8, 9 10 OverallBE Not relevant Yes Yes Yes YesES No Yes Yes No PartiallyFR No Yes Yes No PartiallyHR Not relevant Yes Yes Yes YesHU Not relevant Yes No Yes PartiallyLV Yes Yes Yes Yes YesSK Not relevant Partially Yes No Partially

Overall Partially Partially Partially Partially

Table 21. Achievement of the short-term objectives of the EU Management Plan for Anas acuta in the relevant Member States in relation to the implementation of the related measures.



BE ES FR HR HU LV SK AIS1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

3.71

2.87

NIS

/AIS

Figure 33. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation Score of the EU Management Plan for Anas acuta.


66


Progress in the overall implementation of the management plan in the seven Member States that have implemented it, is quite good (AIS=2,9). The National implementation score is highest in Belgium (NIS=3,71), where four measures have been fully implemented.

Measures with most relevant implementation are the improvement of protection (hunting season not affecting the breeding population, result 1, designation as SPAs of areas of international importance for Pintail, result 5, establishment of disturbance-free areas, result 7) and wintering monitoring (result 8).

The measures that have received a lower level of implementation and still need more work to be carried out are: to establish a monitoring programme to assess annual productivity (measure 9); to make available data on the annual number of Pintail shot (measure 2) in Spain and

France, where the species is huntable and no or little work has been done up today. In Latvia the measure is fully implemented, in Hungary and Croatia the species is not huntable, while in Belgium it is listed as huntable but there is no open season.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 34. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action listed in the Anas acuta EU Management Plan across all EU Member States. Colours represent Priority Score.

The following paragraphs provide an example of the implementation of the EU Management plan for Pintail in some countries.

FranceThe EU Management Plan has not been directly implemented, but some of the management prescriptions have been undertaken under policy and legislative instruments, such as those relating Natura 2000 Network. The measures are mainly carried out at national scale, but also regional and local. There is no national or regional plan for the species in France.The hunting community has not played a specific role in the actions carried out, but hunter associations are involved in collection of data on the individuals shot, in the identification and designation of SPAs and in census activities.

67


The progress implementation of the plan is indicated by the NIS at 2,85 corresponding to 71%. The actions related to breeding populations are evaluated as “0” (not relevant), since the species is not breeding in France.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 35. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action for the Anas acuta EU Management Plan in France. Colours represent Priority Score.

The measures fully implemented are: ensuring that no Pintails are hunted during spring migration or the end of the breeding

season (result 1); establishment of disturbance-free areas in at least 2 SPAs of international importance for

wintering and/or staging Pintail (result 7); performing annual mid-winter census of all areas of international importance for

wintering Pintail as part of the International Waterfowl Census (result 8).The other actions require further work, and in particular the following two, for which little or no work has been carried out: making available data on the annual number of Pintail shot (result 2); supporting national ringing activities and analyses, currently carried out only at local scale

(result 10).

The achievement of the short-term objectives set in the plan is showed below on the basis of the implementation of the corresponding measures.


Implementation

Assessment of the potential impact of hunting and collection of annual bag data

1, 2 No. Little or no work for the collection of annual individuals shot. A new national inquiry is going to take place for the 2013-2014 hunting season. No knowledge of the potential impact of hunting.

Restoration and management of breeding and wintering sites

3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Yes. For wintering sites (Pintail is not a breeding species in France)

Monitoring of population sizes and trends

8, 9 Yes. Winter counts have been conducted for several years. The population size and trends are known.

Collection of more robust 10 No. No data collected

68


data to identify population units, estimates of mortality and other types of population regulations

SpainThe EU Management Plan implementation is ongoing. There is no specific national/regional plans for the species and other measures have been taken independently from the EU Management Plan. All actions have been implemented according to species protection included in Spanish legislation (habitat and species protection, SPA designation, periodic monitoring, etc.). The measures are undertaken at national and regional level. The hunting community does not play a specific role in the implementation of the measures, but only contribute to the collection of annual number of Pintail shot.

On the basis of the IS entered in the questionnaire, the NIS is good being equal to 3,19 that corresponds to a plan implementation progress of about 80%.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 36. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action for the Anas acuta EU Management Plan in Spain. Colours represent Priority Score.

The measure concerning the establishment of a national monitoring programme to assess annual productivity of breeding populations (result 9) is scored as not relevant.

Almost all the actions are fully implemented. The only three actions that need further work are, in order of priority (API): to make available data on annual number of individuals shot (result 2); to put in place ringing activities, analyses of existing ringing data and annual estimates of

mortality (result 10); to restore breeding sites where Pintail has disappeared or is in decline (result 3).

The progress in the achievement of the short-term objectives of the EU Plan are shown in the following table.

69



Implementation

Assessment of the potential impact of hunting and collection of annual bag data

1, 2 No. Potential impact of hunting not assessed and no updated data on hunting bags available.

Restoration and management of breeding and wintering sites

3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Yes. 52 sites, all of them Natura 2000 sites

Monitoring of population sizes and trends

8, 9 Yes.

Collection of more robust data to identify population units, estimates of mortality and other types of population regulations

10 No or little work carried out

70


Table 22. PINTAIL - Anas acuta


ActionPriorityIndex

MEMBER STATE BE ES FR HR HU LV SK

1. No Pintails are hunted during spring migration or the end of the breeding season 3 0,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 4,0 0,0

2. Data on the annual number of Pintail shot is available where hunting is permitted 3 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 2,0 2,0

3. Restoration of breeding sites is initiated where Pintail has disappeared or is in decline 3 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 3,00 1,00 2,5 1,5

4. Identification, conservation, wise-use and management of wetlands and other habitats with breeding Pintail is supported

3 3,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 3,00 1,00 2,8 1,2

5. All staging and wintering areas of international importance for Pintail are identified and designated SPAs 3 4,00 4,00 3,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 3,8 0,2

6. SPAs of international importance as staging and wintering resorts are managed in a way that stops habitat degradation and secure access to feeding opportunities

2 3,00 4,00 3,00 2,00 0,00 3,00 1,00 2,7 0,9

7. Disturbance-free areas are established in at least 2 SPAs of international importance for wintering and/or staging Pintail 3 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 1,00 3,5 0,5

8. Annual mid-winter census of all areas of international importance for wintering Pintail are carried out 3 4,00 4,00 4,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 3,6 0,4

9. A national monitoring programme to assess annual productivity in late summer prior to the autumn migration is established

3 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 2,00 2,00 1,7 2,3

10. National ringing activities and analyses of existing ringing data to identify population units and provide annual estimates of mortality are supported

3 4,00 1,00 1,00 3,00 2,00 3,00 1,00 2,1 1,9


71


Coturnix coturnix


Seven Member States have applied the actions of the management plan for the Common Quail; in most of them it is still being implemented (Belgium, Spain, Hungary and Latvia). However, in Latvia the plan implementation is at a very early stage since almost all the applicable actions have not been carried out at all or very little.

Some measures taken for the Quail in both Spain and France have been triggered by the plan. For instance, the establishment of individual hunting bag records and daily authorised hunting offtakes established in some departments in France has been inspired by the plan.

Other measures have been also taken regardless of the plan in Belgium, Spain and Slovakia. Some of these are specific for the Quail, while others are not aimed at the species but can support it. For example, the species is protected in Hungary and strictly protected in Slovakia, while a number of habitat restoration measures, agri-environmental measures and subsidies for planting hedges and for game crops carried out in Belgium and Hungary are probably beneficial for the species even though not specifically aiming at it.

Several kinds of instruments have been used to implement the measures of the plan in the different Member States. These range from species protection legislations, hunting laws and regulations (Alien Invasive Species regulations and similar legal measures to forbid releasing Japanese Quail) to Rural programmes and/or other agri-environmental schemes, to monitoring schemes and research programmes. In France are running: two national programmes for monitoring breeding populations: ACT (1996) ,“Alaudidae,

Colombidae and Turdidae” programme and STOC (1989), “Suivi Temporel des Oiseaux Communs”;

an international programme to improve understanding of the demographic functioning of western metapopulations of the species covering France, Spain, Portugal and Morocco. The programme only concerns breeding.

The hunting of the Quail is allowed only in Spain and France. In both countries the hunting community at its own initiative has played some significant role in the implementations of the plan. It has contributed to the research and monitoring of both populations and hunting bags in Spain. Its role seems to have been more relevant France, where it put in place: habitat management measures, such as maintaining of postharvest stubble or setting up

refuge areas after harvest to improve breeding success in spring; maximum authorised hunting offtakes.

Some limiting factors in the plan implementations are identified in: most of the Management Plan’s actions are linked to hunting (i.e.. hunting seasons, bag

limits, bag statistics, etc.) and therefore few actions proposed in the plan are relevant for countries where the species is not hunted (Belgium);

there might be a loss of interest for the species from part of the stakeholders where the species is not allowed to be hunted (Belgium);

72


agri-environmental schemes only run in some sites (protected areas, Natura 2000 areas, etc.) while a large part of the population probably lives in agricultural land outside these areas (Hungary);

some of the research actions listed in the management plan are beyond the capacities of Hungary;

lack of available funding for the transposition of the EU management plan at national level in France.

The contribution of the implemented actions is considered not relevant for improving the population status of the Quail in Slovakia and unknown in the other countries.


The EU Management plan for Coturnix coturnix does not set short-term objectives.



The plan implementation in the seven countries that have been evaluated, is overall moderate (AIS=2,1). The greatest progresses in implementing actions have been made in Spain (NIS=2,78) and France (NIS=2,62), where the species occurs in higher breeding numbers and it is huntable. The reduced progresses in Belgium, Hungary and Sweden could be attributed to the fact that most of the actions of the plan are focused on hunting and only few actions are therefore applicable where the Quail hunting is not allowed.

BE ES FR HU LV SE SK AIS1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

2.78

2.06

NIS

/AIS

Figure 37. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation Score of the EU Management Plan for Coturnix coturnix.

The only measure fully implemented in both countries where the hunting is allowed, is the enforcement of hunting legislation in relation to the hunting season (result 2).


73


Greater work is still to be carried out in habitat conservation and management (result 4), in making available bag statistics (result 8), in providing assistance to African countries to help ban the release of Japanese/hybrid Quails (result 5) and in enforcing the ban of Japanese Quail releasing (result 1).

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 38. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action listed in the Coturnix coturnix EU Management Plan across all EU Member States. Colours represent Priority Score.

The following paragraphs provide an example of the implementation of the EU Management plan for Common Quail in some countries.

FranceThe EU Management Plan was not transposed into a national plan and a specific national or regional plan for the Common Quail exists in France, because of lack of funding. However, some measures are implemented, some of them triggered by the EU management plan, such as the establishment in three departments of individual hunting bag records and daily authorised hunting offtakes. The hunting community contributed to this latter measure as well as to habitat management measures such as maintaining of postharvest stubble or setting up of refuge areas after harvest to improve breeding success in spring.

The measures undertaken are integrated in different instruments, ranging from the national hunting law and the Rural programme, to national and international monitoring programmes.

The activities carried out contributed to the EU Management Plan implementation, although not explicitly taken in this framework. The progress with implementation of the EU Management Plan is 2,62 (NIS), corresponding to about 65%.

The actions fully implemented are relative to: policy and legislative measures, in particular the ban and its enforcement of releasing the

Japanese Quail its hybrids, the development of genetic identification methods (result 1),

74


and the definition of the hunting season not affecting breeding birds and birds during spring migration (result 2);

research and monitoring, especially in relation to monitoring schemes of breeding populations (result 7). Data collection, following a shared methodology, is conducted through collaboration schemes between France, Spain, Portugal and Morocco. The programme only concerns breeding populations.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 39. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action for the Coturnix coturnix EU Management Plan in France. Colours represent Priority Score.

The actions only very partially implemented and needing further work are: ensuring that hunting level does not put at risk the recovery of the Quail population

(result 3). The last estimate of hunting offtakes was done during the 1998-1999 season. A new assessment is expected for the 2013-2014 season (see also result 8);

management of staging habitats (result 4): habitat management measures are focused on breeding habitat and special care is given to the management of agricultural habitats (cereals, meadows, feeding crops).

improving knowledge about wintering and breeding populations in Africa (result 6); having regular bag statistics (result 8); research on “flyway populations” and on exchanges between the European Common

Quail and the African subspecies (result 9).

The technical assistance to African countries where Quail hunting is important, so as to help ban the release of Japanese/hybrid Quails (result 5) was scored as not needed/relevant.

SpainThe implementation of the EU Management Plan is ongoing. No specific national/regional plan for the species has been produced, but other measures have been taken independently from the EU Management Plan. Actions have been implemented according to species protection included in Spanish legislation and therefore they are integrated in such instruments (habitat and species protection, SPA designation, periodic monitoring, Alien Invasive Species regulations, etc.).

75


The hunting community has contributed at its own initiative to measures relating research, monitoring and hunting bags.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 40. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action for the Coturnix coturnix EU Management Plan in Spain. Colours represent Priority Score.

The average progress with implementation of the plan (NIS) is 2,78 corresponding to about 70%.The two essential/critical measures (ban of Japanese Quail release, results 1, and habitat management, result 4) are at a good point. The measures fully implemented are: to ensure that hunting does not affect late breeding birds and birds during spring

migration (result 2); the establishment and use of a common method validated by the EBCC to monitor

species populations (result 7).

The least implemented measures are: to provide assistance to African countries where Quail hunting is important (result 5); to improve the knowledge about wintering and breeding populations in Africa (result 6).

76


Table 23. COMMON QUAIL - Coturnix coturnix


ActionPriorityIndex

MEMBER STATE BE ES FR HU LV SE SK

1. The release both on public and private lands, fenced-in or not, of the Japanese Quail (C.c. japonica) and its various hybrids (C.c. coturnix x C.c. japonica) is explicitly forbidden and this ban is effectively enforced. - Methods of genetic identification of both subspecies are developed in order to achieve an objective identification

4 2,50 3,00 4,00 1,00 4,00 2,50 1,00 2,6 1,9

2. Hunting seasons do not involve the breeding period (as defined in “Period of reproduction and prenuptial migration of Annex II bird species in the EU”), and hunting does not affect late breeding birds and birds during spring migration.

3 0,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,0 0,0

3. The overall permitted hunting level, as set through national bag limits, is kept below levels that risk significantly slowing the rate of recovery of the European Quail population.

2 0,00 3,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,0 1,3

4. Breeding and staging habitats are conserved, managed sustainably and, eventually, restored in MSs with significant numbers of breeding Common Quail.

4 1,00 3,00 2,00 2,00 2,00 0,00 1,00 1,8 2,9

5. Technical assistance is provided to African countries where Quail hunting is important, so as to help ban the release of Japanese/hybrid Quails. 2 0,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 1,0 2,0

6. The knowledge about wintering populations in North and West Africa, and breeding populations in North Africa, is improving and made widely available. 2 0,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 1,3 1,8

7. A common method is agreed, validated by the EBCC and used by the MS to monitor species populations. 2 1,00 4,00 4,00 3,00 1,00 4,00 2,00 2,7 0,9

8. Regular bag statistics are available where Common Quail hunting is allowed. 3 0,00 3,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,0 2,09. Research is under way to identify (1) the relative level of isolation of the four

large palearctic “flyway populations” and the functional links between the regions lying on each of the four paths, and (2) the existence of exchanges between the European population of the Common Quail and the southern (C.c. africana) and eastern (C.c. erlangeri) African subspecies.

1 1,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 1,2 0,9


77


Netta rufina


Eight Member States have applied the management plan for the Red-crested Pochard and in Spain its implementation is still ongoing. The plan is not relevant in Finland, Latvia, Malta and Sweden, since the species is occasional, irregular visitor or very rare.

In France, a national plan specific for Netta rufina has been produced and it is currently in review process, while in The Netherlands a protection plan has been developed for marsh birds, including Netta rufina.

Some of the measures taken in both Spain and France for the species have been inspired by the EU management plan; in particular, a research programme on ecology, demography and genetics carried out in France has been triggered by the first version of the EU management plan. Protection measures not provided by the plan have been also implemented, such as the species protection or strictly protection under national legislation in Hungary, Bulgaria, Croatia and Slovakia.

In no country the plan has been directly implemented as such, but a number of actions have been taken under diverse instruments not necessarily focusing at the Red-crested Pochard: general nature protection and Natura 2000 legislations, under which SPAs, protected

reserves or other types of protected areas with hunting and disturbance free regime are designed;

waterbird hunting law, regional hunting bag survey schemes and a research program by BioSphère Environnement in France;

sectoral plans (forestry, hunting, water management, physical) incorporating nature conservation measures in Croatia;

habitat restoration projects in Hungary, and wetlands and lakes management, water level and quality control in Belgium;

awareness-raising measures to increase duck identification skills of hunters (posters, leaflets etc.) in Hungary;

the Dutch Network of Ecological Monitoring (NEM).

The Red-crested Pochard is huntable in Spain and France, where the hunting community have contributed to implement the measures related to hunting by: controlling the hunting bags and the lead ammunition banning in wetlands, in Spain; starting the CPU (Carnet de Prélèvement Universel) and contributing to two regional

schemes of hunting bag survey, in France.

The level of implementation of the plan in the Member States has been found as depending on the following elements: there has been no follow-up of the plan, the Red-crested Pochard being not really a

priority species in France; the measures have been carried out not specifically focusing on the species in France and

Croatia; the number of birds is too low to implement some specific actions in Belgium.

78


In general, the impact of the measures carried out is not known, because no specific evaluation scheme were planned and implemented. However, actions taken are believed to have not contributed to improving the population status of the Red-crested Pochard both in France and Slovakia. In particular, in France, there is a possibility that its status never stopped improving without the help of any man-driven conservation measures. The evolution of the status of the species in Belgium could be closely linked to the European increasing of the breeding population, but it could also depend on the water quality improvement in Belgium. The actions could have positively contributed in Hungary, since the species is spreading as a breeder and in The Netherlands, where both the breeding and wintering populations are increasing.


The EU Management plan for Netta rufina does not set short-term objectives.



The average implementation score of the management plan in overall the eight Member States that applied it, is quite good (AIS=3,0), the highest reached among the 13 management plans. The best progress has been made by Spain (NIS=3,56), where the species is present with the greatest breeding and wintering populations.

BE BG ES FR HR HU NL SK AIS1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

3.56

2.70

NIS

/AIS

Figure 41. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation Score of the EU Management Plan for Netta rufina.

The species is huntable in Spain and France, but not in the other countries, where measures concerning the hunting activity (results 1, 2 and 9) are therefore not applicable. Such measures have a good implementation in Spain and lower in France, where further work has


79


to be made to assess the relative importance of hunting as a mortality cause (result 9) and to set hunting at sustainable levels (result 2).

A good progress has also been achieved in species protection (establishing disturbance-free areas, result 4) and habitat management (conservation, wise use and management of wetlands and other habitats with breeding, moulting, staging or wintering Red-crested Pochard, result 3).

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 42. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action listed in the Netta rufina EU Management Plan across all EU Member States. Colours represent Priority Score.

The following paragraphs provide an example of the implementation of the EU Management plan for Red-crested Pochard in some countries.

FranceThe EU Management Plan for Netta rufina was not transposed at national level, but France has developed a specific national plan for the species, though it is still under revision. Measures have been undertaken that contributed to the implementation of the EU Management Plan. One of these was triggered by the EU Management Plan, i.e. a research programme on ecology, demography and genetics of the species, while the others have been taken independently from the EU Management Plan and they are not specific for Netta rufina.

The measures were taken within rules and plans concerning Natura 2000 Network, water birds hunting law, research programs and monitoring hunting bags schemes.

The hunting community contributed to the assessment of hunting as a mortality cause (result 9) by starting the CPU (Carnet de Prélèvement Universel) national program and contributing to two regional schemes of hunting bag survey.

The National Implementation Score of the plan is 2,69. However, there was no follow-up of the Management Plan, all measures were designed for several species and most of them

80


were implemented before 2007, when the EU Management Plan for Netta Rufina was updated.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 43. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action for the Netta rufina EU Management Plan in France. Colours represent Priority Score.

The two actions fully implemented are to ensure that hunting does not take place during spring migration or during the end of the breeding season (result 2) and the establishment of disturbance-free areas in all SPAs of international importance for wintering or moulting/staging Red-crested Pochard (result 4). All the other actions need further work, in particular: identification, wisely use and management of all habitats with breeding, moulting,

staging or wintering Red-crested Pochard (result 3); setting hunting at sustainable levels (result 1); assessment of population sizes and trends in key breeding areas and measurement of the

annual productivity (result 7); assessment of the importance of hunting as a mortality cause and of the sustainability of

harvest rates (result 9); the assessment of impacts by socio-economic activities and the adoption of mitigation

measures where it is significant (result 5).

SpainThe EU management plan is still ongoing. All actions have been implemented at national geographical scale under the Spanish legislation on species protection (habitat and species protection, SPA designation, periodic monitoring, etc.).

The hunting community took part at authorities’ request in the control of hunting bags and in the ban of use of lead ammunition in wetlands.

The plan is highly implemented (NIS = 3,56, that is 89%).

81


1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 44. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action for the Netta rufina EU Management Plan in Spain. Colours represent Priority Score.

Only four actions are not yet completed, but their accomplishment requires further little work: to set hunting at sustainable levels (result 1); permanent monitoring and change assessment of distribution, key sites and population

size (result 6); detection of probability of breeding birds and measurement of annual productivity in key

breeding areas to assess local breeding population sizes and trends (result 7); assessment of the relative importance of hunting as a mortality cause and the

sustainability of current harvest rates (result 9).

82


Table 24. RED-CRESTED POCHARD - Netta rufina

RESULT/ACTION PriorityScore Implementation Score (IS) Ave.

IS

ActionPriorityIndex

MEMBER STATE BE BG ES FI FR HR HU LV MT NL SE SK1. Hunting is set at sustainable levels, as defined by the

results of studies to be undertaken under Result n° 9. 3 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,5 1,5

2. No red-crested Pochards are hunted during spring migration or during the end of the breeding season. 3 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,0 0,0

3. All wetlands and other habitats with breeding, moulting, staging or wintering Red-crested Pochard are identified, conserved, wisely used and managed

4 3,50 4,00 4,00 0,00 2,00 3,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 1,50 3,0 1,3

4. Within SPAs of international importance for wintering or moulting/staging Red-crested Pochard, the species can benefit from sufficient disturbance-free areas

3 0,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 2,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 1,00 3,0 1,0

5. The potential impact of disturbance created by the various socio-economic activities is assessed and where it is shown to be significant, mitigation measures are adopted by mutual agreement with the relevant stakeholders.

2 2,50 1,00 4,00 0,00 1,50 1,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 1,00 2,0 1,3

6. The distribution, key sites and population size are permanently monitored and their changes rapidly assessed

3 3,50 1,00 3,00 0,00 3,50 1,00 2,50 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 3,00 2,7 1,3

7. In key breeding areas, local breeding population sizes and trends are assessed taking into account recent results on the detection probability of breeding birds, and annual productivity is measured

3 4,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 2,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 2,6 1,4

8. Large-scale population units are clearly identified and annual mortality is estimated 3 0,00 1,00 4,00 0,00 3,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,50 0,00 2,50 2,0 2,0

9. The relative importance of hunting as a mortality cause is assessed, as well as the sustainability of current harvest rates

3 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,5 1,5

National IS 3,46 2,40 3,56 NR 2,69 1,61 2,31 NR NR 2,92 NR 2,03 2,7 Overall IS

83


Aythya marila


The management plan for Scaup has been implemented in six out of the 12 Member States that have been included in this evaluation, and it is still being implemented in Finland and Latvia. The species is not present in Spain and very rare in Malta and therefore the plan is not relevant in these countries.

France is the only country that has adopted a specific management plan for Aythya marila, which also provides for demographic studies to learn behaviour and spatial utilisation. The measures carried out for the Scaup have been inspired/triggered by the EU Management Plan only in Finland. Both Slovakia and Hungary have also taken measures other than those recommended in plan. In both countries the Scaup is protected or strictly protected under the general nature protection law. In Hungary awareness-raising measures have been also put in place to increase duck identification skills of hunters (posters, leaflets etc.) and avoid accidental shot of protected species, and waterbird hunting has been restricted in several wetlands which are important, among others, for the Scaup.

A number of plan’s measures have been adopted in Finland and France with different tools: National Bird Monitoring Programs, Game Management Programs and the National Action Plan of Ecological Effects of Oil Spills in Finland; the census programme and the national management plan for Aythya marila in France.

The Scaup hunting is allowed only in France and Latvia, where the hunting community, provided some contribution to the plan’s measures by the annual estimation of the individuals shot in France and the control of predators in Latvia.

The main elements regarded as limiting the plan implementation are: too few competent field workers in the core breeding region in Finland; the Scaup is a very rare migrating and wintering species in Slovakia and a scarce winter

visitor in Hungary for applying specific actions.

In three cases (Bulgaria, France and Latvia), the impact of the implemented actions on population status of the Scaup is not known, while it is supposed to have not contributed in the other countries. In particular, the Finnish population is too small population to bear global effects.


None of the six short-term objectives set in the management plan for the Scaup has been fully achieved in any of the six Member States. France is the closest to achieving them, having not fully reached only one of them (objective 6). Hungary, Latvia and Slovakia have only missed one objective each. Finland, with two objectives not at all achieved is the hindmost country.

84


The achievement of the objectives is of the plan in the six countries is partial. Only the objective 2 is fully reached, but it is relevant only in Finland, the only hosting breeding populations. The objective 5 (introduction of a voluntary temporary hunting ban) is not reached at all: the relative action is considered not relevant in France, while it has not been applied in Latvia. The other four objectives show partial achievements.

Objective 1 has not been reached only by Slovakia, since there is no sites protection and management plans for SPAs.

Objective 3 has not been reached only by Finland, since no action has been taken to avoid drowning in fishing nets, notwithstanding a survey is underway to collect data on possible by-catches of various fisheries of the Finnish fishing fleet. However, most of the fishery is trawling, not considered as a threat to seabirds.

Objective 4 has been partly reached because Bulgaria has not taken action to avoid oil spills.

Finally, objective 6 (collection of better research data) seems to be the least implemented: two Member States that have not taken action to achieve it, while other two have taken only some of the actions contributing to achieve it. In particular, Finland, which has one of the main breeding populations of Scaup, and the only with breeding populations among these six countries, has undertaken no research (it has been studied only breeding success and only at one site in the Bay of Bothnia in 2008-10). Similarly, Hungary only takes records of waterfowls, including the Scaup.


MS

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.WS site

safeguard, shell

fishery and disturbance

control

Identify and address

causes of the decline of breeding

population

Take action to stop

drowning in fishing nets and hunting

Take action

to avoid oil spills

Voluntary temporary

hunting ban

Collect better data on W pop. size, mortality, B success and

links between B and W pop.

Meas. 5, 7 3, 4 6 8 1 2, 9, 10, 11 OverallBG Yes Not relevant Yes No Not relev. Partially PartiallyFI Not relev. Yes No Yes Not relev. No PartiallyFR Yes Not relevant Not relevant Not rel. Not relev. Partially PartiallyHU Yes Not relevant Not relevant Not rel. Not relev. No PartiallyLV Yes Not relevant Yes Yes No Yes PartiallySK No Not relevant Not relevant Not rel. Not relev. Yes Partially

Overall Partially Yes Partially Partially No Partially

Table 25. Achievement of the short-term objectives of the EU Management Plan for Aythya marila in the relevant Member States in relation to the implementation of the related measures.

85




The overall implementation of the plan across the six Member States that have applied it, is moderate (AIS=2,2), with greatest progresses in Latvia (NIS=2.69) .

BG FI FR HU LV SK AIS1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

2.69

2.16NIS

/AIS

Figure 45. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation Score of the EU Management Plan for Aythya marila.

The measure reserved to the Dutch part of the Wadden Sea, to reduce shell fishing activities (result 7), is not applicable in any countries.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 46. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action listed in the Aythya marila EU Management Plan across all EU Member States. Colours represent Priority Score.


86


The species is huntable only in France and Latvia and therefore measures relating to hunting (results 1 and 2) are not applicable in the other countries. The species occurs as breeding only in Finland and only as wintering or staging in the other countries. Therefore, measures aimed at wintering/staging populations (results 5 and 9) are not applicable in Finland and those aimed at breeding populations (results 3, 4 and 10) are not applicable in the other countries.

The best implemented measure is the protection of breeding sites with the monitoring of the population sizes and trend (result 4), implemented only in Finland. The monitoring of wintering and moulting areas of international importance (result 9) and the protection and management of all major wintering, staging and moulting sites (result 5), also show a good progress.The least implemented actions requiring greatest efforts, mainly in Finland, where no or little work has been carried out, are the research on survival rates and fecundity (result 10) and the assessment of the need for restrictions of fishing activities to reduce by-catch (result 6).

The following paragraphs provide an example of the implementation of the EU Management plan for Scaup in some countries.

FranceThe EU Management Plan has not been directly implemented, but some of the recommended actions have been carried out through other instruments, including a specific national management plan for the species. The great part of the measures are implemented at national scale.

Progress in the implementation of the action plan in France is fairly moderate (NIS = 2,20, equal to about 55%).

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 47. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action for the Aythya marila EU Management Plan in France. Colours represent Priority Score.

87


Most actions are evaluated as not relevant or not necessary, such as all the measures relating to breeding populations (the Scaup is not a breeding species in France) (results 3, 4, 10), the establishment of a temporary ban (result 1), the restriction of fishing activities (result 6) and of shell fishing activities (the measure is targeted at the Dutch part of the Wadden Sea) (result 7) and the prevention of oil pollution (result 8).

The only action fully implemented is the protection as SPAs with management plans wintering, staging and moulting sites (result 5). The remaining three actions are not implemented at all or with no significant progress and have the same urgency level (API=2): The establishment and implementation of a program for a complete census of all

wintering and moulting areas of international importance for Scaup (result 9). The current French programme just includes mid-winter counts. However, the French national management plan provides for researches and monitoring, also to assess the impact of water pollutant on Scaup survival and reproductive functions.

The availability of annual number of Scaup shot (result 2). Currently, the survey of individuals hunted is at regional level and concern only 27 departments.

The research on population structure and links between breeding and wintering populations (result 11).

On the basis of the implementation level of the actions, the progress in the achievement of the short-term objectives could be showed as follows.


Implementation

Protecting wintering, staging and moulting habitats through site safeguard and control of shell fisheries and disturbance

5, 7 Yes. The two main wintering sites for this species are included in the Natural 2000 network. Control of shell fisheries is not relevant

Identification and addressing the causes of the decline of the breeding population

3, 4 Not relevant. The Scaup is not a breeding species in France. However, the French national management plan provides for researches and monitoring also to assess the impact of water pollutant on Scaup survival and reproductive functions.

Minimising mortality caused by drowning in fishing nests and hunting

6 Not relevant.

Avoiding oil spills 8 Not relevant.Introducing voluntary temporary hunting ban if appropriate

1 Not relevant.

Collection of better data on size of winter population, mortality, breeding success and links between breeding and wintering populations

2, 9, 10, 11

Partially. Only data on size of the wintering population. However, the French national management plan provides for researches and monitoring also to assess the impact of water pollutant on Scaup survival and reproductive functions.

SpainThe species is not present in Spain and therefore the whole plan is not relevant.

88


89


Table 26. SCAUP - Aythya marila

RESULT/ACTION PS Implementation Score (IS) Ave. IS API

MEMBER STATE BG ES FI FR HU LV MT SK1. A temporary hunting ban is established 1 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,0 1,02. An estimate of the annual number of Scaup shot is available (where hunting

continues)2 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 2,0 1,3

3. Important breeding sites are identified and protected, including as SPAs as appropriate, with management plans.- The population sizes and trends are regularly monitored as part of a national monitoring program in place by the end of 2011

3 0,00 0,00 3,50 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,5 0,5

4. Management actions are taken to reduce nest losses due to predation by man-induced terrestrial or avian predators.

3 0,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,0 2,0

5. All major wintering, staging and moulting sites are protected, both the roosts and feeding areas, as SPAs with management plans

3 4,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 3,00 3,00 0,00 1,00 3,0 1,0

6. The need for restrictions of fishing activities to reduce by-catch is assessed:- where flocks of moulting and wintering Scaup regularly occur- in the breeding areas, where necessary action is taken to regulate significantly damaging operations without delay

3 2,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 1,7 2,3

7. On basis of an extensive research, the needs for restrictions of shell fishing activities in the Wadden Sea are assessed.If necessary, supportive actions to regulate significantly damaging shell fishing activities are urgently implemented.

3 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,0 0,0

8. Improved pollution prevention and improved oil spill contingency planning is in place in marine areas.

2 1,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 2,7 0,9

9. By the end of 2011 a program for a complete census of all wintering and moulting areas of international importance for Scaup is developed and subsequently implemented. The programme, as a minimum, includes mid-winter counts every 3 years and surveys of moulting areas in August every 6 years.

3 4,00 0,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 4,00 3,3 0,8

10. The MS supports research on survival rates and fecundity which allows modelling of population development and assessment of effects of additional mortalities (such as hunting, by-catch, disease outbreaks, localized impacts on survival and reproduction)

3 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,0 3,0

11. Research on the population structure and relatedness of the different geographic segments is supported, including the fidelity to breeding, staging and wintering sites.

2 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 3,00 1,5 1,7

National IS 2,62 NR 1,91 2,20 2,20 2,69 NR 2,63 2,2 Overall IS

90


Streptopelia turtur


The management plan for the Turtle Dove has been applied in six Member States and three of them, Spain, Hungary and Latvia, are still implementing it. The plan is not relevant in Sweden and Finland, where the species occurs in very low numbers.

The actions’ plan could have inspired a subsidy for planting hedges and the monitoring of breeding populations in Belgium, while the first version of the Plan has triggered a two weeks delay for the opening of the hunting season, in France from mid August to the end of August in 2000.

With the only exception of Hungary, all the other countries have also take measures independently from the plan: agro-environmental measures in specified ‘meadow bird areas’ (excl. nature reserves) in Belgium, guidelines were established for the management of hedgerows and hedgerow landscape in some regional protected areas in France, the species is protected in Hungary and is listed as strictly protected in the Slovakian nature protection law.

In almost all the Member States the measures of the plan have been undertaken as part of other tools. In Hungary measures have been applied through the PDPO (Program Document for Development of the agricultural area) and other legal measures to encourage to maintain or plant hedges. Similarly, agri-environmental schemes have been used in Hungary. In Spain actions have been implemented according to the Spanish legislation on habitat and species protection, SPA designation, periodic monitoring, etc., and through sectorial plans.Different instruments have been adopted in France: hunting law, CPU (Carnet de Prélèvement Universel), national monitoring schemes (ACT, “Alaudidae Columbidae Turdidae” and STOC “comon breeding birds survey”), research initiatives from universities and the Centre of forestry research of Rabat and research projects such as counts of wintering and staging populations in West Africa by planes and data collection by electronic loggers, studies on the survival rate of adults birds in relation to the availability of food in the wintering areas in West Africa, collection of data on migration flyways, wintering areas and chronology of migration.

The hunting community has provided certain contribution to carry out some measure in France and Spain, where the Turtle Dove is a huntable species. In Spain it has supported in monitoring migrating birds, breeding surveys and monitoring hunting bags. In France it has put in place a programme to replant hedges and develop wildlife set-aside land to improve breeding success in spring. Moreover, some departments have implemented local daily bag limits.

Some of the reasons that could have limited the plan implementation are: the Turtle Dove is a common and widespread species and its habitats (woodland edges,

agricultural fields with hedges) are not in the main focus of conservation measures in Hungary;

few actions proposed in the plan are not related to hunting and there might be a loss of interest for the species from part of the stakeholders in Belgium where it is not hunted.

91


lack of available funding for the transposition of the EU management plan at national level in France.

The contribution of the actions implemented to the status of the Turtle Dove population is considered unknown in most countries, since not assessed. No contribution appears to have been in Belgium, where the population is in sharp decrease, and in Slovakia.


None of the six Member States has fully reached the four short-term objectives of the management plan for the Turtle Dove. France and Latvia, with only one objective missed, seem to be the closest to their full achievement and Slovakia the hindmost with no objective reached.

In overall, three objectives have been partially achieved and not at all the fourth (objective 3), since no Member State has analysed the potential competition between the Collared Dove and the Turtle Dove. Among the three objectives partially achieved, the objective 4 would seem to be the closest to the full achievement. It involves only France and Spain and seems to be partially achieved because Spain has done little or no work to develop a predictive model to determine a sustainable annual bag (measure 5), while France deems not relevant a such model, fully achieving the objective.The objective 1 has been reached by all countries with the only exception of Slovakia that has carried out no or little work to maintain and better protect wooded farmland, hedges and other habitats important for breeding.Objective 2 involves different monitoring and research studies, including international cooperation actions. None of these has been carried out in Belgium, while all of them show a good progress in France, where different initiatives have been supported also involving African countries. All the other Member States deem not relevant to gather information from Turkey, Russia and West Africa.


MS

1. 2. 3. 4.

Improving management and

restoration of breeding habitats

Collection of data on trend, ecology and dynamic, in

breeding and wintering areas

Analysis of competition between the

Collared Dove and the Turtle Dove

Collection of more robust data to

better understand the importance of

huntingMeas. 1 6 - 10 10 3, 4, 5 Overall

BE Yes No No Not relevant PartiallyES Yes Partially No Partially PartiallyFR Yes Yes No Yes PartiallyHU Yes Partially No Not relevant PartiallyLV Yes Yes No Not relevant PartiallySK No Partially No Not relevant Partially

Overall Partially Partially No Partially

Table 27. Achievement of the short-term objectives of the EU Management Plan for Streptopelia turtur in the relevant Member States in relation to the implementation of the related measures.

92




The management plan has a moderate implementation (AIS=2,3), with the best implementation in the countries where hunting Turtle Dove is allowed and in particular in France (NIS=3,12).

BE ES FR HU LV SK AIS1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

3.12

2.28

NIS

/AIS

Figure 48. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation Score of the EU Management Plan for Streptopelia turtur.

The management plan is mainly focused on actions linked to the hunting activities (hunting season and bag statistics, results 2, 3, 4 and 5) and therefore few actions are relevant in the countries where hunting is not permitted.

Enforcement of hunting legislation setting the hunting season (result 2) is fully implemented in both France and Spain, while further work has to be made in relation to the bag statistics (result 3) and in particular to the development of a predictive model to determine a sustainable annual bag (result 5), for which Spain has carried out little or no work, while France reputes it as not relevant.

Collection of hunting bags information from key countries outside the EU where European populations pass on migration and winter (result 4) is evaluated as not relevant both in France and Spain.


93


1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 49. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action listed in the Streptopelia turtur EU Management Plan across all EU Member States. Colours represent Priority Score.

The following paragraphs provide an example of the implementation of the EU Management plan for Turtle Dove in some countries.

FranceThe EU Management Plan is not transposed at national level, due in particular to a lack of available funding, neither there is a national or regional plan for the species. However, some measure triggered by the EU Management Plan (i.e. delay for the opening of the hunting season) and other measures not related to the EU Management Plan (i.e. guidelines for the management of hedgerows and hedgerow landscape in some regional protected areas) have been taken and implemented. Some measures are integrated in other instruments: hunting law, programs (CPU -Carnet de Prélèvement Universel; Vigie-Nature, a citizens science program).

The measures are implemented mainly at national scale, but also regional and local. Some monitoring activities are also carried out at international scale involving Western Africa (Mali, Morroco and Algeria).

The hunting community contributed on its own initiative in the implementation of some measures, such as developing a program to replant hedges and to support wildlife on set-aside land to improve breeding success in spring and setting daily bag limits in one department.

94


1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

Figure 50. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action for the Streptopelia turtur EU Management Plan in France. Colours represent Priority Score.

The bodies in charge of the actions are different, also according to the geographical scale of implementation: Ministry of Environment, national agency (ONCFS), hunters associations (FNC, FRC, FDC), NGOs and ornithologist associations. In particular, local authorities/communities, including regional natural parks, municipalities, terrestrial community authorities at the district and regional level, are involved in the management of hedges and hedgerow landscape (action 1.).

The measures carried out have contributed to the implementation of the EU Management Plan. The NIS, representing the average progress with implementation of the EU Management Plan for Streptopelia turtur by France, is 3,12 that means an implementation of about 78%.

The actions fully implemented are relative to: policy and legislative measures, in particular the definition of the hunting season not

affecting breeding birds and birds during spring migration (result 2); research and monitoring, especially in relation to monitoring schemes (result 6) and

national ringing activities (result 7).

The actions receiving the least implementations and needing further work are: management of habitats important for breeding (result 1) research to assess the relations with agricultural management and the potential

competition with Collared Dove (result 10).



Implementation

Improving management of breeding habitats

1 Yes, particular attention for the management of hedges and hedgerow landscape, with also the contribution of the hunting community

95


Collection of scientific data about population trend, ecology and dynamic, in both breeding and wintering areas

6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Yes, data have been collected on: survival rate of adults in relation to the availability of food in the wintering areas, migration flyways, wintering areas and chronology of the migration.National ringing activities are carried out and estimates on mortality and breeding success are supported.Two national schemes are used: ACT "Alaudidae Columbidae Turdidae" (since 1993) and STOC "common breeding birds survey"(since 1989)

Analysis of potential competition between the Collared Dove and the Turtle Dove

10 No study

Collection of more robust scientific data to better understand the potential importance of hunting on the populations

3, 4, 5 Yes. Bag statistics are available at national scale every 10 years. The last estimation of the national hunting bag was conducted in the 1998-1999 season. A new estimate assessment is expected for the 2013-2014 season.Data collection of hunting bags from countries outside the EU and development of a predictive model to determine what annual bag would be sustainable, are considered not needed/relevant actions.

Some comments and suggestions are raised: There must have been initiatives to develop sustainable hunting in Maghreb countries AEWA only takes into account waterbirds but not terrestrial migratory species

SpainThe EU Management Plan is currently under implementation. The measures are applied in accordance with the national acts regulating habitat and species protection, SPA designation, periodic monitoring, hunting, etc. Some measures are integrated in sectorial plans. The hunting community played a role in monitoring migrating birds, hunting bags and breeding surveys.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Action/Result

Aver

age

IS

API

96


Figure 51. Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each action for the Streptopelia turtur EU Management Plan in Spain. Colours represent Priority Score.

The Plan shows a moderate implementation, the NIS being equal to 2,33 (about 58%). Hunting bags information from key countries outside the EU (result 4) and information on populations in Turkey, Russia and West Africa (result 9) are scored as not relevant/needed.

Only one action is completed, ensuring that the hunting does not affect breeding and spring migration period (result 2), while the action needing the greatest efforts is to develop a predictive model to determine a sustainable annual bag (result 5).The implemented actions concur to the achievements of the following short-term objectives set in the plan.


Implementation

Improving management of breeding habitats

1 Yes.

Collection of scientific data about population trend, ecology and dynamic, in both breeding and wintering areas

6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Partially. Little or no work in gathering annual estimates of breeding success on breeding grounds.

Analysis of potential competition between the Collared Dove and the Turtle Dove

10 No.

Collection of more robust scientific data to better understand the potential importance of hunting on the populations

3, 4, 5 Partially. Little or no work done to develop a predictive model to determine a sustainable annual bag.

97


Table 28. TURTLE DOVE - Streptopelia turtur


ActionPriorityIndex

MEMBER STATE BE ES FI FR HU LV SE SK

1. Wooded farmland, hedges and other habitats important for breeding are maintained and better protected 2 2,00 2,00 0,00 2,00 2,00 2,00 0,00 1,00 1,8 1,4

2. Hunting seasons do not involve the breeding period (as defined in “Period of reproduction and prenuptial migration of Annex II bird species in the EU”), and hunting does not affect late breeding birds and birds during spring migration.

2 0,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,0 0,0

3. Annual bag statistics are available (where hunting is allowed). 3 0,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,0 1,04. Hunting bags information is collected from key countries outside the EU

where European populations pass on migration and winter (especially Maghreb and Sub-Saharian countries).

2 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,0 0,0

5. A predictive model is developed to help determine what annual bag would be sustainable (where hunting is permitted). 3 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,0 3,0

6. From the existing monitoring schemes, common guidelines for monitoring the species are agreed and used to monitor populations (can be included in a pan-European monitoring scheme for common birds).

2 1,00 3,00 0,00 4,00 2,00 3,00 0,00 2,00 2,5 1,0

7. National ringing activities and analyses of existing ringing data to estimate mortality and identify population units is supported 2 1,00 2,00 0,00 4,00 2,00 2,00 0,00 1,00 2,0 1,3

8. Annual estimates of breeding success is provided on breeding grounds 2 1,00 1,00 0,00 3,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 1,00 1,5 1,79. Accurate information is gathered:

- on the breeding population size and trend in Turkey and Russia- on numbers, distribution and ecology of wintering populations in W-Africa

2 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,0 0,7

10. Research on reproduction, mortality and feeding ecology targeted at assessing which components of agricultural intensification and habitat modification have significant adverse effects, and research to determine which management is most effective, including reviews of existing pilot studies etc. is supported. Potential competition with Collared Dove also needs to be more investigated.

2 1,00 3,00 0,00 2,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 1,00 1,7 1,6

National IS 1,20 2,33 NR 3,12 1,60 2,20 NR 1,20 2,3 Overall IS

98


Conclusions

Many of the measures included in the plans are implemented in almost all Member States, even those that declare not to implement the EU Management Plans.. The main reasons for not implementing the plans can be grouped in two opposite categories:

1. the species occurs in few numbers and the general nature protection measures are considered to be sufficient;

2. the species is stable, common or increasing and special plans or measures are not needed.

However in most of these cases, one or more measures considered as relevant for the concerned Member State are carried out, even though independently from the plans. Sometimes such measures are not specifically aimed at the concerned species, but they contribute to the plans implementation. The plan for Anas acuta in Hungary, for example, could be considered as not relevant, since the species only occurs as a sporadic breeder. However, its habitat (alkaline marshes) is a conservation priority and therefore restoration and habitat management (e.g. grazing) measures are carried out, contributing to the species management measures recommended in the plan.

The EU Management Plans are focused on species considered to have an unfavourable conservation status and their implementation is part of the fulfilment of the EU Birds Directive. Therefore all the plans are aimed at all EU Member States with breeding, staging or wintering populations of these species. It is clear that Member States with significant populations or where their hunting is allowed, are asked to be most active, but the restoration of the populations of species with a wide geographical range require the joint efforts of all the countries involved, especially for measures at international scale.

All Member States have contributed to the implementation of the EU Management Plans undertaking measures in the framework of a wide range of different instruments: habitat and species protection legislations, hunting laws, other legislative measures (for example, the ban of Japanese Quail release, in order to encourage maintaining or planting hedges, to regulate organic farming), rural development programmes (Agri-environmental and Natura 2000 compensation measures), regulations (for example, the Alien Invasive Species regulation in Spain), Natura 2000 Management Plans, restoration projects (for example, in Hungary the Environment and Energy Operational Programme supports wetland restoration projects), regional programs for pesticides (for example, the Walloon program to reduce the use of pesticides, in Belgium), sectoral plans (hunting, forestry, water management and physical plans), monitoring schemes (for example, the Common Bird Census), researches and studies (for example, The Red List of Threatened Plants and Animals of Croatia, identifies the threats to wintering birds populations), etc..

A number of the activities carried out for the species seems to have been triggered by the EU Management Plans. For example, the delay for the opening of the hunting season of Turtle Dove, the establishment in some departments of individual hunting bag records and daily authorised hunting off-takes of Common Quail, or the starting of a research programme for the Red-Crested Pochard in France. Similarly, a subsidy in Belgium for planting hedges and monitoring of breeding populations could have been partly inspired by the EU Management Plan for the Turtle Dove.

99


Some Member States have also taken measures different from the ones recommended by the EU Management Plans. These measures usually benefit different species (for example, different agro-environmental measures, wetlands and lakes conservation, habitat restoration projects), while others are specific for the concerned species. In Belgium, for example, one agro-environmental measure allows to create plots specifics to Skylark, and management measures of water level are carried out in wintering areas for the Golden Plover and the Pintail.

The level of implementation of the plans in the different Member States depends mainly on whether the species are considered threatened in the relevant Member State and therefore in need actions in addition to the general conservation ones. In general protection actions such as identification, protection and designations of important sites, are well implemented. Also policy and legislative actions (conformity of harvesting with the Birds Directive, banning of the release of the Japanese Quail and its hybrids, incentives and agri-environmental schemes) and monitoring of the populations sizes have a good level of implementation.The actions showing a lower implementation are those requiring a greater effort in respect to the basic protection, management and research activities. Protection from disturbance, predation, fishery activities, unfavourable water level are not always implemented or do not show a significant progress. Similarly, management plans or schemes are not always produced. Ringing activities and ecological research are almost always not implemented.Actions relating to hunting seem to be applied only for the binding legislative rules (i.e. setting of open hunting seasons), while additional measures (i.e. temporary hunting ban, hunting restrictions, hunting bags level and statistics, hunting impact assessment, predictive model to determine a sustainable annual bag) are in most cases not implemented or are considered as not relevant.

Measures seem to be more difficult to apply when the sites are privately owned or where measures involve change in farming practices and negotiations with owners, managers and farmers are needed on conflicting interests between farming and species protection (economy vs ecology; harvesting date etc.) . Lack of sufficient funding is often identified as a factor limiting the implementation of the actions. Moreover, there might be a loss of interest of stakeholders for the not huntable species.

Many of the two Management Plans’ actions for Streptopelia turtur and Coturnix coturnix are linked to hunting (releasing birds, hunting seasons, bag limits, bag statistics). This could explain their low implementation level in Member States where the species are not allowed to be hunted.

Paradoxically while the main actions foreseen in the plans are principally aimed at Member States with important numbers and areas for their breeding, staging and wintering, it would seems that significant progress is made by the countries where the species does not occur to a significant extent and is more localised. As in the case of the plans for Limosa limosa (Sweden has a NIS higher than The Netherlands, Spain and France), Anas acuta (Belgium has the highest NIS), Coturnix coturnix (Latvia has a NIS similar to France), Netta rufina (Belgium has a NIS similar to Spain), Aythya marila (Bulgaria and Slovakia have a NIS higher than France), Streptopelia turtur (Latvia has a NIS similar to Spain).

100


The objectives of the plans have been mostly achieved only partly (only some of the measures that contribute to their achievement show some improvement), with the best progress in their achievement made for the plan for Melanitta fusca.

Latvia seems to have reached a greater number of objectives set by the plans.

Only three States, France, The Netherlands and Sweden, have elaborated or are elaborating specific national management plans for some species (Netta Rufina, Melanitta fusca, Aythya marila).

The hunting community contributes to the implementation of the actions, usually on its own initiative, where the concerned species is huntable and significantly important for hunters’ interests. Hunters contributed to some of the measures of the plans in Belgium, France, Latvia and Spain, with a major role in France, where they also implemented different programs to improve the management of agricultural habitats. In no cases hunters played a role for not huntable species.

Most Member States have no information on the global contribution of the implemented actions to the population status of the species concerned, since no study has been performed and no measure-specific evaluation scheme was planned and implemented. Hungary envisages no contribution on population status of Limosa limosa, Larus canus, Pluvialis apricaria, Alauda arvensis, a probable counteract impact of the negative factors on Tringa totanus, and probably a positive contribution for Netta rufina, since the species is spreading in Hungary as a breeder. Belgium considers that the implemented measures, in particular the compensation of the loss in wintering and staging habitat with development of new sites, mostly within SPAs, have positively contributed to improving the population status of the Golden Plover. The good conservation status of Numenius arquata in Belgium is also believed to benefit from the implemented actions (SPAs protecting up till 75 % of the Flemish population, agro-environmental schemes, management plans for most of the essential SPAs). The measures implemented for the Pintail are considered at least to maintain stable, but low, the population level. On the contrary, no effect of the actions was found for the Skylark and the Turtle Dove, whose populations are registering a sharp decrease in Belgium.

101

circabc.europa.eu · Web viewThe four short-term objectives of the plan are partially achieved. The...

Documents

Transcript of circabc.europa.eu · Web viewThe four short-term objectives of the plan are partially achieved. The...