Download INTERNATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOR THE Species name

DEVELOPMENT OF THE EUROPEAN ACTION PLAN FOR THE
EUROPEAN ROLLER CORACIAS GARRULUS IN LITHUANIA
Breeding
Yes
Migration
no
Wintering
no
1
Table 1 Population size and trend in …. (country)
35-50
good
2007
Large decline
good
Maximum size
of migrating or
non breeding
populations in
the last 10
years (or 3
generations)
?
Quality
Year(s) of the
estimate
Quality
Lithuania
Totals
Breeding
No.
Quality
Country
Breeding
Population
trend in the
last 10 years
(or 3
generations)
Year(s) of the
estimate
poor
2007


Breeding No. Specify if pairs or individuals. The same unit should be used for all breeding countries.
Quality:
o Good = Reliable quantitative data available (e.g. atlas, survey or monitoring data) for the whole period and country.
o Medium = generally well known, but only poor or incomplete quantitative data available.
o Poor = Poorly known with no quantitative data available.
o Unknown = information on quality not available.

Breeding Population trend in the last 10 years (or three generations): If possible, calculate the actual trend in % or use
the following categories: Large decline (>=30%), Moderate decline (10-29%), Small decline (0-9%), Stable (<10% decline
and <10% increase), Small increase (0-9%), Moderate increase (10-29%), Large increase (>=30%), Unknown (insufficient
data).
Migration & Non Breeding No.: Population numbers in individuals.

2
2 - THREATS
The threats section should cover the following headings:
General overview of threats
 Which are the most important threats to the species in your country?
 What is their impact on the population?
No clear and scientifically proved information.
It is evident that changes in the common agricultural practices and
intensification of the forestry have significant impact on the local scale
List of critical and important threats
 Follow a descending priority order of threats, starting with the most important.
There no evident information.
Seems, there are a pull of the threats with accumulative impact.
See ANNEX 1
The issue should be discussed before the making of the solution.
However, the most likely, that the main threats on the national scale are
related with the practices in the agricultural and forestry sector. But scoring is
very problematic in the frame of the total negative impact around the annual
cycle.
Problem tree
Prior to the workshop you will be presented with a draft Problem tree,
analysing the cause-effect links between the most important threats and their
impacts on a biogeographical population level (e.g. in Europe). National
experts will be required to think about how correctly the problem tree reflects
the specific situation for the species in their own country. They should bear in
mind that there might be differences between regions and countries and the
European level of threat analysis should capture the most important threats
according to the size of their impact on the population in Europe.
 The problem tree should be included as a figure.
 It should be made clear and focused, covering the critical and important threats,
not all threats.
 Threats that affect distinct biogeographical populations differently should be
3
flagged up in the problem tree accordingly, showing to which biogeographic
population they refer to.
 An example of a problem tree is given as Figure 2.
We are ready to discuss the issue during the workshop.
4
3 - POLICIES AND LEGISLATION RELEVANT FOR MANAGEMENT.
National policies, legislation and ongoing activities
 List national nature conservation and related legislation
 List sectoral programmes (e.g. Rural Development Plans, Forestry
Development Plans, etc) which contain measures that may be relevant
to the conservation of the species.
The species is included into the national Red Data Book (1 E).
The species also is protected by the Law of the Protected Species (full
protection of the nests and the birds/individuals).
LOD-BirdLife Lithuania has proposed to stop the logging around the breeding
sites (Changes of the Main Logging Rules).
However:
the species is not related with a support/compensation in the agricultural
sector;
the species is not related with a support/compensation in the private forestry
sector.
No game species with strict protection of the each individual (penalties by the
Administrative Code).
5
Table 2 Current conservation actions for the species in your country.
Title of project/action 1: Monitoring of the breeding population
Objective
Action
1.
Population decline
halted.
Monitoring of the breeding
population parameters: number of
breeding pairs,.
2. Designation of breeding areas as
protected areas
Coverage
National
National
Period
Started in
2005
Started in
2004
Organisations responsible, Contact
name, e-mail address
MoE (Funding),
Institute of Ecology of Vilnius
University (co-ordination,
implementation)
MoE (Legal implementation),
LOD-BirdLife Lithuania – initiate,
lobbying
Title of project/action 2: Improving the breeding conditions
Objective
Action
Coverage
1. Arrangement of the artificial nestboxes with protection against the Local
predators
2. Improvement the legislation related
National
with logging practises
Period
Started in
2005
Proposed
in 2008
Organisations responsible, Contact
name, e-mail address
Administration of the Aukstaitijas NP,
LOD-BirdLife Lithuania, Druskininkai
State Forest Enterprise
LOD-BirdLife Lithuania
6
5 - REFERENCES
Please provide titles of the most important reference publication about the species in
your country.
1. Balevičius K. (eds), 1992. Lithuanian Red Data Book. Vilnius. (in Lithuanian).
2. Ivanauskas T., 1959. Birds of Lithuania. vol.2. (in Lithuanian).
3. Kurlavičius P., Raudonikis L. 1999. Assesment of the Lithuanian Breeding Bird
Abundance. Report of the Lithuanian Ornithofaunistic Commission, 1999. Ciconia.
Vol. 7: 52-57. (in Lithuanian).
4. Kurlavičius P., Raudonikis L. 2001. Assesment of the Lithuanian Breeding Bird
Abundance, 2001. Ciconia. Vol.9: 92-97. (in Lithuanian).
5. Kurlavičius P., Preikša Ž., Skuja S., Kirstukas M., Brazaitis G., Stanevičius V.,
Mačiulis M., Mačiulis M., Jusys V., Butleris A., Raudonikis L., Riauba G.,
Gražulevičius G., Pranaitis A., Šablevičius B., Dementavičius D. 2006. Lithuanian
Bird Breeding Atlas. Lithuanian Ornithological Society. Kaunas: Lututė. (in
Lithuanian).
6. Logminas V. (eds.), 1991. Lithuanian Fauna. Birds, vol.2. Vilnius: Mokslas. (in
Lithuanian).
7. Raudonikis L. 2004. Important Bird Areas of the European Union Importance in
Lithuania. Lithuanian Ornithological Society & Institute of Ecology of Vilnius
University. Lutute, Vilnius.
8. Rasomavicius V. (eds.), 2007. Lithuanian Red Data Book. Institute of Botany &
Institute of Ecology of Vilnius University. Lutute, Vilnius. (in Lithuanian).
7
ANNEX 1 Threats importance at population/group of countries level
Threat score
1. Habitat Loss/Degradation (human induced)
1.1. Mature forest
1.2. Grazed pine forest area
1.3. Extensively used meadows on the forest margin
2. Direct mortality
2.1. For making of the stuffed birds
3. Predation
3.1. Predation by the marten
4. Lack/lost of the nesting sites
4.1. Not enough natural/woodpeckers made holes
4.2. Lost of the artificial nestboxes
5. Usage of the pesticides
5.1. For prevention against the pets in the commercial forest
5.2. For the agricultural purposes
6. Disturbance
6.1. Because of recreational developments
6.2. Because of urban developments
6.3 Because of forestry activities
Population 1
Threat score
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Law
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Notes:
 The threats description should reflect the actual understanding of the situation with the species, according to the latest
available knowledge and the workshop participants’ best judgement. It is not necessary to follow a formal threat
classification as the logical analysis and cause-effect relationships among the main threats are the important aspects to
focus the plan on.
 Threats are not hierarchical, but clustered according to type of effect.
 Threat score: Critical, High, Medium, Low, Local, Unknown.
9
ANNEX 2
 Participants will be provided with a set of maps to help them analyse the information.
Most important sites for the species and their status.
Protected areas
International
Protection status
Area Location Population
Type of
name
Country and national
Year Season Accuracy
(ha)
protected area
name
Lat Long Min Max
Lithuania Dzukija IBA 50000
2
3
2007 Breedi Good Dzukija National National Park,
Different, based
ng
Park
SPA
on the spatial
planning scheme
Lithuania Labanoras
50000
2
3
2007 Breedi Good Labanoras
Regional Park,
Different, based
IBA
ng
regional Park
SPA
on the spatial
planning scheme
Lithuania Aukstaitija
36000
7
10 2007 Breedi Good Aukstaitija
National Park,
Different, based
NP
ng
National Park
SPA
on the spatial
planning scheme
Lithuania Druskininkai 25000
10
15 2007 Breedi Good None
None
None
State Forest
ng
Enterprise
NOTES

Population Min - Max. For breeding ('season' column), figures are usually given in pairs; for other seasons, figures are given
in individuals

Season: Breeding, Migration, Non breeding visitor(wintering)

Accuracy: Good (Observed) = based on reliable or representative quantitative data derived from complete counts or
comprehensive measurements.
10



Good (Estimated) = based on reliable or representative quantitative data derived from sampling or interpolation.
Medium (Estimated) = based on incomplete quantitative data derived from sampling or interpolation.
Medium (Inferred) = based on incomplete or poor quantitative data derived from indirect evidence.
Poor (Suspected) = based on no quantitative data, but guesses derived from circumstantial evidence.
Protected Area name = Nature Reserve, National Park, Ramsar site, etc.
Type of protected area: IUCN Category
Protection status: level of overlap between the IBA and a National or International protected area.
11
ANNEX 3
 All tables in this Annex to be filled in advance of workshop by questionnaire
National legal status.
Country
Legal protection
Red data Book, 1 (E), individuals are fully
Lithuania
protected (Law on Protected Species)
Recent conservation measures.
Country
Is there a national action plan for the species?
Lithuania
No
Ongoing monitoring schemes for the species.
Is there a national survey / monitoring
Country
programme?
Lithuania
Yes, monitoring conducting every 2 years, almost 80%
coverage of the national population
For game species, give opening/closing dates
Never been games species in the country
Is there a national {Species} project / working group?
Not official group, annual observations of the species on
voluntary basis/ annual meeting organised by LOD-BirdLife
Lithuania
Is there a monitoring programme in protected areas?
Yes, almost 100%
Overview of the coverage of the species in networks of sites with legal protection status.
Country
1
Percentage of national
population included in IBAs
Percentage of population
included in Ramsar sites
Percentage of population
included in SPAs1
Percentage of
population included
in protected areas
This is relevant only for European Union member states. Any other regional (legal) protection should be mentioned in next column.
12
under national law
Lithuania More than half
Almost none
More than half
More than half
 This table could be generated automatically by BirdLife WBDB on request, SSAP compilers may use classes instead of real figures: 0-10
(almost none), 10-50 (less than half), 50-90 (more than half), 90-100% (all).
13