Download Doc Ornis 14-04/08 – Annex I

Ornis Committee
30.04.2014
Point 12 – Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for huntable birds
Doc Ornis 14-04/08 – Annex I
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
APRIL 2014
Prepared by:
THE N2K GROUP
European Economic Interest Group
ATECMA
Calle Isla de la Toja 2
28400 Villalba, Madrid
Spain
ECOSYSTEMS
21 Bld General Wahis
1030 Brussels
Belgium
COMUNITÁ AMBIENTE
P.za A. Capponi, 13
00193 Rome
Italy
DAPHNE
Podunaska 24
82106 Bratislava
Slovakia
ECOSPHERE
3bis rue des Remises
94100 St-Maur-des Fossés
France
for the European Commission, Directorate General Environment, B3 Unit
in the framework of the Service Contract N° 070307/2012/635359/SER/B2
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Contents
Background and objectives of the evaluation ..................................................................................... 3
Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 4
Global results ....................................................................................................................................... 8
Replies received and analysed ...................................................................................................................... 8
General observations .................................................................................................................................. 10
Achievements of the short-term objectives of the Plans ............................................................................ 17
Implementation of the Plans ....................................................................................................................... 19
Species Accounts ................................................................................................................................ 26
Limosa limosa - Black-Tailed Godwit ........................................................................................................... 26
Larus canus - Common Gull ......................................................................................................................... 32
Pluvialis apricaria - Golden Plover............................................................................................................... 37
Vanellus vanellus - Lapwing ......................................................................................................................... 42
Tringa totanus - Redshank........................................................................................................................... 49
Alauda arvensis - Skylark ............................................................................................................................. 55
Melanitta fusca - Velvet Scoter ................................................................................................................... 62
Numenius arquata - Curlew......................................................................................................................... 68
Anas acuta - Pintail ...................................................................................................................................... 74
Coturnix coturnix - Common Quail .............................................................................................................. 81
Netta rufina - Red-crested Pochard ............................................................................................................ 87
Aythya marila - Scaup .................................................................................................................................. 92
Streptopelia turtur - Turtle Dove ................................................................................................................. 98
Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 106
Annex I – Questionnaires ................................................................................................................. 109
Annex II – List of the authorities who have responded to the enquiry ........................................... 135
2
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
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 legislative
2. Population management
3. International cooperation
4. Research and monitoring
5. 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
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
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 of 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;
 Indicate
the
administrations/entities
in
charge
of
implementation/monitoring/evaluation;
 Indicate 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
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
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).
The actions deemed “not needed” or “not relevant” (“0” values) by the compilers, have no
weight in the implementation level of a plan, which only depends on the score of the
applicable actions (1  IS  4). When all actions of a plan are scored as “not needed/not
relevant” in a country, thus the whole plan is “not needed/not relevant” in that country and
this country does not contribute to the implementation level of the plan across countries.
Obviously, the IS is a subjective estimation from the responders of overall progress in the
works carried out to reach each result and of the relevance/need of actions. In order to
reduce as possible such element of subjectivity, and to make sure the same criteria were
used in determining the IS, after receiving filled in forms from individual respondents, all
answers were checked and, if there were inconsistencies between the answer and the score
or if the action was not relevant for the particular country, some scores were corrected by
consulting the respondents. However, giving the subjective nature of the score attribution,
the method remains inherently subjective as well as all methods based on subjective
opinions by multiple subjects, since different persons can have different views on the same
issue, especially in judging the relevance or need of actions.
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 management plan, to
compare across countries and to see which actions are implemented better than others.
The Average Implementation Score is the average of the implementation scores (excluding
“0” values) of each action across the Member States that have carried out it. The average
across all the actions of a plan and all their geographical scope provides the overall
implementation score of the plan.
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
5
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
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 was 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 was 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 used
is:
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.
Action reference number
P
S
MEMBER STATE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Incentives …
- sowing cr…
- retaining …
- extensifi…
- maintain…
Priority Score
(PS)
16. Studies to …
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
National IS
4+
4+
4+
3+
...+
2=
33
4x1+
4x1+
4x1+
3x2+
...+
2x1=
49
Ave. IS
API
BE
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
4
1
0
1
BG CY …
SK
1
1
…
1
1
1,6
3,
2
1
0
0
1
1
1,1
3,
8
1
1
1
3
1
1,8
2,
Average IS (AIS)
9
0
1
2
3
1
2,1
1,
ΣISMS=
1
1
1
3 (1+1+1+...+1)
1
2,1 15=9
1,
9
1Implementation
1
4
2
1
2,2
24,615=1,6 1,
2
1 Score
0
1
1
1
1,6
1,
6
Priority
Index
1 (IS)
0
3
4 Action
1
3,0
0,
(API)
7
1
0
1
1
1
1,4
1,
IS)0,
73=
0
0
4
0 PSx(4
0 -Average
3,8
4x(4- 1,6)3=3,2
1
1
0
1
1
1
1,2
1,
9
Overall
1,48 1,00 1,11 1,79 2,00 1,00 1,9
IS
National IS
(NIS)
4933=
1,48
Overall IS
IS

(MSxActions)=
Σ
347187=1,9
Figure 1. Data presentation and calculations
6
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Output indicators, represented by the implementation scores (Figure 1):
 Average Implementation Score for each plan
 National Implementation Score representing the average
implementation by the country
 Action Priority Index representing the need for further action.
progress
with
The output indicators do not take into account the relative importance of the species’
population in different countries. Countries with small populations have therefore the same
weight as those hosting substantial numbers of breeding, wintering and staging individuals.
However the plans assign the major responsibility of their implementation to those
countries hosting greater number of individuals.
The achievement of the short-term objectives of the Plans. Actions and results of each
Management Plan are aimed at achieving the short-term (3 year) objectives outlined in the
plans. Therefore, actions and results are grouped in tables according to the short-term
objectives they contribute to achieve, in order to provide indications on the accomplishment
of each short-term objective and further activity that has to be carried out to achieve it. The
short-term objectives require some advancement in accomplishing the related actions. They
are thus considered achieved when all their related measures are implemented (IS>1, i.e. at
least some progress); not achieved when measures are not or very little implemented (IS=1,
no progress); partially achieved when some measures are scored >1 and others =1.
General observations. 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, whether the
plans have inspired/triggered the measures taken, whether the measures included in the
Management Plans are integrated in other instruments, and the contribution of actions to
the improvement of the species’ population status. 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. Information provided by Member States explaining the level of implementation of
the plans contribute to understand the main difficulties faced by countries in their
implementation.
Countries where plans are not relevant do not contribute to the overall plans
implementation. Consistently, in order to make comparable the results, they are not
included in the general analysis. However, information provided by these countries are
taken into account for issues not related to the implementation of the plans: adoption of
specific national/regional plans and of measures inspired by or not included in the plans.
7
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Global results
Replies received and analysed
Pluvialis apricaria
Vanellus vanellus
Tringa totanus
Alauda arvensis
Melanitta fusca
Numenius arquata
Anas acuta
Coturnix coturnix
Netta rufina
Aythya marila
Streptopelia turtur
Member
State
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES
FI
FR
HR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
UK
Larus canus
Species
Limosa limosa
25 Member States returned the questionnaires, but only 22, which correspond to about 79%
of the EU Member States, provided enough information for a proper evaluation and were
included in the analysis of management plans’ implementation (Table 1). It follows that the
analysis does not cover the whole EU population and/or range of the 13 species.
P
C
C
P
C
P
C
NR
NR
C
C
C
C
C
NR
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
P
P
C
C
P
C
P
C
NR
NR
C
P
C
C
C
NR
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
P
C
P
P
C
C
P
C
P
C
NR
NR
C
P
P
C
C
NR
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
P
P
C
C
C
C
P
C
NR
NR
C
P
P
C
C
NR
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
P
C
P
P
C
C
P
C
P
C
NR
NR
C
C
P
C
C
NR
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
P
P
C
C
C
C
P
C
NR
NR
C
P
C
C
C
NR
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
P
P
C
C
C
C
P
C
NR
NR
C
P
C
C
C
NR
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
P
P
P
C
P
C
P
C
NR
NR
C
P
P
C
C
NR
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
P
P
C
C
C
C
P
C
NR
NR
C
P
C
C
C
NR
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
P
P
C
C
P
C
P
C
NR
NR
C
P
C
C
C
NR
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
P
C
P
P
C
C
P
C
P
C
NR
NR
C
C
C
C
C
NR
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
P
C
P
P
P
C
C
C
P
C
NR
NR
C
C
C
C
C
NR
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
P
P
C
C
P
C
P
C
NR
NR
C
C
C
C
C
NR
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
P
Table 1. Distribution of responses to the questionnaire. C: complete; P: partial; NR: not received
Two hundred and sixty replies (filled in questionnaires) allows to assess the implementation
of the 13 EU concerned Management Plans in 22 Member States. It should be considered
that none of the 13 plans has been evaluated across all the 22 States, since only 17 of them
provided complete data to evaluate the implementation of all the 13 Management Plans in
8
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Y
19
17
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NR
NR
19
17
Y
19
19
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
18
18
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NR
Y
21
20
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NR
Y
Y
Y
Y
NR
Y
NR
NR
Y
Y
Y
Y
NR
Y
19
19
Y
20
15
Y
NR
NR
Y
NR
Y
Y
NR
Y
Y
Y
NR
Y
NR
Y
Y
NR
Y
Y
NR
Y
21
13
Streptopelia turtur
Y
NR
NR
Y
Y
NR
Y
NR
Y
Y
NR
Y
Y
NR
NR
21
11
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Aythya marila
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
21
21
Netta rufina
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NR
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Coturnix coturnix
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NR
NR
Y
NR
Melanitta fusca
Y
Y
NR
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Anas acuta
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
20
20
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NR
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NR
Y
21
19
Y
Y
Numenius arquata
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Alauda arvensis
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Tringa totanus
Vanellus vanellus
Y
Y
Larus canus
Member
State
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DK
ES
FI
FR
HR
HU
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
Assessed
Involved
Limosa limosa
Species
Pluvialis apricaria
their countries. Therefore, the number of countries assessed differs from plan to plan, not
allowing a complete view of the implementation of each EU Management Plan across all 22
Member States, or of the 22 national performances in the overall 13 plans implementation.
On average, 20 out of the 22 Member States overall considered, have been taken into
account in the evaluation of the implementation of each Plan. Moreover, not all plans were
deemed applicable in each Member State. The countries and the number of countries
involved in the overall implementation of each plan is accordingly different from plan to
plan (Table 2).
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NR
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NR
Y
Y
21
19
Table 2. Distribution of Member States assessed (Y+NR) and involved in the implementation (Y) per
Plan. NR: Member State whose Plan for the corresponding species is not relevant; Grey colour:
Member State whose Plan for the corresponding species has not been assessed for partial data.
9
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
General observations
The 13 species for which the Plans were drawn, are mostly not listed as huntable across the
22 Member States (Figure 2).
Yes
20%
No
80%
Figure 2. Percentage of “Yes” and “No” replies to the
question “Is the species listed as a huntable species in
your MS” for the 13 species across the 22 Member
States.
All the species can be hunted in at least one Member State (Table 3). The species most listed
as huntable in the 22 countries is Anas acuta, which can be hunted in 11 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. Conversely none of the 13 species can be hunted in nine Member States: Belgium,
Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia and
Slovakia. In particular, four species in Belgium and one in Czech Republic are listed as game
species, but there is no open season for any of them (only for 2011-2016 for Vanellus
vanellus in Belgium).
The species are not huntable in all those countries where their plans are not
relevant/needed. On the other hand, certain plans of countries where the species are
huntable have not been assessed for incomplete data. This is the case of the plans for
Pluvialis apricaria, Vanellus vanellus, Tringa totanus and Numenius arquata in France, Anas
acuta in Finland, and Coturnix coturnix and Streptopelia turtur in Cyprus.
Has your MS a specific national/regional plan(s) for the species?
Seven States have produced or are about to finalize national plans specific for some species:
for four species in Denmark (Limosa limosa, Pluvialis apricaria, Vanellus vanellus and Tringa
totanus), France (Limosa limosa, Melanitta fusca, Netta rufina and Aythya marila) and
Luxembourg (Vanellus vanellus, Alauda arvensis, Coturnix coturnix and Streptopelia turtur);
for one species in Lithuania (Pluvialis apricaria), The Netherlands (Netta rufina), Poland
(Numenius arquata) and Sweden (Limosa limosa).
All these plans concern not huntable species, with the only exception of those by France, all
concerning huntable species.
Limosa limosa, with three plans by Denmark, France and Sweden, is therefore the species
for which the greatest number of national plans has been produced.
10
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Pluvialis apricaria
Vanellus vanellus
Tringa totanus
Alauda arvensis
Melanitta fusca
Numenius arquata
Anas acuta
Coturnix coturnix
Netta rufina
Aythya marila
Streptopelia turtur
Member
State
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DK
ES
FI
FR
HR
HU
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
Larus canus
Species
Limosa limosa
On the other hand, Larus canus and Anas acuta are the only species not dealt with any
national plan.
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Ho3
N
N
N5
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Ho
N
N
Hn
N
N
N
N
N
N
Ho
N
N
N
N
N
N
Ho
N
N
H
N
N
N
N
Hn1
N
N
N
N
H
N
Ho
N
N
Ho
N
N
N
Ho
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Ho
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Ho
N
N
N
N
Ho
N
N
Ho
N
N
N
Ho
N
N
N
Ho
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Ho
N
N2
Ho
N
N
N
N
N
Ho
N
N
N
N
N
N9
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Ho3
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Hn
Ho
Ho
N
Ho
H
Ho
Ho
N
N
Ho6
N
N
Ho
Ho
N
N
H
Ho
N
N
N
N
Ho
Ho
Hn
N
H
N
Ho
Ho4
N
Ho7
N
N
N
Ho8
N
N
H
Ho
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
H
N
Ho
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Hn
N
N
N
Ho
N
N
Ho
N
N
N
N
N
Ho
N
N
N
N
Ho
N
N
N
N
Ho
Ho
N
N
H
N
Ho
N
N
Ho
N
N
N
Ho8
N
N
H
Ho
N
N
N
Table 3. Hunting status of the 13 species in the 22 Member States. H: huntable; Ho: huntable with
open season; Hn: huntable with no open season; N: not huntable. Yellow colour: species whose Plan
is not relevant for the concerned Member State; Grey colour: species whose Plan has not been
evaluated for the concerned Member State for partial responses.
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
following a moratorium, hunting was banned from 2008 until 2013. The hunting ban for Numenius
arquata was extended until the end of July 2018, but only on the terrestrial area.
4
hunting is forbidden from 15th November to 31st July.
5
the species has been excluded from the list of huntable bird species since 1997.
6
the hunting season is partly overlapping with the onset of pre-breeding migration.
7
earlier opening of hunting season through derogation from national law results in overlapping with
breeding period.
8
Spring hunting was prohibited in 2008 and 2009. Derogations for spring hunting are issued since
2010.
9
hunting is banned since 2009.
11
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Have the measures been inspired/triggered by the EU MP?
In most cases (80%) the actions undertaken by the 22 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%).
However for all the species, some of the measures implemented by the MSs have been
inspired by the relevant EU Management Plans (Figure 3): for each Plan an average of about
three countries have taken actions inspired by the Plan.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
No
Yes
0%
Figure 3. 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 22 Member States.
Activities triggered by the EU Management Plans are, 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.
In particular, the measures taken for Numenius arquata are the less triggered by the
respective Plan, while the Management Plan for Streptopelia turtur is the one that has most
inspired the measures applied for the species from six Member States: Belgium, Spain,
France, Lithuania, Poland and Romania.
Moreover, none of the measures undertaken by 11 countries (Bulgaria, Czech Republic,
Croatia, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden) have been
inspired by the Plans, while the measures implemented by Cyprus and Spain for all the
species were inspired by the respective Plans.
Have other measures been taken independently from the EU MP?
Considering all the plans together, an average of about 13 countries has implemented one
or more actions without taking the Plan into consideration.
12
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
These measures are usually included in the plans, but have been started before the plans
was drawn up or carried out disregarding them. Sometime they are specific for the
concerned species (for example, the agro-environmental measure allowing to create plots
specifics to Skylark in Belgium), but more often they are aimed at specific habitats or at
several species (agro-environmental measures, sites protection, wetlands restoration,
monitoring, etc.). In Hungary, for example, the Pintail only occurs as a sporadic breeder and
therefore the species is not on the focus of conservation measures. However, its habitat
(alkaline marshes) is a conservation priority and therefore restoration and habitat
management measures are carried out, contributing to the Pintail management measures
recommended in the plan.
In other instances, such measures are proposed in the plans but not applicable in the
relevant country. This is, for instance, the case of some measures limited to countries with
areas of international importance or with more than 100,000 individuals. The plans for
Melanitta fusca and Aythya marila include the census of wintering and moulting areas of
international importance for the two species. Such a monitoring activity is not applicable in
the Czech Republic because there are not areas of international importance for Melanitta
fusca or Aythya marila. However, the Czech Republic carries out mid-winter counts of the
two species during the International Waterbird Census (IWC).
In other cases these measures are other than those laid down in the plans in the plans, such
as hunting banning, legislative species protection, nests protection against agriculture
activities, etc. There are also examples of other measures undertaken even for those species
whose plans are not relevant/applicable. For instance, the actions in the plan for Melanitta
fusca are not applicable in Croatia as well as those for Streptopelia turtur in Finland, since
the two species occur in very scarce numbers in these countries. Both countries have
nevertheless strictly protected them.
Measures for the conservation of the species have been taken independently from the plans
mainly for Vanellus vanellus and Tringa totanus, for which as many as 16 out of the 19
countries have taken also further measures on their own initiative (Figure 4).
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
No
Yes
0%
Figure 4. 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 22 Member States.
13
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Spain, Croatia, The Netherlands, Portugal and the Slovak Republic have taken actions
regardless of the plans, while Latvia seems to be the country that has not applied any
additional measure for most of the plans (67%).
Are the measures integrated in other instruments?
The actions of the plans are nearly always (82% of the instances) integrated in other
instruments. These generally are legislative instruments (covering species and habitat
protection, sites designation, hunting, alien species, organic farming, etc.), rural
programmes (different agri-environmental measures and Natura 2000 compensation
measures, but also Natura 2000 management planning), sectorial plans (hunting, forestry,
water management and physical plans) and monitoring programmes, but they also include
projects (research, monitoring, restoration), regional programs and operational
programmes.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
No
Yes
0%
Figure 5. Percentage of “Yes” and “No” replies to the question “Whether the actions has been
integrated in other instruments” for each Management Plan across the 22 Member States.
The plan for Alauda arvensis is the one whose actions have been integrated in other
instruments by almost all Member States (95%); up to 13 countries (Cyprus, Denmark, Spain,
Finland, Croatia, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and
Sweden) have undertaken one or more actions of all plans within other schemes (Figure 5).
Have the implemented actions globally contributed to improving the population status of
the species?
In 65% of the cases, the contribution of the implemented measures to the conservation
status of the species is not known, mainly because no study has been performed and no
measure-specific evaluation scheme was planned and implemented, while it is supposed to
have a positive contribution only in 7% of the replies and in a larger proportion (28%) it is
reputed there is no contribution by the plans (Figure 6).
Most Member States do not know the impact of the actions on Coturnix coturnix, Numenius
arquata and Melanitta fusca, while all of them do not think that actions implemented have
had a positive impact on the populations of Aythya marila, Streptopelia turtur, Melanitta
14
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
fusca and Coturnix coturnix. The Slovakia Republic is the only country that assumes no effect
of the actions on any of the species.
Yes
7%
No
28%
Do not
know
65%
Figure 6. 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?”
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,
 the persistence of the of the main threats to the species,
 a probably greater influence of weather conditions and hunting pressure on the
positive trend.
The decreasing trend of Lapwing in Sweden and Denmark, Turtle Dove in Belgium, Common
Gull in The Netherlands, Skylark in Belgium, Czech Republic and Hungary, Redshank in Czech
Republic and Denmark, Velvet Scoter in Poland and The Netherlands would indicate no role
of the actions undertaken. When the populations show some positive trend, it is ascribed to
other factors: Scaups moving to the Wadden Sea prompted by cold winters or Lapwings
settling down in Belgium from neighbouring countries. According to French authorities the
status of Red-crested Pochard in France probably improved without the help of any mandriven conservation measures. The persistence of the main threats (replacement of cereals
by green maize, use of herbicides) to the Turtle Dove in The Netherlands and of the
difficulties in solving them suggests no positive contribution to the conservation status of
the species. Finally, the efforts to manage and maintain the last breeding sites for the
Golden Plover in Denmark are deemed to have been carried out in vain, since the species is
extinct as a breeding bird.
On the other hand, the measures applied could have worked for the Skylark in Bulgaria, for
the Black-tailed Godwit in Finland, for the Redshank, the Curlew and the Lapwing in The
Netherlands, and for the Red-crested Pochard in Hungary, Italy and The Netherlands since
the species are abundant, stable or increasing. A positive effect is believed to result by
measures undertaken independently from the plans for the Red-crested Pochard in
Portugal, the Lapwing in Italy (decrease of hunting pressure) and, at local and regional level,
in the Czech Republic (nest finding and protection). The compensation of habitat loss with
15
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
development of new sites for the Golden Plover in Belgium, could have at least
counteracted the impact of the negative factors contributing to maintain the conservation
status.
Netta Rufina is the species for which the measures taken might have contributed most to
improve its conservation status and The Netherlands, believing that the actions may have
positively contributed to the conservation status of five species, is the most confident
country in the actions undertaken.
What is the geographical scale of measures implementation?
Often the measures are applied simultaneously to several territorial levels. Almost all of the
measures are taken at the national level (90%), 43% at the regional level, 20% at the local
level and only 1% at the international level. Although the international level is adopted in
such a very small percentage, it should be considered that the measures that require an
international cooperation are provided by only a few plans and, they represent just a small
part of the plans.
The only countries that have implemented measures at international level are France and
Hungary; the species for which they have applied them are Coturnix coturnix and
Streptopelia turtur and measures are related to the increase of knowledge, data collection,
monitoring and ecological research about populations outside the EU.
Has the hunting community played a specific role in the implementation of the measures?
Hunters and hunters’ organisations did not play any role in the majority of plans
implementation (79%) (Figure 7). Their contribution occurs mainly in the case of huntable
species. Limiting the analysis to Plans whose species are huntable and the respective
countries that provided a reply, hunters have played some role in the plans implementation
in more than half of the instances (56%). With regard to non-huntable species, they gave a
contribution to 20 Plans in 6 Member States: 7 plans in Romania, 4 plans in Denmark and
Malta, 3 plans in Lithuania, one plan in Italy and Sweden.
Yes
21%
No
79%
Figure 7. Percentage of plans to whose
implementation the hunting community provided
(“Yes”) or not provided (“No”) contribution.
Hunters and hunter’s organisations participation to the plans is in the same frequency at
authorities’ request and at their own initiative.
The measures where hunter associations are involved generally relate to hunting activities:
collection of data on individuals shot (Latvia, Spain and France, where they also contributed
16
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
to different schemes of hunting bag survey), setting hunting seasons (Portugal) and bag
limits (Portugal and France), providing hunting education (Cyprus) and guidance on hunting
bag reporting (Malta).
There are examples of hunters playing some role also in controlling predators (Lithuania,
Latvia), monitoring and surveys of populations (Italy and Spain) and to habitat management
(agricultural practices, supplementary food, water level control, disturbance reduction,
hunting free-areas in game reserves - France, Italy and Denmark). However, such
contributions are almost always addressed to huntable species and in some cases the impact
on the species is controversial. This is the case of the Pintail in Italy, where the improvement
of the management of some hunting estates in order to increase bags, was locally successful
up to a point, so as to mask the national decreasing trend of the species. Nevertheless, the
hunting community contributed also to the removal from the list of the huntable species the
Golden Plover and the Lapwing in Denmark and Romania, and also the Redshank, the Velvet
Scoter and the Red-crested Pochard in Romania. Moreover, representatives of the hunting
community regularly participate in decision-making concerning all measures of the
management plans that Malta is implementing.
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.
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.);
 research and monitoring, also at international level.
Objectives have been achieved across all countries only for three plans (Limosa limosa,
Melanitta fusca and Numenius arquata) and only one objective for each plan has been
achieved (Table 4). For all the other plans the objectives have been achieved only for a part
and only for the plan for Limosa limosa an objective has not achieved at all (none of the
relative actions have been implemented). 90% of all objectives of all the ten plans has yet to
be reached (partially achieved) as not all the countries involved have gained progresses in
the accomplishment of the related results.
Notwithstanding the missed achievement of the objectives, there is therefore some
advancement towards them (partially achieved) by at least one country.
17
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Short-term objectives
Species
Achieved
Limosa limosa
Larus canus
Vanellus vanellus
Tringa totanus
Alauda arvensis
Melanitta fusca
Numenius arquata
Anas acuta
Aythya marila
Streptopelia turtur
Overall
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
8%
Partially
achieved
2
5
2
3
3
4
2
4
6
4
90%
Not
Achieved
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3%
Total number
of objectives
4
5
2
3
3
5
3
4
6
4
39
Table 4. Short-term objectives achieved, not at all achieved and partially achieved per each plan in
relation to the number of objectives respectively set (across all Member States). Achieved: all the
related measures are implemented (IS>1) in all Member States concerned by the plan; Not Achieved:
all the related measures are not or very little implemented (IS=1) in any of the Member States
involved in the implementation of the plan; Partially Achieved: at least one of the related measures is
implemented (IS>1) in at least one Member State and the others not (IS=1).
For each plan, at least one country has attained all its applicable objectives. The plans with
the greatest number of countries that have achieved all their relevant objectives are those
for Melanitta fusca, whose objectives have been reached by about 36% of the concerned
countries (4/11), and for Numenius arquata, whose objectives have been reached by about
28% of the countries implementing the plan (5/18). Conversely, the plans for which the
number of countries achieving all their applicable objectives are the lowest, are those for
Streptopelia turtur, whose objectives have been reached by just 5% of the countries involved
(1/19), and Aythya marila, with only 7% of the countries (1/13) having achieved all their
relevant objectives.
The most virtuous Member State is Latvia, which has accomplished a total of 24 objectives
out of the 39 set in the 10 Management plans that it has implemented, while the Czech
Republic shows the worst performance with only 2 objectives achieved.
18
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Implementation of the Plans
Y
19
17
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NR
NR
19
17
N
19
19
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
18
18
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NR
Y
21
20
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NR
Y
Y
Y
Y
NR
Y
NR
NR
Y
Y
Y
N
NR
Y
19
19
Y
20
15
Y
Y
NR
NR
Y
NR
Y
Y
NR
Y
Y
Y
NR
Y
NR
Y
Y
NR
Y
Y
NR
Y
21
13
Streptopelia turtur
Y
NR
NR
N
Y
NR
Y
NR
Y
Y
NR
N
Y
NR
NR
21
11
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Aythya marila
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
21
21
Netta rufina
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NR
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Coturnix coturnix
N
Y
Y
N
Y
NR
NR
Y
NR
Melanitta fusca
N
Y
NR
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Anas acuta
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
20
20
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NR
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NR
Y
21
19
Y
Y
Numenius arquata
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Alauda arvensis
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Tringa totanus
Vanellus vanellus
Y
Y
Larus canus
Member
State
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DK
ES
FI
FR
HR
HU
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
Assessed
Involved
Limosa limosa
Species
Pluvialis apricaria
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/or it is not huntable and the general
nature protection measures are considered to be sufficient;
3. the species is stable, common, widespread or increasing and special plans or
measures are not needed;
4. the EU Management Plan was not transposed at the national level (France), it is not
obligatory (Lithuania) or it has not been considered by both national and regional
administrations (Italy);
5. the EU Management Plan was drafted before the Member State joined the
European Union (Croatia and Romania).
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NR
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NR
Y
Y
21
19
Table 5. Management Plans implementation across the 22 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; Assessed: number of Member States assessed
per Plan (Plans with complete data); Involved: number of Member States where the plan is relevant
and therefore with at least one applicable measure per Plan (at least one measure with IS > 0).
19
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
However in most of these cases one or more measures are carried out anyway. On the basis
of the replies received, from 22 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 5).
The comparison of the Average Implementation Score (AIS) of each plan across Member
States (Figure 8), shows that the greatest efforts are made to implement the Management
Plan for Melanitta fusca (AIS=2,8), while the least implemented is the Management Plan for
Vanellus vanellus (AIS=1,87).
4.00
AIS
3.00
2.82
2.69
2.57
2.24
2.00
2.75
2.57
2.50
2.25
2.13
1.87
1.97
2.30
1.90
1.00
Figure 8. Average Implementation Score of the 13 Management Plans. 4 = full implementation; 3 =
significant progress; 2 = some progress; 1 = no implementation
Three plans (Vanellus vanellus, Streptopelia turtur and Alauda arvensis) have a poor
implementation since they have not reached the sufficiency threshold (AIS<2). On average
the plans show just moderate implementation progress (Average AIS=2,3) and even the Plan
for Melanitta fusca, the one with the highest AIS, has not achieved significant progress (AIS <
3).
The progress with implementation of the plans in the 22 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 6).
The country that has reached the highest level of implementation of the plans is Malta,
which has the highest average NIS (3,64) and six plans fully implemented (NIS=4,00). The
country that would seem to have done the least work to implement the plans is Italy, with
the lowest average NIS (1,59) and seven plans with no or poor implementation
(1NIS<2,00).
However, data are partial, since five countries are underrepresented because some of their
plans could not be evaluated (up to eight plans for Cyprus and Finland), influencing their
average NIS.
The excellent performance of Malta seems to be due to the fact that the populations are
locally negligible and the few measures deemed relevant are fully implemented. However,
20
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
2,62
NR
NR
3,17
NR
1,91
2,20
NR
2,20
2,15
3,00
NR
2,69
NR
3,06
1,54
NR
2,13
1,29
NR
2,63
Streptopelia turtur
1,67 1,00
3,71 1,55 3,46
1,00 2,71 3,60 2,41 2,33 2,40
2,44 NR
3,82
1,90 NR 2,80 1,00 3,18 2,39
3,00 3,20 2,73 3,14 2,09 3,40
2,57 NR 3,47 3,19 2,78 3,56
NR
2,34 2,91
2,85 2,62 2,69
1,00 NR 2,40 3,07 3,57 1,61
1,37 NR 2,85 2,25 1,53 2,31
1,22 1,00 1,10 2,45 1,74 1,89
2,26 3,77 2,43 2,76 2,20 NR
1,32 NR 1,33 3,00 2,09 2,13
2,05 3,24 2,50 3,35 2,60 NR
3,17 NR 4,00 4,00 2,94 NR
1,58 3,40 3,35 2,79 2,27 2,92
1,23 3,29 2,80 2,59 3,40 2,62
1,00 NR 3,00 2,94 2,53 2,22
2,00 1,00 1,91 2,24 2,13 1,00
2,00 1,44 1,36 1,80 2,09 NR
3,40 NR 3,38 NR
1,00 NR 1,00 1,91 1,18 2,03
Anas acuta
Aythya marila
Coturnix coturnix
Numenius arquata
Melanitta fusca
Alauda arvensis
Tringa totanus
Vanellus vanellus
Pluvialis apricaria
2,47 2,36 2,62 1,48 2,24
2,31 3,14 2,15 1,00 2,20
1,11
2,44 1,00 1,00 2,00 2,13
3,65 2,67 3,43 3,25 2,76
2,77 NR 2,45 2,54 2,47
2,25
2,38
2,67 1,36
1,77 2,20 1,26 1,00 2,41
2,59 2,80 1,62 1,80 2,62
1,00 1,80 1,10 1,10 2,59
3,20 2,62 2,56 2,20 2,50
NR 1,80 1,00 1,40 1,50
2,27 2,23 1,21 1,77 2,75
4,00 4,00 3,60 4,00 4,00
2,54 3,33 2,67 2,53 3,53
2,20 2,09 2,29 2,44 2,50
2,31 NR 1,39 3,00 2,21
1,96 2,80 1,17 1,79 1,71
3,17 1,00 2,05 2,00 3,00
NR
NR
3,50
2,38 2,82 NR 1,00 2,00
Netta rufina
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DK
ES
FI
FR
HR
HU
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
Larus canus
MS
Limosa limosa
Species
populations would remain of no significant importance even when the species occur in such
numbers as to allow their hunting and, in the case of Vanellus vanellus, populations are
considered negligible, although hunted, even to apply some measure concerning hunting.
1,20
1,83
2,17
2,00
2,33
NR
3,12
1,60
1,60
1,50
1,20
1,80
2,20
2,71
1,50
1,80
1,82
1,68
NR
2,00
1,20
Ave.
NIS
2,16
2,29
2,46
2,00
2,96
2,81
2,18
2,53
1,99
2,13
1,59
2,56
1,74
2,40
3,64
2,73
2,37
2,24
1,81
1,93
3,07
1,74
Table 6. 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.
The measures of the 13 plans can be grouped, according to their nature, in the following
categories1:
1. Site protection measures. Such measures can be split in two sub-groups:
1.a designation of protected areas (and Natura 2000 sites);
1.b development/implementation of their management plans or schemes;
2. Species protection measures. They include measures aimed at protecting the
species from:
2.a predation,
2.b fishery and oil spills pollution,
2.c hunting and other human disturbance;
3. Habitat conservation and management. These measures include:
3.a generic actions promoting conservation, restoration and wise use of important
areas and habitat;
1
For the complete list of the measures of each plan, please see the section “Species Accounts”.
21
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
3.b specific measures that attempt to counteract habitat loss/modification due to
farming activities, also through economic incentives provided by agrienvironmental schemes;
4. Monitoring and research measures. These are subdivided into:
4.a basic monitoring, surveys and census through population monitoring schemes,
and
4.b additional activities of ringing and research on threats, management measures,
and to fill knowledge gaps, including those requiring international cooperation
and information sharing;
5. Hunting related measures. These concern all rules and actions to manage hunting
activities: hunting moratorium, hunting seasons, bag limits and statistics, ban of
Japanse Quails release, hunting impact assessment, etc..
45
Number of action per category
40
35
1. Site protection
30
2. Species protection
25
3. Habitat conservation/management
20
4. Monitoring/Research
15
5. Hunting management
10
5
0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Category of action
Figure 9. Number of actions by category in the 13 Management Plans.
Some of the measures included in each of the above five categories belong to the broadly
defined legislation and policy category, which covers all measures requiring the inclusion of
the conservation needs of the species into domestic legislation, policy and planning. They
concern protected areas legislations, hunting legislation, regulations/policies on alien
species, agri-environment schemes, rules for set-aside, pesticides, irrigations, etc., fishery
policies, pollution and oil spill planning.
The highest numbers of conservation actions are linked to monitoring and research,
followed by actions for habitat and hunting management (Figure 9). The monitoring and
research category consists mainly of research measures, representing more than half of the
group’s actions. Similarly, almost half of the actions related to habitat conservation and
management are represented by agri-environmental incentives.
Not all categories of action are included in all plans and the number of actions in each
category is different from plan to plan (Figure 10). For example, the plans for Skylark,
Common Quail and Turtle Dove do not include site and species protection actions. Agri22
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
environmental payments only refer to the plans of the Black-Tailed Godwit, the Lapwing, the
Skylark and the Curlew, and within such plans only one measure is provided for the BlackTailed Godwit and the Curlew, but eight for the Lapwing and four for the Skylark. In the
same way, measures to prevent oil spills are only included in the plans of the Velvet Scoter
and the Scaup. The number of measures related to hunting is also variable from plan to plan,
with the largest number in the plan for the Common Quail, followed by the one for the
Turtle Dove.
Number of actions per category
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1. Site protection
3. Habitat conservation/management
5. Hunting management
2. Species protection
4. Monitoring/Research
Figure 10. Number of actions in each category and their distribution in the 13 Management Plans.
The average of the implementation scores of each group of action across all 13 plans and all
22 countries provides a measure of their level of implementation (Table 7). The resulting
average implementation per type of actions is purely indicative, since countries and number
of countries differ from plan to plan, and even categories of actions and number of actions
in each category.
The analysis of the implementation shows that none of the categories has reached the
threshold of significant progress, while there is a rather significant performance gap
between subsets of actions.
Major advances have been made for site protection and hunting management groups, and,
in particular, in ensuring legislative compliance of the hunting season (AIS=3,6) and in
providing legal protection to important sites for the species (AIS=3,3). On the other hand,
habitat conservation and management is the least implemented category, especially agrienvironment incentives (AIS=1,8).
23
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Category of action
Sub-category
1.a Site designation
1. Site protection
2. Species protection
3. Habitat conservation/
management
4. Monitoring and
Research
N° of
actions
Breeding sites of international importance for the species are
identified and designated SPAs
Management Plans for SPAs important for breeding populations are
1.b Management Plans/Schemes produced and implementation initiated
In areas with breeding Lapwings, measures are taken to minimize
2.a Predation control
predation
The need for restrictions of fishing activities to reduce by-catch is
assessed
2.b Fishery/Pollution
Improved pollution prevention and improved oil spill contingency
planning is in place in marine areas.
2.c Disturbance-free areas
Hunting and disturbance-free areas are established in SPAs.
3.a Generic measures
All wetlands and other habitats are identified, conserved, wisely used
and managed
3.b Specific actions:
- Farming management
- AE schemes
4.a Monitoring/Survey/Census
4.b Ringing/Research
5.a Hunting ban
5. Hunting management
Action (example)
MS ensures that rules for set-aside prevent nests destruction and
encourage the retention of weed-rich stubbles over winter
Agri-environmental schemes is promoted to encourage a
management of agricultural areas
A national programme for monitoring breeding populations of
common farmland birds exists
MS supports research programmes to determine optimum
management options for habitat quality
A temporary hunting ban is established
Melanitta fusca
Numenius arquata
Tringa totanus
3,3
7
Numenius arquata
Tringa totanus
2,2
4
Aythya maryla
Larus canus
Pluvialis apricaria
Vanellus vanellus
1,5
3
2
7
11
7
13
Anas acuta
Larus canus
Limosa limosa
Anas acuta
Coturnix coturnix
Larus canus
Limosa limosa
Netta rufina
Alauda arvensis
Pluvialis apricaria
Melanitta fusca
Numenius arquata
Alauda arvensis
Limosa limosa
Numenius arquata
Vanellus vanellus
Numenius arquata
Pluvialis apricaria
Tringa totanus
Vanellus vanellus
Streptopelia turtur
3
Bag statistics are available where hunting is allowed
12
7
2
1
2,4
2,8
2,2
2,0
2,0
1,8
2,8
2,1
24
5.c Bag statistics
5.f Hunters awareness
2,8
All 13 species
6
5.e Japanse Quail release
2,8
1,9
Aythya maryla
Melanitta fusca
18
Hunting seasons do not involve the breeding period and does not
affect late breeding birds and birds during spring migration
5.d Bag limit/sustainability
AIS
Anas acuta
Aythya maryla
Larus canus
Limosa limosa
Anas acuta
Limosa limosa
12
5.b Hunting season
Hunting is set at sustainable levels
A predictive model is developed to help determine what annual bag
would be sustainable
The release of the Japanese Quail and its hybrids is forbidden.
Awareness-raising campaigns exist on the conservation status and
decrease of Lapwing population targeted at Lapwing hunters
Plan/Species
1,6
Aythya marila
Limosa limosa
Alauda arvensis
Anas acuta
Coturnix coturnix
Vanellus vanellus
Melanitta fusca
Netta rufina
Streptopelia turtur
All 13 species except Limosa limosa and
Netta rufina
Alauda arvensis
Numenius arquata
Coturnix coturnix
Pluvialis apricaria
Netta rufina
Streptopelia turtur
Coturnix coturnix
Vanellus vanellus
2,8
3,6
2,7
2,7
2,2
2,2
1,5
Table 7. Average implementation scores of the action groups and sub-groups. AIS: Average Implementation Score.
24
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
While good progress has been achieved with the designation and protection of key sites as
protected areas and Natura 2000 sites, their actual targeted management still lags behind
(AIS=2,2). Similarly, although the species protection is quite well managed by policy and
legislative tools, ensuring the designation of non-disturbance areas and the oil spill
contingency planning (AIS=2,8), not the same can be said for avoiding predation (AIS=1,5).
Census and survey activities have also obtained a good implementation score (AIS=2,8), with
monitoring programmes in place in all countries for almost all species. Conversely, research
activities are very poorly implemented (AIS=1,6), with the lowest scores received from the
actions requiring international cooperation.
Hunting related measures show good progresses also in relation to temporary hunting
banning (AIS=2,8) and bag estimates (AIS=2,7), while the evaluation of the hunting level,
impact and sustainability, as well as the prohibition of the release of the Japanese Quail and
its hybrids have received lower implementation (AIS=2,2), and even less the only action
aimed at hunters awareness-raising (AIS=1,5). It should also be considered that all these
measures are sometimes reputed not relevant or needed and, when relevant, they are not
taken at all or to a very poor extent in almost 40% of the replies.
25
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Species Accounts
Limosa limosa - Black-Tailed Godwit
General observations
At least nineteen countries have contributed to the implementation of the management
plan for the Black-Tailed Godwit (the plan is not relevant in Luxembourg and Slovenia).
Denmark, Spain, and Hungary, Latvia, Malta, The Netherlands and Sweden are still
implementing it. Among the 19 Member States involved in the implementation of the plan,
the species is huntable only in France. However, in this country 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, while
Denmark has developed an “Action plan for endangered meadow birds”, including the BlackTailed Godwit. The Swedish National SSAP will include models of the species dynamics.
Spain, Finland and Lithuania 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, Denmark 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, Croatia, Czech
Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovak Republic. It is listed in the Lithuania Red Data Book
and it was recently included in the list of Flemish priority species, because of its declining
trend; its hunting was banned since 1980 in Malta, since 1983 in Denmark and since the
hunting season 1997-1998 in Italy; 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; agri-environmental scheme
“Bird habitats on grassland – waders’ nesting sites” in the Czech Republic; a project for
the preparation of management plans for all terrestrial Natura 2000 sites in the Maltese
Islands;
 Monitoring actions: monthly counts of all important wetland sites as part of the National
Monitoring Scheme ‘NEM’ in Sweden; data collection through observations in Malta; a
monitoring scheme for migratory species used as trigger species for the SPA designation
has been implemented in 2013 in Romania.
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 and biosphere reserves
designation, regulations, Rural Development Programmes, agricultural subsidy schemes,
research projects, monitoring schemes, both national (the Atlas of breeding birds in Czech
Republic, the National Monitoring Programme in France and the Network Ecological
26
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Monitoring in The Netherlands) and international (International Waterbird Census), sectoral
plans incorporating conservation measures (forestry, hunting, water management, physical
plans and plans of protected areas).
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, France and
Lithuania
 problems with the application of agri-environmental schemes in agricultural policy in
Slovakia.
The entities involved in the implementation of the measures of the plan are public bodies
(ministries, nature conservation and environment protection authorities, administrations of
protected areas), BirdLife partners, scientific entities, Universities, Research labs, voluntary
birdwatchers and landowners. 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 gave their contribution.
Hunters associations have been involved in France (the only country where the Black-tailed
Godwit is listed as a game species), where they contributed to the hunting bag surveys and
the conservation of wetlands. In Romania the species was removed from the list of huntable
birds only after a consultation with hunters. Even though the species is not huntable in
Malta, the hunting community contributes to all the management decisions.
In most cases, the impact of the implemented actions on population status of the Blacktailed Godwit is not known. There is no data at this time on the species population
development in Czech Republic to assess the effect of the agri-environmental scheme for
waders implemented in 2007. It is believed that the contribution was nil in Hungary, Italy,
Sweden and Slovak Republic. However, it is considered positive in Finland, where the
measures carried out in breeding sites and habitats on a wide scale resulted in the increase
of the breeding population and its range. Moreover, it is deemed that the measures
undertaken have contributed to keep stable the breeding populations in Denmark and
Lithuania.
Achievements of the short-term objectives
The four short-term objectives of the plan are overall partially achieved.
Objective 1 has been only partially achieved since management actions were not or to a very
limited degree implemented in about 37% of the countries implementing the Plan,
especially in Romania and Poland where: management of agricultural areas is not
encouraged; management plans for SPAs for breeding and staging/wintering populations are
not produced and implemented; and, in Romania, also conservation and wise-use in staging
and wintering areas are not promoted.
Objective 2, relevant in France, where the Black-tailed Godwit is included in the list of the
huntable species, and in Romania, where the species is no longer huntable, is the only
objective achieved.
27
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Objective 3, 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.
Short-term objectives
MS
Meas.
BE
BG
CZ
DK
ES
FI
FR
HR
HU
IT
LT
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SK
Overall
1.
Improving
management and
protection of
breeding and
wintering sites
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Partially
Yes
Yes
Yes
Partially
Yes
Yes
Partially
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Partially
Partially
Partially
Yes
Partially
Partially
2.
3.
4.
Temporary
hunting ban
Collection of up
to date
information on
hunting
Collection of data
on breeding and
wintering
population
1
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Yes
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Yes
Not relevant
Not relevant
Yes
11
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
No
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
No
8, 9, 10, 11
Partially
No
Partially
Partially
Yes
Partially
Partially
Partially
Yes
No
Partially
Partially
Not relevant
Yes
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Overall
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Yes
No
Partially
Partially
Yes
Yes
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Table 8. 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. Achieved: all
the related measures are implemented (IS>1); Not Achieved: all the related measures are not or very
little implemented (IS=1); Partially Achieved: at least one of the related measures is implemented
(IS>1).
Monitoring on breeding and wintering population sizes are carried out by almost all
countries (with the exception of Italy and Poland), but ringing activities and/or ecological
research are carried out only in Spain and The Netherlands, and partially in eight countries
(Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Lithuania, Poland, Sweden and Slovak Republic).
Therefore, also objective 4 is only partially achieved.
28
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Implementation of the Plan2
Progress in the overall implementation of the management plan, across the 19 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 Malta (NIS=4,00), while it
was little or no implemented in Italy (NIS=1,00).
4.00
4.0
3.5
NIS/AIS
3.0
2.7
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.00
1.0
BE BG CZ DK ES
FI
FR HR HU IT
LT
LV MT NL PL
PT RO SE
SK AIS
Figure 11. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation
Score of the EU Management Plan for Limosa limosa.
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
high priority
1.0
1.0
medium priority 2
0.5
0.5
low priority
0.0
API
Average IS
Overall, 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 19
Member States evaluated, and in Romania, where the species hunting has been
permanently banned by removing it from the list of huntable birds) 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, Denmark,
Spain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania and Slovak Republic, and not applicable
in the other eleven Member States.
 API
essential/critical 4
3
1
0.0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. 11.
Action/Result
Figure 12. 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.
2
For the complete list of results/actions and related indicators see Table 9. More information on the
calculation and meaning of the calculated indicators can be found on pp. 4-7.
29
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
The measures that have registered a lower level of implementation are ringing activities
(result 10) and ecological research on habitat management, EU-funded schemes affecting
the species, food availability, grasslands conversion, species dynamics model (result 11).
Further work is therefore still needed especially in the following fields listed according to
their level of priority (Table 9):
 Population management: Production and implementation of Management Plans for SPAs
important for breeding populations (result 4), especially in Belgium, The Netherlands,
Poland, Romania and Slovak Republic; Promotion of agri-environmental schemes in
breeding areas (result 2), especially in Italy, Poland, Romania and Slovak Republic.
 Research and monitoring: Ringing activities (result 10) and ecological research on links
between habitat management and species dynamics (result 11).
Summary of achievements of the Plan
At least 19 Member States have contributed to the implementation of the plan for the
Black-tailed Godwit and only three of them (Hungary, Malta and The Netherlands) have
achieved all the their relevant objectives. Temporary hunting ban is the only short-term
objective achieved across the States. Greater work should be also carried out in improving
management and protection of breeding and wintering sites, and much more in collecting of
more robust data on breeding and wintering populations especially by Italy and Bulgaria.
Progress in the overall implementation of the management plan is quite good (AIS=2,7), but
further efforts are needed, especially from Italy, where none of the relevant actions shows
progresses (NIS=1,00). Malta get the best performance by fully accomplishing the relevant
measures, followed by Denmark.
Overall, most progress has been in policy and legislative actions (hunting banning and
farming incentives), in providing basic protection (sites designation) and in populations
monitoring. Major gaps are in actions requiring an additional commitment in both human
and financial resources: sites management, especially for breeding populations, and
population dynamics and ecological research.
30
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Table 9. BLACK-TAILED GODWIT - Limosa limosa
RESULT/ACTION
MEMBER STATE
1. Hunting was temporary banned (minimum five years).
2. Agri-environmental schemes is promoted to encourage a
management of agricultural areas supporting breeding
Black-tailed Godwit
3. Breeding sites of international importance for the species
are identified and designated SPAs
4. Management Plans for SPAs important for breeding
populations are produced and implementation initiated
5. Staging and wintering sites of international importance for
the species are identified and designated SPAs
Several SPAs with no-hunting and disturbance free areas
are provided for that cover at least 50% of the national
wintering or staging population
6. Management Plans for SPAs important for staging and
wintering populations are produced and implemented
7. Specific conservation measures and wise-use are promoted
in staging and wintering areas
8. Up to date estimates of breeding populations size, trends
and key demographic parameters from all important sites
are made available
9. Annual mid-winter census of all areas of international
importance for wintering is carried out as part of the
International Waterbird Census
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
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
National Implementation Score (NIS)
PS
Implementation Score (IS)
Ave.IS API
BE BG CZ DK ES FI FR HR HU IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK
3 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
4,0
0,0
3 4,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 2,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 1,00 4,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 3,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 4,00 0,00 1,00
2,6
1,4
3 4,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 1,00 4,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 4,00
3,3
0,7
3 1,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 3,00 2,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 3,00 4,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 4,00 0,00 1,00
2,3
1,8
3 0,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 2,50 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 3,00 4,00 4,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 3,00
3,6
0,4
2 0,00 2,00 0,00 4,00 1,00 0,00 2,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 3,00
2,2
1,2
2 0,00 1,00 0,00 4,00 2,00 0,00 2,00 1,00 3,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 3,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 2,00
2,0
1,3
2 3,00 0,00 3,00 4,00 0,00 3,00 2,00 0,00 2,00 1,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 4,00 1,00 0,00 2,00 4,00 0,00 3,00
2,7
0,9
2 0,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 4,00
4,0
0,0
2 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 3,00 1,00 1,50 3,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 2,50 2,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00
1,4
1,7
2 1,00 1,00 1,00 2,83 2,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 2,00
1,5
1,7
2,47 2,31 2,44 3,65 2,77 2,25 2,67 1,77 2,59 1,00 3,20 NR 2,27 4,00 2,54 2,20 2,31 1,96 3,17 NR 2,38
2,7
Overall
IS
31
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Larus canus - Common Gull
General observations
At least seventeen countries have implemented the management plan for the Common Gull
(the plan is not relevant in Spain and Portugal) and in Denmark, Latvia and Malta it is still
being implemented. The species is huntable only in Sweden.
Species monitoring and wetland sites counting carried out in The Netherlands have been
triggered by the Plan. Some management actions (cutting of bushes and reeds)
implemented in Lithuania at regional level (Kretuonas managed reserve), where half of the
national breeding population is concentrated, have been also inspired by the Plan.
All Member States, with the only exception of Bulgaria, Denmark, Italy, Lithuania,
Luxembourg and Sweden, have taken additional measures independently from the
management plan:
 The species is protected by law in Hungary and strictly protected in Croatia, Poland,
Slovakia;
 Its hunting is prohibited in Romania and Czech Republic and fines are applicable to
contraventions to non-huntable species (Conservation of Wild Birds Regulations) in
Malta;
 Habitat restoration and conservation (nest protection, predators reduction, ex situ
incubation of eggs, etc.) projects are implemented in Hungary and Poland;
 A project is expected to result, by the end of 2013, in the preparation of management
plans for all terrestrial Natura 2000 sites in the Maltese Islands;
 Some measures in France are carried out at regional level and managed by NGOs.
The measures of the Plan have been incorporated in other tools: legislative and regulatory
(French national legislations on protected areas, including N2000, Dutch Flora and Fauna
law, Polish and Maltese legislation on N2000 and regulatory measures on SPAs, regulations
under management plans of protected areas in Lithuania), national monitoring schemes
(National Breeding Bird Atlas and French Gulls census in France, Atlas of the breeding
distribution of birds and Wintering Waterfowl Census in Czech Republic, Network Ecological
Monitoring in The Netherlands, National Monitoring System on Biodiversity 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;
 possible lack of any interest in managing this species in Italy;
 breeding pairs are not very faithful to their breeding place making local conservation
measures difficult to implement in France.
There has been no contribution from the hunting community in implementing the plan in
any Member State, even in Sweden, the only country where the Common Gull is hunted and
where no action of the plan has been taken (NIS=1).
32
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
In general, it is unclear whether the measures applied have contributed to the conservation
status of the Common Gull. In many cases it is supposed that they have no effect 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) or because the
national population is too small and conservation actions are carried out only at local level
to contribute to the improvement of status (Lithuania). However, it is deemed that the legal
protection of breeding sites, do contribute to the improvement of the population status in
Denmark.
Achievements of the short-term objectives
The short-term objectives of the management plan for the Common Gull could be
considered achieved in Italy, Luxembourg and The Netherlands, but none of the five
objectives has been fully achieved across the seventeen Member States that have
implemented the plan.
Short-term objectives
1.
MS
Meas.
BE
BG
CZ
DK
FR
HR
HU
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
RO
SE
SK
Overall
Increasing
breeding
sites
protection
2.1, 4
Yes
Not relev.
No
Yes
Partially
Not relev.
Not relev.
Not relev.
Yes
Not relev.
Yes
Not relev.
Yes
Partially
Not relev.
Not relev.
Yes
Partially
2.
Creation of
breeding sites
or restoring
breeding
habitat
2.3
Yes
Not relev.
No
Yes
No
Yes
Not relev.
Not relev.
Yes
Not relev.
No
Not relev.
Yes
No
Not relev.
Not relev.
No
Partially
3.
Predators
manageme
nt at large
colony
sites
3
Yes
Not relev.
No
Yes
No
Not relev.
Not relev.
Not relev.
No
Not relev.
No
Not relev.
Yes
No
Not relev.
Not relev.
No
Partially
4.
Acquiring data on
population
regulation or
hunting for impact
assessment
1 (6)
Not relevant
Yes
Not relevant
Yes
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Yes
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Yes
Not relevant
Not relevant
No
Not relevant
Partially
5.
Improving
population
monitoring
scheme
5
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Not relev.
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Partially
Overall
Partially
Partially
No
Partially
Partially
Partially
No
Yes
Partially
Yes
Partially
Partially
Yes
Partially
No
No
Partially
Partially
Table 10. 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. Achieved: all
the related measures are implemented (IS>1); Not Achieved: all the related measures are not or very
little implemented (IS=1); Partially Achieved: at least one of the related measures is implemented
(IS>1).
33
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Acquirement of data on population hunting (objective 4) is the closest to be reached. It is
achieved in Bulgaria, Denmark, Lithuania and The Netherlands, where data on individuals
killed under derogations are collected, but not in Sweden, the only country where the
Common Gull is hunted.
Objective 1 has been partially achieved because in the Czech Republic, France and Poland
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 the Czech
Republic, France, Latvia, Poland and Slovakia, and therefore also the objective 2 has been
achieved only to some extent. Objective 3 is the furthest from being accomplished, since it
has been achieved only in three States (Belgium, Denmark and The Netherlands), where
some management actions to reduce nest loss due to predation are taken. Objective 5
seems to have a better achievement, since about 37% of the countries have implemented a
monitoring scheme with habitat description.
Implementation of the Plan3
Progress in the overall implementation of the management plan across the seventeen
Member States implementing it, is not very good (Average IS=2,2). Malta shows the highest
progress in implementation (NIS=4,00), having fully identified and protected as SPAs
important wintering sites but only one action is relevant in Malta.
The applicable actions have not or to a very limited extent been carried out in the Czech
Republic and in Sweden (NIS=1,00), because the population is increasing, it is widely
distributed and therefore general conservation of the species is considered to be sufficient
and no special actions are deemed relevant.
4.00
4.0
3.5
NIS/AIS
3.0
2.5
2.2
2.0
1.5
1.00
1.00
1.0
BE
BG
CZ
DK
FR
HR HU
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT NL
PL
RO
SE
SK
AIS
Figure 13. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation
Score of the EU Management Plan for Larus canus.
No action is fully implemented. The best progress is in the collection of data on individuals
taken (result 1), but little or no work has been carried out in Sweden, the only country
where hunting is allowed. Good progress has also been in effective species and habitat
3
For the complete list of results/actions and related indicators see Table 11. More information on the
calculation and meaning of the calculated indicators can be found on pp. 4-7.
34
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
protection: identification and protection of important wintering and breeding sites and
restoring/creating them (result 2).
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
high priority
1.0
1.0
medium priority 2
0.5
0.5
low priority
0.0
0.0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
API
Average IS
Major gaps are in the following actions with the highest Action Priority Index:
 reduce nest loss due to predation and unfavourable water level control (result 3);
 research on breeding populations (result 6);
 monitoring scheme with habitat description (result 5).
 API
essential/critical 4
3
1
6.
Action/Result
Figure 14. 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.
Summary of achievements of the Plan
At least 17 Member States are involved in the implementation of the plan for the Common
Gull, but only three of them (Italy, Luxembourg and The Netherlands) have reached all the
objectives relevant in their countries, while another four (Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania
and Sweden) do not show any advancement. Major progresses are recorded in the
acquisition of quantitative data on population regulation or hunting for impact assessment,
reached in all concerned countries with the exception of Sweden. Conversely, the
furthermost objective is the implementation of management of predators at large colony
sites, reached in only 33% of the concerned countries.
Progress in the overall implementation of the plan is not very good (AIS=2,2). By fully
implementing the designation as SPAs important wintering sites, the only measure deemed
as relevant, Malta has fully implemented the plan (NIS=4,00), while little or no work has
been carried out in the Czech Republic and in Sweden (NIS=1,00).
Overall, the measure with best progress is the collection of data on individuals taken,
although further work is still needed, especially by Sweden, the only country where hunting
is allowed and where no progress has been made. Measures regarding the protection,
restoration and creation of sites are well implemented, but priority work should be carried
out on predation and unfavourable water level management. Research on population
dynamics would also need a greater effort.
35
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Table 11. COMMON GULL - Larus canus
RESULT/ACTION
Priority
Score
MEMBER STATE
1. Annual estimates are available of
individuals taken:
- during hunting seasons
- under derogations. Numbers killed and
reasons for derogations are provided
2. 2.1. MS identified and protected, as SPAs
where appropriate Important breeding
sites
2.2. MS identified and protected, as SPAs
where appropriate Important wintering
sites
2.3. Measures to restore former or
create new breeding sites are taken
3. Management actions are taken to reduce
nest loss due to predation and
unfavourable water level control
4. Key breeding sites are protected from
human disturbance and egg collection.
Alternative breeding sites are created
5. A monitoring scheme with habitat
description is implemented:
- for breeding populations
- for wintering populations
6. MS supports research of survival rates
and fecundity, allowing for population
modelling and assessment of additional
factors causing mortality
National Implementation Score (NIS)
Action
Ave.
Priority
IS
Index
Implementation Score (IS)
BE
BG
CZ
DK
ES
FR
HR
HU
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SK
2
0,00 4,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00
3,2
0,5
3
3,00 4,00 1,00 3,00 0,00 2,33 3,00 4,00 1,00 4,00 1,00 3,00 4,00 4,00 3,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 3,00
3,0
1,0
3
2,00 0,00 1,00 3,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 2,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00
1,4
2,6
3
3,00 0,00 1,00 4,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 4,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00
2,7
1,3
2
1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 3,00 1,00 3,00 3,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 3,50
1,9
1,4
2
0,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
1,3
1,8
2,36 3,14 1,00 2,67 NR 1,36 2,20 2,80 1,80 2,62 1,80 2,23 4,00 3,33 2,09 NR 2,80 1,00 2,82
2,2
Overall
IS
36
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Pluvialis apricaria - Golden Plover
General observations
At least seventeen countries have implemented the plan for the Golden Plover (the plan is
not relevant in Slovenia and Slovakia) and it is still in implementation in some of them
(Spain, Hungary, Latvia, Malta and The Netherlands). The Golden Plover is huntable in three
of these 17 countries: Malta, Portugal and Belgium, but in the latter there is no open season.
It is also huntable in France, but data provided in the enquiry do not allow a proper analysis
of the plan implementation.
Denmark and Lithuania developed a management plan specific for the Golden Plover.
The measures of the plan have inspired/triggered some measures taken for the Golden
Plover in Spain, Lithuania and Latvia. Almost all Member States, with the exclusion of the
Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Latvia and Malta have also undertaken further measures
independently from the plan:
 Protection actions: the species is strictly protected by law in Croatia, Hungary, Poland and
even in Slovakia, where the plan is not relevant; designation of the most important Birds
Areas for the species as protected areas and Ramsar sites in Bulgaria, and of the large
part of breeding areas as protected areas in Sweden;
 Management actions: management of some potential breeding areas in The Netherlands;
water level management in wintering areas in Belgium; habitat restoration projects in
Hungary not specifically aimed at the Golden Plover; management plans for Natura 2000
sites where the species is included as a designation feature in Denmark.
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,
hunting regulations, sectoral plans, agri-environmental schemes, Red Data Book identifying
threats to wintering populations, national monitoring programs and schemes, monitoring
and ringing projects, local restoration projects.
Actions are generally taken at national level, but only at regional level in Belgium and
Denmark, and only at local level in Luxembourg. The bodies involved in the implementation
of the measures of the plan are ministries, public administrations, research institutes,
ornithologists, BirdLife partners and other NGOs, landowners and hunters.
Hunters organizations have contributed significantly in Denmark, by acknowledging the
species as no longer a quarry species in 1983. Similarly, in Romania this species was
removed from the list of huntable birds after agreement with hunters. Even though the
species is not huntable in Italy, hunting associations promoted on their own initiative winter
counts in several regions, helping to improve our knowledge on the size of the wintering
population. Hunters are involved also in Lithuania, at the authorities’ request, to minimize
the predation (shooting Canadian minks, racoon dogs, crows). In Malta, where the species is
huntable, the hunting organisations regularly participate in decision making concerning all
measures of the management plans and were requested to provide guidance to their
members on how to appropriately report hunting bags on the forms (carnet de chasse)
37
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
provided by the authority. It would seem that the hunting community has played no role in
Portugal although the species is huntable.
The contribution of the actions on population status of the Golden Plover is generally
unknown. It is supposed to be nil in a significant portion of the countries (33%). In particular,
in Denmark, where the species is extinct as a breeding bird, the effort to manage and
maintain the last breeding sites has deemed to have been carried out in vain. Only Belgium
believes in some positive effect, since the development of new sites, mostly within SPAs,
could compensate the loss in wintering and staging habitats.
Achievement of the short-term objectives
The EU Management plan for Pluvialis apricaria does not set short-term objectives.
Implementation of the Plan4
Seventeen Member States contributed to the implementation of the management plan for
Pluvialis apricaria. The progress in the implementation is moderate (AIS=2,1). National
implementation score is the highest in Malta (NIS=3,60) and the lowest in the Czech
Republic and Luxembourg (NIS=1,00).
4.0
3.60
3.5
NIS/AIS
3.0
2.5
2.1
2.0
1.5
1.00
1.0
BE
BG
CZ
1.00
DK
ES
HR HU
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
AIS
Figure 15. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation
Score of the EU Management Plan for Pluvialis apricaria.
Latvia and Lithuania host only breeding populations 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, with the exception of Denmark, Poland and Sweden, none of the other
countries host breeding populations and therefore measures specifically aimed at such
populations (results 2 and 5) are not relevant in their countries.
The measures better implemented are those relating to hunting (results 1 and 10). They are
carried out only in Malta and Portugal, where the species is hunted (it is listed as huntable
species in Belgium, but there is no open season). However, while evaluations of the harvest
4
For the complete list of results/actions and related indicators see Table 12. More information on the
calculation and meaning of the calculated indicators can be found on pp. 4-7.
38
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
potential and availability of reliable bag size statistics are fully implemented in Malta, they
do not show significant progress in Portugal (IS=2).
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
 API
essential/critical 4
API
Average IS
Overall, the measures related to population management have been well implemented: the
management of breeding habitat (result 2) and of staging grounds (result 3), the
identification of threats on breeding, staging and wintering grounds (result 6), and the
management of wintering habitat (result 4).
high priority
3
medium priority 2
low priority
1
0.0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
Action/Result
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.
Also the European-wide survey of winter populations (result 9) and the knowledge about
wintering numbers of the Golden Plover in South-West Europe and North Africa (result 8)
have been improved, with the best implementation in Belgium and Demark, which achieved
the results.
The measures in greater need of further work are:
 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);
 To take measures to minimize predation (result 5).
Summary of achievements of the Plan
At least 17 Member States are involved in the implementation of the plan for the Golden
Plover.
There hasn’t been so much progress in the implementation (AIS=2,1). The plan has been
most successful implemented in Malta and Denmark (NIS>3,00), but has made no progress
in the Czech Republic and Luxembourg, where actions has not been carried or only in a very
small proportion.
Hunting relying on reliable bag statistics and harvest potential, applicable only in Malta and
Portugal, have achieved significant progress, but with a lower contribution by Portugal.
Good progress has also been made in habitats management, especially for breeding habitats
39
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
and staging areas. The major efforts should be focused on monitoring and research activities
to determine optimum management options for improving breeding and wintering habitats
quality, and much more on an international cooperation to determine movements of birds
from Britain and Ireland to France and Portugal where they are hunted.
40
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Table 12. GOLDEN PLOVER - Pluvialis apricaria
RESULT/ACTION
MEMBER STATE
1. Hunting relies on reliable bag size statistics and on appropriate
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
evaluations of the harvest potential
Breeding habitat is managed favouring breeding productivity. In
particular:
a. Afforestation is stopped on breeding grounds
b. Sheep grazing schemes focus on maintaining the open structure
c. Muirburn is encouraged to control heather vegetation height
d. Traditional Red Grouse hunting is supported where appropriate
Important staging grounds and stop-over routes are managed securing
access to feeding opportunities
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
Measures are taken to minimize predation in areas with breeding
populations of the nominate subspecies
Common and specific threats on breeding, staging and wintering
grounds are identified
Management options for breeding, staging and wintering habitat
enhancement, resulting from research promoted under Result 13 is
communicated
Knowledge about wintering numbers of the Golden Plover in SouthWest Europe and North Africa is improved and made available.
A European-wide survey of winter populations is agreed and launched in
coordination by all MSs, to be repeated every 5 years
Bag statistics are available where hunting is allowed
Ringing schemes are pursued, new ones are started and data are
disseminate to monitor the long-term trends in survival of the species
12. MS supports an international study to determine movements of birds
from Britain and Ireland to France and Portugal where they are hunted
13. MS supports research programmes to determine optimum management
options for breeding/wintering habitat quality
National Implementation Score (NIS)
PS
Implementation Score (IS)
AIS
API
3 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,0
1,0
3 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 2,33 0,00 0,00 2,67 0,00 0,00 2,8
1,2
3 3,00 4,00 1,00 4,00 3,00 1,00 3,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 4,00 2,00 0,00 1,00 2,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 2,4
1,6
3 2,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 3,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,1
1,9
3 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,8
2,3
2 4,00 1,00 1,00 4,00 3,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 4,00 1,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 3,50 0,00 1,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 2,4
1,1
2 3,00 4,00 1,00 0,00 3,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 3,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 3,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,9
1,4
2 0,00 0,00 1,00 4,00 4,00 1,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,0
1,3
2 4,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 4,00 3,00 1,00 3,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,2
1,2
2 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,0
0,7
3 4,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 3,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 4,00 3,00 4,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,8
2,2
3 1,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,0
3,0
3 1,00 1,00 0,00 3,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 2,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,4
2,6
BE BG CZ DK ES HR HU IT
LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE
SI
2,62 2,15 1,00 3,43 2,45 1,26 1,62 1,10 2,56 1,00 1,21 3,60 2,67 2,29 1,39 1,17 2,05 NR
SK
NR
2,1
Over
all IS
41
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Vanellus vanellus - Lapwing
General observations
At least 19 Member States have contributed to the implementation of the management plan
for the Lapwing and seven of them (Belgium, Cyprus, Spain, Hungary, Luxembourg, Latvia
and Malta) are still implementing it. Four out of these 19 countries list the Lapwing as
huntable species: Spain, Italy, Malta and Belgium. In this latter country there is no open
season from 2011 to 2016. The Lapwing is also huntable in France, but information provided
in the enquiry does not allow the full evaluation of the plan implementation.
A National “Action Plan for Lapwing” has been specifically elaborated for the species in
Luxembourg, while Denmark has produced an “Action plan for endangered meadow birds”,
including the Lapwing.
In most cases (74%) countries have not carried out any measure for the Lapwing
inspired/triggered by the EU Management Plan, while most measures for the species have
been already taken before the plan. In particular, the plan has not been considered by both
national and regional Italian administrations.
With the only exception of Italy, Lithuania and 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
Croatia, Latvia, Poland and Slovakia; nest sites protection supported by several local
organizations in The Netherlands in cooperation with farmers; hunting ban during prenuptial migration since 2006 in Malta; designations of various important sites in the
Maltese Islands (Nature Reserves, Bird Sanctuaries, Special Areas of Conservation, Special
Protection Areas, Tree Protection Areas, Areas of Ecological Importance, Sites of
Scientific Importance and Ramsar sites); designation of further SPAs of importance for
breeding, staging and wintering Lapwings in Luxembourg.
 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), Czech Republic (Lapwing is the flag species for proposed agrienvironment schemes for waders), Portugal (measures specifically designed for steppic
birds) and Sweden (grazed meadows); a project for the preparation of management
plans for all terrestrial Natura 2000 sites in the Maltese Islands; specific measures at
traditional and new breeding sites in Luxembourg.
 Monitoring actions: a monitoring programme in the Czech Republic to find localities of
occurrence and protect nests against agricultural activities; monthly counts of all
important wetland sites as part of the National Monitoring Scheme ‘NEM’ in Sweden;
monthly waterbird counts in Cyprus.
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 Environment 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.
42
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
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 (including Natura 2000 legislation), Regulation on Ecological Network, legal
provisions on collecting hunting bag data, hunting plans and regulations, 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, sectoral plans, atlas of breeding birds,
national and regional monitoring programmes.
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.
Notes by FACE’s Members
Italy

The EU management plan has triggered a measure for limiting the hunting bag. ISPRA
(Institute of Environmental Protection and Research, the national scientific authority entitled
by law to provide advice and opinions on wildlife management) recommends Regions to adopt
a maximum bag per hunter of 5 birds/day and 25/year. Most regions followed such advice.

The hunting community has contributed to the plan in different ways:
• the sub district hunting management units (ATC, Ambiti territoriali di Caccia), which have
law obligations to invest financial resources in restoring and conserving habitats, have
promoted restoration initiatives by paying farmers for maintaining flooding, grasses and
stubble in crops fields;
• hunters carry out habitats restoration and management works for hunting purposes, so
that suitable habitats for waterbirds, including Lapwing, are maintained.
• the Italian Hunting Federation (FNC) has carried out a harvest study.


Official bag data are available only for some regions.
Breeding population in Italy is stable-increasing. Wintering population is increasing in 3
important regions that elaborated IWC data until 2009 or 2006 or 2010. National data IWC
shows significant increase from 1993-2000 but complete analysis is not still available for
recent years.
The hunting community has provided some contribution to the plan only in Malta, where it
takes part in all plan measures and was requested to provide guidance on how to
appropriately report hunting bags on the forms (carnet de chasse).
The inaction of the hunting community in Spain appears to reflect the lack of importance of
the species for hunters´ interests.
A greater role was played by hunters organizations in Denmark and Romania in approving
the protection of the Lapwing as a non-quarry species.
It is thought that the plan implementation has not had any effect on the population status of
the Lapwing in Sweden, Denmark (where the species is still declining due to intensive
farming), Belgium (where the increase of the Walloon population is due to adult birds
settling down from neighbouring countries) and Italy (where the increase could be related to
the reduction of hunting season). 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
43
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
(2007-2011). Even though at this time there is no data assessing the effect of agroenvironmental measures on the Lapwing population development in the Czech Republic, the
activities of nest finding and protection seem to be very successful at local and/or regional
level.
Achievement of the short-term objectives
The short-term objectives of the management plan for the Lapwing are achieved in The
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Malta. Among these four countries, Malta is the only one
that achieved the short-term objectives by fully implementing the plan (NIS=4). Malta has
achieved such implementation level with only one measure applied and fully implemented:
reliable bag statistics availability and harvest pressure estimation. The Lapwing population,
although huntable, is reputed locally negligible in Malta to apply any other measure,
including the other ones related to hunting.
Short-term objectives
MS
Meas.
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DK
ES
HR
HU
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SK
Overall
1.
Regulations,
incentives and
other initiatives
to restoring the
Lapwing FCS
1 - 8, 10 - 12
Partially
No
Partially
Partially
Partially
Yes
No
Partially
No
Yes
Partially
Partially
Not relevant
Yes
Yes
Not relevant
Partially
Partially
No
Partially
2.
Collection of
more robust
scientific data on
key population
parameters
9, 13 - 16
Partially
No
Not relevant
Partially
Partially
Partially
No
Partially
Partially
No
Partially
Partially
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Partially
Partially
No
Partially
Overall
Partially
No
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
No
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Partially
Partially
No
Partially
Table 13. 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. Achieved:
all the related measures are implemented (IS>1); Not Achieved: all the related measures are not or
very little implemented (IS=1); Partially Achieved: at least one of the related measures is
implemented (IS>1).
Considering overall the 19 Member States, both objectives have been reached only partly.
44
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Bulgaria, Croatia and Slovakia have not implemented any measure and therefore they have
not contributed to the achievement of the plan objectives.
Even though many of the countries have put in place different agri-environmental schemes,
no significant progress has been made, and often the incentives suggested by the plan are
not put into force. Measures to minimize predation are often not taken. Initiatives linked to
hunting are not developed; they are not deemed relevant/needed (Malta and Spain) or not
undertaken at all (Italy) in the three countries where Lapwing hunting is allowed. Objective 1
is accordingly not achieved.
With the only exception of Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovakia and Lithuania, in all countries the
monitoring actions for both breeding and wintering populations show significant progress or
are fully implemented. Nevertheless, further studies on productivity and relations with
habitat managements are not carried out in any country (excluding Denmark and The
Netherlands). Moreover, reliable bag statistics are not available and hunting/trapping
pressure is not estimated where the species is hunted (apart from Malta that has scored it
as fully implemented). Objective 2 cannot therefore be considered to be reached.
Implementation of the Plan5
The progress in the implementation of the management plan across the 19 Member States
that contributed to its implementation is insufficient (Average IS=1,9), with the highest
progress in Malta (NIS=4,00), which has scored as fully achieved one result (hunting bag and
pressure) whilst deeming not relevant/needed for the country all the other measures of the
plan. Conversely, Bulgaria, Croatia and Slovakia, with no or very little activity undertaken in
all measures, have not made any progress (NIS=1,00).
4.00
4.0
3.5
NIS/AIS
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.9
1.5
1.0
1.00
1.00
BE BG CY CZ DK ES HR HU IT
1.00
LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE
SK AIS
Figure 17. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation
Score of the EU Management Plan for Vanellus vanellus.
No measure has been fully implemented across the 19 countries.
The two measures best implemented are those relating to monitoring activities (results 13
and 15), fully realised in nine countries. Other measures that have been applied quite well,
5
For the complete list of results/actions and related indicators see Table 14. More information on the
calculation and meaning of the calculated indicators can be found on pp. 4-7.
45
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
although with no significant progress (AIS<3) are some of the farming incentives (results 46).
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
API
Average IS
With exception of Spain, Italy and Malta, where Lapwing hunting is allowed (in Belgium the
species is huntable, but there is no open season for the hunting period 2011-2016), the
measures concerning hunting (results 9, 10 and 11) are not applicable in the other 16
countries (IS and API=0). The availability of reliable bag statistics and estimation of the
harvest pressure (result 9) record a full implementation only in Malta, while little or no work
has been carried out in Italy and just some work started in Spain. Restrictions on hunting
(result 10) and awareness-raising campaigns on the conservation status of Lapwing
population targeted at Lapwing hunters (result 11) have not been implemented at all or very
little in Italy, while they are considered not relevant both in Spain and in Malta. In particular,
restriction on hunting in Malta are not needed since an average yearly hunting bag of 275
birds in Malta is considered to have a not significant impact. Awareness-raising campaigns
are not needed since Lapwing is not a preferred target species for local hunters because a
total recorded of about 100 individuals per year make scarce its encounter. However, it
would seem there is some discrepancy between hunting bag and recorded individuals,
raising some doubts on the full achievement of result 9 in Malta.
 API
essential/critical 4
high priority
3
medium priority 2
low priority
1
0.0
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
Action/Result
Figure 18. 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.
Major efforts need to be made for three actions with the highest API, all of them policy and
legislative, making available and promoting 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). Finally, special efforts
should be made to improve the breeding success in Member States where Lapwings breed
and are hunted (result 8), especially in Italy, where no work has been done.
Summary of achievements of the Plan
The plan for the Lapwing is applicable in at least 19 Member States, but only four of them
have reached both objectives of the plan. Regulations, incentives and other initiatives
contributing to restore the Lapwing to a FCS have been put into force in only 24% of the
concerned countries, and even less (22%) have collected more robust scientific data on key
46
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
population parameters such as population size, trends, productivity and survival, including
proper bag statistics.
The best implementation of the plan has been reached in Malta (NIS=4,00), followed with a
certain distance from Denmark (NIS=3,25). It should be considered that Malta has taken and
fully implemented only the collection of reliable bag data, while it has deemed not
applicable all the other measures, since the Lapwing population, although huntable, is
reputed locally negligible. Notwithstanding the excellent score from Malta, progress in the
overall implementation of the action plan is fairly poor (AIS=1,9) and no progress has been
made in Bulgaria, Croatia and Slovakia.
The most progress in implementing measures has been in population monitoring,
developing national programmes for monitoring wintering populations of the Lapwing and
breeding populations of common farmland birds. The measure more unaccomplished and
needing greater efforts are to put into force farming incentives, especially for sowing crops
in spring instead of in autumn, for retaining and restoring pastoral pockets in arable areas
and for retaining and restoring damp or wet areas inside or adjacent to fields.
47
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Table 14. LAPWING - Vanellus vanellus
RESULT/ACTION
MEMBER STATE
1.Incentives exist and are taken up by farmers for:
- retaining and restoring pastoral pockets in arable areas
2.- sowing crops in spring instead of in autumn
3.- retaining and restoring damp or wet areas
4.- extensification of grassland management (e.g. through less
effective drainage, low or no input of fertilizer/manure)
5.- maintaining and restoring extensive grazing regimes
6.- using low or no input of pesticides and biocides
7.- for organic farming, for omitting mechanical weeding,
rolling and similar operations between 10 and 60 days after
sowing of spring cereals or root crops
8.Special efforts to improve the breeding success are made by
MS where Lapwings breed and are hunted
9.Reliable bag statistics are available and hunting/trapping
pressure is estimated
10.Restrictions on hunting are taken until 2011 if there are clear
evidences of excessive local hunting pressure
11. Awareness-raising campaigns exist on the conservation
status and decrease of Lapwing population targeted at
Lapwing hunters
12.In areas with breeding Lapwings, measures are taken to
minimize predation
13.A national programme for monitoring breeding populations
of common farmland birds exists
14.A study of the Lapwing fledging success and causes of chick
loss under different management regimes has been carried
out
15.A national programme for monitoring wintering populations
is developed (for MSs with more than 100,000 wintering
Lapwing)
16.Studies to determine means of habitat management
minimising predation rates are carried out
National Implementation Score (NIS)
Implementation Score (IS)
PS
AIS
API
4 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 4,00 3,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 2,00 2,00 2,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 1,00
1,6
3,2
4 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 1,00
4 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 4,00 4,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 3,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 2,00 3,00 0,00 1,00 3,00 1,00
1,1
1,8
3,8
2,9
3 2,00 0,00 1,00 4,00 4,00 2,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 3,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 3,00 2,00 0,00 2,00 3,00 1,00
2,1
1,9
3 2,00 1,00 1,00 4,00 4,00 3,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 3,00 1,00 3,00 0,00 2,00 2,00 0,00 1,00 3,00 1,00
2 2,00 1,00 1,00 4,00 4,00 3,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 3,00 1,00 3,00 0,00 2,00 2,00 0,00 4,00 2,00 1,00
2,1
2,2
1,9
1,2
2 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 4,00 3,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 2,00 2,00 1,00 0,00 2,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
1,6
1,6
3 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
1,7
2,3
2 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
2,3
1,1
2 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
1,0
2,0
2 0,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
1,5
1,7
2 2,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 3,00 3,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 1,00
1,5
1,6
2 4,00 1,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 1,00 4,00 2,00 1,00 4,00 3,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 3,00 4,00 1,00
3,0
0,7
2 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 4,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
1,4
1,7
2 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 3,00 4,00 0,00 0,00
3,8
0,1
2 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 1,00
1,2
1,9
1,48 1,00 1,11 2,00 3,25 2,54 1,00 1,80 1,10 2,20 1,40 1,77 4,00 2,53 2,44 3,00 1,79 2,00 1,00
1,9
Overall
IS
BE BG CY
CZ DK
ES HR HU
IT
LT
LU
LV MT NL
PL
PT RO SE
SK
48
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Tringa totanus - Redshank
General observations
The management plan for the Redshank has been implemented by at least 20 Member
States and its implementation is still ongoing in five countries, Spain, Finland, Hungary,
Latvia and Malta. The Redshank is listed as not huntable in all 20 countries. It is huntable in
France but no reply to the enquiry was submitted by France for that species.
Denmark is the only State that has a national “Action plan for endangered meadow birds”,
which includes also the Redshank and which has been elaborated before the EU
Management Plan was drafted.
The actions suggested by the plan have inspired those taken in Spain, Lithuania and Latvia,
while the plan did not have any influence on the actions taken in the other countries. In The
Netherlands and Italy, many actions started well before the plan was drawn up, and in
Denmark the national “Action plan for endangered meadow birds”, which includes also the
Redshank, has been also drafted earlier.
With the only exception of Italy and Luxembourg the other countries have taken many
initiatives independently from the management plan:
 Protection actions: the species is strictly protected by law in Croatia, the Czech Republic,
Poland, Hungary and Slovakia; diverse nature protection areas are designated in many
countries;
 Management actions: wetland restorations and management measures (grazing instead
of mowing, elimination of invasive species) in Hungary; restoration activities (removing
overgrowing vegetation) were implemented in cooperation with NGOs in Croatia; agroenvironmental measures in specified ‘meadow bird areas’, special mowing programs, and
agricultural subsidy schemes are in place in Belgium, The Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark
and Poland; management plans for all Natura 2000 sites are at various stages of drafting
and implementation in Malta, Natura 2000 planning for 2010-2015 is under
implementation in Denmark (Order No. 1114 of 2011), and management plans for some
SPAs are produced and implemented in Lithuania;
 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; national monitoring schemes are operating in The Netherlands (‘NEM’), Finland,
Croatia, Italy, Poland, Portugal and Romania.
The above initiatives and other instruments represent the frameworks within which the
actions plan have been included: national legislations and acts on nature conservation,
enforcement regulations, sectoral plans (including management plans for Natura 2000 sites
and other protected areas), EU LIFE and other projects, bird monitoring programs, rural
programmes.
The measures taken often do not address directly the species; they are more general and
designed for improving habitats important for several species.
49
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
The Redshank is not huntable in any of the 20 countries and hunting communities have not
played any relevant role. However, in Romania hunters contributed to remove the species
from the list of huntable birds and in Lithuania they are involved at the authorities’ request
to minimize the predation (shooting Canadian minks, racoon dogs, crows).
The main difficulties in implementing the actions are related to:
 private land owners (Belgium);
 lack of knowledge of the location of breeding sites (Czech Republic);
 vast distribution of the species (Finland);
 lack of consideration for the plan by both national and regional administrations (Italy);
 lack of financial resources (Lithuania);
 problems with the application of the agri-environmental scheme in agriculture policy
(Slovakia).
It is envisaged that the actions carried out do not contribute to improving the population
status of the Redshank in the Czech Republic, in Denmark (where the breeding population of
Common Redshank is still declining), in Finland, Sweden and Slovakia, but they have at least
probably 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.
Achievement of the short-term objectives
All the short-term objectives of the management plan for the Redshank could be considered
achieved in Hungary, Latvia, Malta, The Netherlands and Slovenia. However, considering the
20 countries altogether, none of the three objectives have been fully achieved.
Progress has nevertheless been made in achieving objective 2 and to a greater extent
objective 3.
While almost all Member States have accomplished the protection of the breeding and
wintering sites for the Redshank, half of them have not drafted/implemented the relative
management plans, especially for breeding sites, or taken measures to minimize predation,
and therefore objectives 1 and 2 are not achieved. In the same way, all countries have
collected better data on population sizes and trend (with the exception of Portugal and
Romania with regard to the breeding populations), but 40% of them have not taken the
ringing activities recommended by the plan. Therefore, even if objective 3 is close to being
reached, it is not yet fully reached.
50
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Short-term objectives
1.
MS
Meas.
BE
BG
CZ
DK
ES
FI
HR
HU
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
Overall
Improving
management
and protection
of breeding sites
2
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Not relevant
Yes
Not relevant
Yes
No
Not relevant
No
Yes
Yes
No
Partially
2.
Improving
management
and protection
of staging and
wintering sites
3, 4, 5
Partially
Partially
Not relevant
Yes
Partially
Not relevant
Partially
Yes
Partially
Not relevant
Partially
Not relevant
Not relevant
Yes
Not relevant
Partially
Partially
Yes
Not relevant
Not relevant
Partially
3.
Collection of
better data on
hunting impact
and population
dynamics
1, 6, 7, 8
Yes
Yes
Partially
Partially
Partially
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Partially
Not relevant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Partially
Partially
Partially
Yes
Yes
Partially
Overall
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Yes
Partially
Partially
Partially
Yes
Yes
Yes
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Yes
Partially
Partially
Table 15. 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. Achieved: all
the related measures are implemented (IS>1); Not Achieved: all the related measures are not or very
little implemented (IS=1); Partially Achieved: at least one of the related measures is implemented
(IS>1).
Implementation of the plan6
20 Member States implemented the EU management plan for the Redshank. Progress in the
overall implementation of the plan across the countries is quite good (overall IS=2,6). The
plan has been most successfully implemented in Malta, which reached the maximum score
(NIS=4,00) fully accomplishing the only measure applicable (result 8), and least implemented
in Luxembourg (NIS=1,50).
6
For the complete list of results/actions and related indicators see Table 16. More information on the
calculation and meaning of the calculated indicators can be found on pp. 4-7.
51
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
4.00
4.0
3.5
NIS/AIS
3.0
2.6
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
BE BG CZ DK ES
FI HR HU IT
LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE
SI
SK AIS
Figure 19. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation
Score of the EU Management Plan for Tringa totanus.
The estimate of the annual number of the Redshank shot (result 1) is not applicable (IS and
API=0), since the species is not huntable in any of the 20 countries.
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
high priority
1.0
1.0
medium priority 2
0.5
0.5
low priority
0.0
API
Average IS
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 or nearly in all relevant countries, with
the exception of Belgium, where no or little work has been done.
The annual mid-winter census of all areas of international importance for wintering
Redshank (result 7) exceeds the threshold of the significant progress, with all countries
having carried out some activity.
 API
essential/critical 4
3
1
0.0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Action/Result
Figure 20. 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 activity must be carried out 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), and promotion of conservation and wise-use in staging and wintering sites other
than SPAs (result 5). Also ringing activities (result 8) need further efforts, being carried out
only in very few countries.
52
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Summary of achievements of the Plan
The plan for the Redshank has been implemented by at least 20 Member States and five of
them (Hungary, Latvia, Malta, The Netherlands and Slovenia) have achieved the three shortterm objectives. Overall, best achievements are in collecting better data on population
dynamics. Improving the protection/management of breeding sites have been attained by
about half of the countries with breeding populations, while improving the
protection/management of staging/wintering sites have been accomplished by just one
third of the concerned countries. Nevertheless, the remaining countries with breeding
populations have not taken action to achieve the objective, while the remaining countries
with staging/wintering sites are in the process to accomplish it.
Progress in the plan implementation across the countries is quite good (overall IS=2,6), with
highest NIS in Malta (4,00) and lowest in Luxembourg (1,50). Important efforts have been
made in affording protection to staging/wintering sites through SPAs designation, while
major lacks remain in management planning, especially for breeding sites. Basic monitoring
of population numbers are also well implemented, but ringing activities to identify
population units and demographic parameters need further work.
53
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Table 16. REDSHANK - Tringa totanus
RESULT/ACTION
Priority
Score
MEMBER STATE
1. An estimate of the annual number
of the Redshank shot is available
where hunting is permitted
2. Management Plans are prepared
and implemented for important
breeding sites. Measures are taken
to minimize the predation as
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
4. Management Plans are prepared
and implemented for SPAs of
importance for staging and
wintering
5. Conservation and wise-use is
promoted in staging and wintering
sites other than SPAs
6. Up to date estimates of breeding
populations from all important sites
are available
7. Annual mid-winter censuses of all
areas of international importance
for wintering are carried out
8. National ringing, colour-marking
activities, analyses of existing
ringing data are supported
Action
Ave. IS Priority
Index
Implementation Score (IS)
BE
BG
CZ
DK
ES
FI
HR
HU
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
3
0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
0,0
0,0
3
2,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 3,00 3,00 1,00
1,8
2,2
3
1,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 3,00 4,00 0,00 0,00
3,6
0,4
2
2,00 1,00 0,00 4,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 2,00 1,00 4,00 0,00 0,00
2,2
1,2
2
3,00 0,00 0,00 2,00 3,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 4,00 0,00 0,00
2,2
1,2
3
3,00 2,00 4,00 3,00 3,00 4,00 4,00 2,00 3,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 4,00 3,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 4,00 3,00
2,9
1,1
2
2,00 4,00 0,00 3,00 4,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
3,4
0,4
2
3,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 2,00 3,00 2,00 1,00 0,00 2,00 4,00 2,50 4,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 2,00
1,9
1,4
2,24 2,20 2,13 2,76 2,47 2,38 2,41 2,62 2,59 2,50 1,50 2,75 4,00 3,53 2,50 2,21 1,71 3,00 3,50 2,00
2,6
Overall
IS
National Implementation Score (NIS)
54
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Alauda arvensis - Skylark
General observations
At least 21 countries have applied the measures recommended in the management plan for
the Skylark and seven of them (Belgium, Cyprus, Spain, Hungary, Latvia, Malta and Romania)
are still applying them. The Skylark is listed as huntable species in five of these countries:
Cyprus, France, Italy, Malta and Romania.
Only Luxembourg is developing (not published yet) a specific national plan for the Skylark
management.
In Cyprus, Spain, Poland and Romania measures have been taken for the species that are
inspired by the plan. In particular, in Romania the plan terms have been integrated in
national specific legislation and are still in effect.
In most cases (74%) other measures have been taken independently from the plan. These
are specific for the Skylark or, more frequently, they benefit also the species:
 Protection actions: the species is protected by law in Bulgaria and Hungary and strictly
protected in Croatia, Poland and Slovakia; monitoring of wintering raptors is carried out
in Romania.
 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); extensification of grassland management to prevent decline
in farmland birds (Czech Republic); agri-environmental subsidies for bird species habitats
protection (Poland); High Nature Value Farmland payments (Romania); landscape
conservation (Cyprus); preparation of management plans for all terrestrial Natura 2000
sites (Malta).
 Monitoring and research actions: development of a national monitoring system on
biodiversity to assess distribution and status of 253 bird species, including the Skylark,
and their habitats throughout the country (Bulgaria); PhD project aimed at the Skylark,
including the sex ratio monitoring of harvested birds (France).
The implemented plan actions have been integrated in several instruments: nature
conservation legislations, Rural programmes, national legislation regulating organic farming
(Croatia), single window system to assist farmers in pesticide use (Belgium), the Plan
Ecophyto2018 in France and the national action plan in Czech Republic for reducing the use
of pesticides (under the Directive 2009/128/CE), a project under the Operational
Programme Environment 2007-2013 (Bulgaria), the project ‘Natura 2000 Management
Planning for Malta and Gozo’, management rules for water resource, national acts
implementing the Nitrate Directive, sectoral plans, development plans, hunting plans and
regulations, national monitoring schemes (NEM, Network Ecological Monitoring) and
projects, bird atlases.
The hunting community provided some contribution in three of the five countries where the
Skylark is huntable. It contributed at authorities’ request to hunting education in Cyprus and
at its own initiative to develop wildlife set-aside land, to maintain cereal stubble in autumn
and winter and to collect hunting bag data in France. In Malta hunting organisations were
55
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
requested to provide guidance to their members on how to appropriately report hunting
bags on the forms (carnet de chasse) provided by the authority.
The limiting factors in the plan implementation are identified in:
 lack of consideration of the plan by both national and regional administrations in Italy;
 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.
Notes by FACE’s Members
Italy

A national management plan for Skylark is planned by ISPRA (Institute of Environmental
Protection and Research), the national scientific authority entitled by law to provide advice
and opinions on wildlife management) and hunters association.

Inspired by the EU management plan, bag limits were proposed by ISPRA and accepted by
regions and hunters association.

The hunting community has contributed to the plan in different ways:
• the sub district hunting management units (ATC, Ambiti territoriali di Caccia), which have
legal obligations to invest financial resources in restoring habitats for wildlife, use hunters
funds coming from inscription fees to pay farmers for maintaining winter stubble for
Alauda arvensis;
• Skylark monitoring is in place in south Italy by a ringing station active during post nuptial
migration from 2009 to 2013;
• the Italian Hunting Federation (FNC) is collecting data on harvest from regions and from an
autonomous diary sent to hunters. Official data of declared birds shot are available for two
regions. ISPRA estimates an annual harvest not less than 1,5 million birds;
• the Italian Hunting Federation (FNC) is preparing a publication with sex ratio of birds ringed
from 1998 to 2012.
The contribution of the implemented actions is considered not relevant for improving the
population status of the Skylark in 40% of the replies, specifically because there is a sharp
population decrease in Belgium, a still population decline in Czech Republic, a significant
decline in recent years in Hungary and because the measures have been put into practice
only on a locale scale in The Netherlands. The impact of the measures put in place is
deemed positive only in Bulgaria, since the Skylark is abundant in the agricultural areas,
meadows and other open areas.
Achievement of the short-term objectives
The three short-term objectives of the management plan for the Skylark have been achieved
only in Cyprus, Spain and Slovenia. No objectives have been achieved in Bulgaria, Croatia,
Portugal and Slovakia, where no action of the plan was implemented. Taking into account
the 21 countries altogether, the objectives of the plan have been accomplished to some
extent.
56
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Most actions related to farmland management (objective 1) have not been implemented in
about 50% of countries. Even though progresses have been achieved in most States in
pesticide use supporting systems, percentage of agricultural land farmed organically and
incentives for extensification of grassland management, all other incentives for farmers,
rules for set-aside preventing nests destruction and regulations restricting irrigation, do not
show any progress in around 70% of the concerned countries.
Short-term objectives
MS
Meas.
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DK
ES
FR
HR
HU
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
Overall
1.
Improving
management of
farmland as
breeding and
wintering sites
1-8
Partially
No
Yes
Partially
Partially
Yes
Partially
No
Partially
No
Partially
Partially
Partially
Yes
Partially
Partially
Not relevant
Partially
Partially
Yes
No
Partially
2.
3.
Collection of
more robust
data on hunting
impact
Improving
monitoring of
wintering
populations
9, 10, 12
Not relevant
Not relevant
Yes
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Partially
Not relevant
Not relevant
Partially
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Partially
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Partially
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Partially
11
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Not relevant
Yes
Not relevant
No
Not relevant
Yes
Yes
Not relevant
No
No
Not relevant
Not relevant
No
Partially
Overall
Partially
No
Yes
Partially
Partially
Yes
Partially
No
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
No
Partially
Partially
Yes
No
Partially
Table 17. 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. Achieved:
all the related measures are implemented (IS>1); Not Achieved: all the related measures are not or
very little implemented (IS=1); Partially Achieved: at least one of the related measures is
implemented (IS>1).
Objective 2 is relevant only in five countries (Cyprus, France, Italy, Malta and Romania), but
has been fully achieved only in Cyprus, where all the measures related to hunting have been
successfully implemented. Among the other four States, data on sex-ratio of harvested
Skylark are collected only in France, but little or nothing has been done to ensure that
harvesting conforms/complies with the Birds Directive and does not hinder the recovery of
the species to FCS, missing therefore the objective 2 and the goal of the whole plan.
Moreover, further efforts should be made also in data collection, since annual data are only
partial and the last estimation of the national hunting bag dates back to 1998/99.
57
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
National data on hunting bags are not available yet in Italy. Some regional administrations
are regularly collecting data from the hunting cards, but these data are not gathered with
standardized protocols and are not conveyed to a national coordination scheme.
Objective 3 has been reached in nearly 50% of the States with wintering populations.
However, among these countries are included those holding substantial numbers of the
species in winter: Spain, Denmark, France, The Netherlands and, with a lower score, Italy,
where few regional administrations promoted ornithological survey during winter to assess
distributions and trends of common species.
Cyprus and Malta, even though not so important for wintering Skylark, have achieved also
the objective, although no significant progress has been yet made. Considering that the
objective has been accomplished in four out of the five countries where the Skylark is
hunted and that three of these have important wintering numbers of Skylark, objective 3
could be evaluated as near to be achieved.
Implementation of the plan7
Progress in the overall implementation of the management plan across the 21 Member
States that contributed to its implementation is fairly moderate (Average IS=2,0), with the
highest progress in Slovenia (NIS=3,40) and no work undertaken in Bulgaria, Croatia,
Portugal and Slovakia (NIS=1,00).
4.0
3.40
3.5
NIS/AIS
3.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
BE BG CY CZ DK ES FR HR HU IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK AIS
Figure 21. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation
Score of the EU Management Plan for Alauda arvensis.
Overall, most measures do not have significant implementation progress (Average IS < 3).
The two measures showing a good implementation are relating to harvesting (results 9 availability of data on the number of Skylark annually harvested; and 10 - harvesting
conformity with the Birds Directive) applicable only in Cyprus, France, Italy, Malta and
Romania, where the species is huntable. However, no or very little work has been carried
out to ensure compliance of harvesting with the Birds Directive and that such hunting does
not jeopardize the species recovery in France and Italy. Moreover, the other action relating
to harvesting (result 12, sex ratio of harvested birds is being monitored) has a low level of
implementation, mainly in Italy, Malta and Romania, where no activity has been carried out.
7
For the complete list of results/actions and related indicators see Table 18. More information on the
calculation and meaning of the calculated indicators can be found on pp. 4-7.
58
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
high priority
1.0
1.0
medium priority 2
0.5
0.5
low priority
0.0
0.0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
API
Average IS
Measures concerning farming management and policy (results 1 – 8) are those most poorly
implemented, but some progress has been made in increasing the percentage of agricultural
land (result 1), providing farmers with decision support systems for optimisation of pesticide
use (result 7) and putting in place incentives for the extensification of grassland
management (result 5), especially in Denmark, Czech Republic, Slovenia and Sweden where
all the three actions have been fully or nearly implemented.
 API
essential/critical 4
3
1
9. 10. 11. 12.
Action/Result
Figure 22. 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.
More efforts are therefore required by most measures, and, on the basis of the API score, in
particular:
 To put in place incentives to be taken up by farmers for leaving cereal stubbles over
winter (result 3);
 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 countries, with the only exception of Denmark;
 To increase the percentage of agricultural land that is farmed organically (result 1);
 To put in place incentives to be taken up by farmers for leaving unsown patches in
autumn-sown cereal crops (result 4).
Summary of achievements of the Plan
At least 21 Member States have contributed to the implementation of the management plan
for the Skylark, but only three of them (Cyprus, Spain and Slovenia) have made progress in
all measures relevant in their own countries, thus achieving all the short-terms objectives.
Monitoring of wintering populations has been improved in almost half of the States hosting
wintering Skylark, including four out of the five countries where its hunting is permitted,
while more robust data on hunting impact have been collected only in one (Cyprus). The
most frequent gap is in monitoring sex ratio of harvested birds. There has been some
improvement across countries in the management of agricultural areas as breeding and
wintering sites, but none or only a few actions related to farmland management have been
applied in around half of the countries.
Overall, there has been only some progress in the implementation of the plan (AIS=2,0),
with highest progress in Slovenia (NIS=3,40) and no progress (NIS=1,00) in as many as four
59
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
States (Bulgaria, Croatia, Portugal and Slovakia). The most significant progress in
implementing measures has been in making available data on the number of Skylark
harvested annually and in ensuring harvesting is conform with the Birds Directive. However
more effort should still be made to ensure compliance of harvesting with the Birds Directive
in France and Italy, and to monitor sex ratio of harvested birds in Italy, Malta and Romania.
Agricultural policy and legislation measures promoting an adequate management of habitats
suitable to the Skylark have on average a low implementation, and the most work should be
addressed to put in place incentives for leaving cereal stubbles over winter and for sowing
crops in spring instead of in autumn.
60
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Table 18. SKYLARK - Alauda arvensis
RESULT/ACTION
MEMBER STATE
1. The percentage of agricultural land that is
farmed organically has increased
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. - leaving cereal stubbles over winter
4. - leaving unsown patches in autumn-sown
cereal crops
5. - extensification of grassland management (e.g.
through reduced or no input of
fertiliser/manure, later and less frequent
mowing)
6. MS ensures that rules for set-aside prevent
nests destruction and encourage the retention
of weed-rich stubbles over winter
7. Decision support systems for optimisation of
pesticide use are available to farmers
8. Regulations restricting irrigation to the
minimum amount necessary for optimum crop
growth exist
9. Data on the number of Skylark harvested
annually are available where harvesting of the
species is permitted
10. Harvesting is conform with the Birds Directive
and does not hinder the recovery of the species
to Favourable Conservation Status
11. Programmes for monitoring the size of the
winter population exist
12. Sex ratio of harvested birds is being monitored
at different sites through a co-operation with
hunters
National Implementation Score (NIS)
Implementation Score (IS)
PS
AIS
API
3 3,00 1,00 2,00 4,00 4,00 3,00 4,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 2,00 2,00 0,00 2,00 3,00 3,00 1,00 2,2
1,8
3 1,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 4,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 2,50 1,00 2,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 1,00 1,5
2,5
3 0,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 3,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 3,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,4
2,6
2 2,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 2,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,3
1,8
2 2,00 1,00 2,00 4,00 4,00 2,00 2,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 3,00 2,00 3,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 2,00 3,00 0,00 1,00 2,1
1,3
2 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 4,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 3,00 0,00 1,00 1,6
1,6
2 2,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 2,00 2,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 3,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 2,00 4,00 1,00 2,2
1,2
2 1,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 4,00 3,00 4,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,7
1,5
3 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,4
0,6
3 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,50 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,9
1,1
2 1,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 1,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 2,00 4,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 2,0
1,3
2 0,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,4
1,7
BE BG
CY
CZ
DK
ES
FR
HR HU
IT
LT
LU
LV MT NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
1,67 1,00 2,44 1,90 3,00 2,57 2,34 1,00 1,37 1,22 2,26 1,32 2,05 3,17 1,58 1,23 1,00 2,00 2,00 3,40 1,00 2,0
Over
all IS
61
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Melanitta fusca - Velvet Scoter
General observations
The management plan for the Velvet Scoter has been applied in at least 11 countries, while
it is considered as not relevant in another 10, where the species is not present (Spain, Malta,
Portugal and Slovenia) or is very rare (Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Hungary and
Luxembourg) or does not occur in such numbers as requested by the plan (Slovakia). The
species is huntable in Denmark, France and Latvia. In Sweden Velvet Scoter hunting is
banned since 2009.
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 also limits the actions that can be applied in
Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy and Romania, where the species occurs with small populations.
The plan is still under implementation in Latvia and improvements are still ongoing in
Denmark.
A national plan specific for Melanitta fusca is currently in preparation in France.
The measures taken for the species in Lithuania and Poland have been inspired/triggered by
the plan, while most countries have taken many measures regardless of the plan, although
included in the plan or not applicable, and even the countries where the whole plan is not
relevant:
 Protection action: the Velvet Scoter has been included on the list of protected species in
Bulgaria and it is strictly protected in Croatia, Poland and Slovakia; hunting of Velvet
Scoter has been banned since 2009 in Sweden; marine IBAs designation and hunting ban
at sea in Italy (National Hunting Law 157/92); hunting ban on all Polish Baltic Sea waters;
designation as SPAs of wetlands where the Velvet Scoter is observed although not of
international importance in Romania; Danish oil spill action plan, alert system,
regulations on ship traffic and establishing the game reserve Wadden Sea; beach
protection legislation in Sweden; .
 Management actions: analysis of the need for further regulation of disturbance on
species for which Natura 2000 sites have been designated in Denmark; three-year
evaluation of hunting sustainability in Denmark; Implementation of Natura 2000 planning
for 2010-2015 in Denmark (Order No. 1114 of 2011).
 Monitoring and research actions: a mid-winter census is annually carried out in Bulgaria
(as a part of the National Monitoring System on Biodiversity), The Netherlands (as a part
of the National Monitoring Scheme ‘NEM’), Czech Republic, Italy, Sweden (in the frame of
the International Waterbird Census), Romania and Slovakia; birds monitoring scheme is
in operation in Lithuania under the State Environmental Monitoring Programme; Helcom
Red List Project in Poland; water quality monitoring near shipping lanes and surveys on
the impact of wind farms in parts of the coastal area in The Netherlands.
All these measures are to be added to those undertaken according to the national
legislations on Natura 2000 and enforcement regulations (designation SPAs, regulation and
management).
62
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Both The Netherlands and Italy consider that measures to be taken under the enforcement
of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, for which Italy has proposed the Velvet
Scoter among the species deserving a specific monitoring, will probably be important in the
near future for halting the degradation of breeding and wintering habitats for Velvet Scoter.
The contribution of the actions carried out to the population status of the Velvet Scoter is
not known for almost all countries, but The Netherlands and Poland suppose no effect since
Velvet Scoter numbers decline steeply since the nineties.
Even though the species is huntable in three countries, there has been some contribution in
the actions implementation from the hunting community only in Denmark, at the authorities
request, to establish hunting free areas in game reserves. In Romania Velvet Scoter was
removed from the list of huntable birds as a result of the work carried out in close
collaboration with hunters.
Achievement of the short-term objectives
The five short-term objectives of the management plan for the Velvet Scoter have been
achieved in Lithuania, Latvia, France and The Netherlands (accounting for about 36% of the
countries implementing the plan), hosting important numbers of wintering/staging Velvet
Scoter, and not in Belgium, Italy and Romania, where the only applicable action has not
been implemented. Denmark and Poland have not or only partially achieved only one out of
the five objectives and therefore they are close to reach them. Conversely, Sweden, which is
one of the countries to which the plan gives special attention, because it is one of the few
holding breeding populations, seems to be the furthest from achieving the objectives.
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 in France does not take into account that in France no or little activity
has been carried out to make available estimates of annual numbers shot.
Taking into account the objectives across all the 11 Member States that have implemented
the plan, only one (objective 3) has been achieved, the other four only to some extent.
Objective 1 has been reached partly, since no or very little work has been done in Sweden to
identify and protect important breeding sites along the coast and to design as SPAs all
offshore staging and wintering areas of international importance for the Velvet Scoter.
However, it is the closest objective to be accomplished, having been missed by a single
country.
Objective 2, with four countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy and Romania) not showing any
progress in assessing the need for restrictions of fishing activities to reduce by-catch, would
seem the furthest from being achieved. However, considering that the species occurs in
these four countries with very small wintering populations, their contribution 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.
The remaining two objectives appear at about the same distance from their achievement. In
particular, objective 4 has not been reached mainly because Denmark has not established
63
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
hunting and disturbance-free areas in at least 2 SPAs of international importance for
wintering and/or staging Velvet Scoter, and objective 5 because Sweden has not improved
the census of wintering and moulting areas and the research on breeding population key
parameters, although an improvement of collection of breeding data is planned.
Short-term objectives
1.
MS
Meas.
BE
BG
DK
FR
IT
LT
LV
NL
PL
RO
SE
Overall
2.
Halting the
Taking action
degradation of
to stop
breeding and
drowning in
wintering
fishing nets
habitats
3, 5
Not relevant
Not relevant
Yes
Yes
Not relevant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not relevant
No
Partially
8
No
No
Yes
Not relevant
No
Yes
Yes
Not relevant
Yes
No
Not relevant
Partially
3.
Taking
action to
avoid oil
spills
7
Not relev.
Not relev.
Yes
Not relev.
Not relev.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not relev.
Yes
Yes
4.
Taking action
to reduce
disturbance in
breeding and
wintering
areas
4, 6
Not relevant
Yes
No
Yes
Not relevant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not relevant
Not relevant
Partially
Partially
5.
Collection of
better data on
size of winter
population and
breeding
success
9, 10
Not relevant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not relevant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Partially
Not relevant
No
Partially
Overall
No
Partially
Partially
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Partially
No
Partially
Partially
Table 19. 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. Achieved:
all the related measures are implemented (IS>1); Not Achieved: all the related measures are not or
very little implemented (IS=1); Partially Achieved: at least one of the related measures is
implemented (IS>1).
Implementation of the Plan8
The species is not present, irregular, scarce or present in small numbers in 10 Member
States (Spain, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Hungary,
Croatia and Slovakia) and therefore the plan is not relevant in any of these countries.
Progress in the overall implementation of the management plan in the 11 Member States
where it is relevant is quite good (AIS=2,8), the highest reached among the 13 management
plans. The National implementation score is the highest for Lithuania (NIS=3,77) where the
species regularly occurs in greater numbers, and the lowest in Belgium, Italy and Romania
(NIS=1,00), where the species is found in somewhat fewer individuals and most of the
measures listed in the management plan are not applicable. However, these countries could
reduce by-catch (result 8) for which nothing has been done up today.
8
For the complete list of results/actions and related indicators see Table 20. More information on the
calculation and meaning of the calculated indicators can be found on pp. 4-7.
64
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
The species occurs as breeding only in Sweden and Poland and therefore measures relating
to breeding populations (result 3, 4 and 10) are not applicable in all the other Member
States.
The only action fully implemented is ensuring that hunting does not affect birds on spring
migration or breeding nor hinder the recovery of the species to favourable conservation
status (result 1). The species is huntable with an open season in Denmark, France and Latvia.
Estimates of annual numbers shot (result 2) are available in both Denmark and Latvia, while
no or little work has been carried out in France.
4.0
3.77
3.5
NIS/AIS
3.0
2.8
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.00
1.00
BE
BG
DK
FR
IT
1.00
LT
LV
NL
PL
RO
SE
AIS
Figure 23. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation
Score of the EU Management Plan for Melanitta fusca.
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
high priority
1.0
1.0
medium priority 2
0.5
0.5
low priority
0.0
API
Average IS
Significant progress has been also made in:
 designation as SPAs of all offshore staging and wintering areas of international
importance for the species (result 5), fully implemented in all countries with the only
exception of Sweden;
 pollution prevention and oil spill contingency planning (result 7), for which all states
record at least some progress.
 API
essential/critical 4
3
1
0.0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Action/Result
Figure 24. 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.
65
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
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 and Denmark, as recommended
by the plan, and also in Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy and Romania.
Summary of achievements of the Plan
The management plan for the Velvet Scoter is relevant in at least 11 countries, but only four
of them (Lithuania, Latvia, France and The Netherlands) have made progress in
implementing all the measures related to all the short-term objectives relevant in their
countries. The objective of taking action to avoid oil spills is the only achieved across all the
relevant countries. However, the other four objectives show some good progress, since
missed, on average, by a quite small percentage of the countries involved (about 30%). The
greatest efforts should focus on taking action to stop drowning in fishing nets.
Progress in the overall implementation of the management plan is quite good (AIS=2,8) and
the highest reached among the 13 management plans. NIS is highest in Lithuania (3,77) and
lowest in Belgium, Italy and Romania (1,00). The greatest efforts have been in measures
related to hunting by ensuring that hunting does not affect birds on spring migration or
breeding nor hinder the recovery to FCS, and by making available estimates of annual
numbers shot. However, for the latter measure, no or little activity has been carried out in
France.
The least implemented action requiring greater work is the restriction of fishing activities to
reduce by-catch, especially in Latvia and Denmark, as recommended by the plan. Protection
of important breeding sites along the coast and research allowing modelling of population
development and assessing effects of additional mortalities should be also improved in
Sweden, one of the few countries holding breeding populations and to which the plan gives
special attention.
66
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Table 20. VELVET SCOTER - Melanitta fusca
RESULT/ACTION
Implementation Score (IS)
PS
AIS
API
2
0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,0
0,0
2
0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,0
0,7
3
0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 2,5
1,5
2
0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 2,0
1,3
3
0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 3,6
0,4
2
0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 2,9
0,8
3
0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 2,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 3,0
1,0
3
1,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 4,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,9
2,1
2
0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 4,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 2,9
0,8
3
0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 2,5
1,5
MEMBER STATE
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DK
ES
FR
HR
HU
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
1. Hunting does not affect birds on spring migration
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
or breeding nor hinder the recovery to favourable
conservation status
Estimates of annual numbers shot are available
where hunting is permitted
Important breeding sites along the coast of the
Baltic Sea are identified and protected
The inland breeding populations in Sweden and
Finland are assessed to determine the need for
special conservation efforts
All offshore staging and wintering areas of
international importance for the species are
designated SPAs
Hunting and disturbance-free areas are
established in at least 2 SPAs of international
importance for wintering and/or staging
Improved pollution prevention and improved oil
spill contingency planning is in place in the Baltic
Sea and other marine areas important to Velvet
Scoter
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
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
MS supports research, including ringing, on
survival rates and fecundity, allowing modelling
of population development and assessing effects
of additional mortalities
National Implementation Score (NIS)
1,00 2,71 NR
NR 3,20 NR 2,91 NR
NR 1,00 3,77 NR 3,24 NR 3,40 3,29 NR 1,00 1,44 NR
NR
2,8
Over
all IS
67
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Numenius arquata - Curlew
General observations
At least 18 Member States have contributed to the implementation of the management plan
for the Curlew in the EU, and six of them are still applying it. None of these 18 countries lists
the Curlew as a huntable species. The Curlew is only huntable in France (but under a
moratorium since 2008). The information provided by France was too incomplete to be
used.
A national plan specific for the Curlew is in preparation in Poland. Even though not targeted
at the Curlew, an action plan for three species of waders (Ruff, Bar-tailed Godwit and
Kentish plover) from which Curlew will benefit, is under preparation in Sweden.
The actions of the plan have inspired those taken in Spain and Lithuania; other measures
have been also taken in both countries and in another 11 independently from the plan: the
species is protected in Bulgaria and Italy, and strictly protected in Hungary, Croatia, Poland
and Slovakia; sites designation and management under different schemes (SPAs and other
protected areas); agri-environmental schemes (“Bird habitats on grassland – waders’ nesting
sites” in Czech Republic); wetlands restoration and management (grazing instead of mowing,
elimination of invasive species) in Hungary; monitoring schemes; scientific projects, etc.
In most cases the measures are not specifically aimed at the Curlew, but are general and
benefit a wider range of species.
The actions of the plan have been applied through other instruments in all countries. These
instruments are legislative (legislation on nature conservation and Natura 2000, hunting
laws, regulations), planning (forestry, hunting, water management, physical plans, plans of
protected areas and Natura 2000 management plans), programmatic and financial (rural
development Programmes, monitoring and ringing programmes) and of assistance and
promotion to farmers (BirdLife Sweden projects).
Difficulties in the configuration of agri-environmental schemes (Slovakia), lack of financial
resources (Lithuania) and lack of interest on the plan by the competent authorities (Italy),
seem to be the major constraints in the plan application.
The species is not huntable in any of the 18 countries and no significant contribution to the
plan was made by the community of hunters.
The impact of the measures carried out on the population status of the Curlew is unknown
in most countries (81%). However, measures might have worked in The Netherlands, which
holds the largest population among the countries considered, as there is a tiny increase in
the breeding population on the short term (2007-2011). Although the plan has been very
little implemented in Italy, the Italian wintering population has increased since the species
was protected. The species took probably advantage also from the decrease of hunting
pressure on waders due to the exclusion of the Black-tailed Godwit from the list of huntable
bird species and the partial (at regional level) exclusion of the Ruff.
68
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Achievement of the short-term objectives
The three short-term objectives of the management plan for the Curlew have been fully
achieved in Spain, Hungary, Malta, The Netherlands and Slovenia, representing about 28%
of the States involved. Another six countries (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia,
Lithuania, Latvia and Poland) are very close to achieving all the objectives, since they
narrowly missed only one objective. Considering that among the 18 countries contributing
to the plan, The Netherlands and Spain hold a greater number of Curlew (but Sweden has
the greatest breeding numbers), good progress has been made in achieving the short-term
objectives. Only Sweden seems to be quite far, having failed two objectives and especially in
relation to the measures provided for breeding populations (protection and restoration of
breeding sites, management plans/schemes for key breeding areas).
The achievement of the three objectives across all the 18 countries implementing the plan is
partial. In particular, objective 2 has been achieved, but objective 1 and 3 only to some
extent.
Short-term objectives
MS
Meas.
BG
CZ
DK
ES
HR
HU
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
Overall
1.
Improving
management
and protection
of breeding and
wintering sites
2-7
Yes
Partially
Partially
Yes
Partially
Yes
No
Yes
Partially
Yes
Not relevant
Yes
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Yes
No
Partially
2.
Improving
protection
from
disturbance
8
Yes
Not relevant
Yes
Not relevant
Yes
Yes
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Yes
Not relevant
Yes
Yes
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Yes
3.
Collection of more
robust data on
hunting
impact/population
regulations
1, 9-11
Partially
Not relevant
Partially
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Partially
Partially
No
Yes
Not relevant
Partially
Overall
Partially
Partially
Partially
Yes
Partially
Yes
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Yes
Yes
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Yes
No
Partially
Table 21. 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.
Achieved: all the related measures are implemented (IS>1); Not Achieved: all the related measures
are not or very little implemented (IS=1); Partially Achieved: at least one of the related measures is
implemented (IS>1).
69
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Objective 1 has been achieved only in seven countries, while Italy and Slovakia have not
taken any measure, and another eight countries have made no progress in a number of
measures, mainly the development/implementation of management plans and the
conservation and management of staging and wintering outside SPAs.
Objective 3 has been fully achieved only in eight countries and not at all in another four
countries where no work has been started. The remaining eight countries have made no
progress in ringing activities to better identify population units.
Implementation of the Plan9
The progress in the overall implementation of the management plan, in the 18 Member
States that have applied it, is fairly good (AIS=2,5). The plan has been most successfully
implemented in Malta (NIS=4,00), with the only applicable measure fully implemented. The
country showing no progress is Slovakia, where the plan implementation is at a very early
stage since all the applicable actions have not been carried out at all or very little (NIS=1,00).
4.00
4.0
3.5
NIS/AIS
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.00
1.0
BG
CZ
DK
ES
HR HU
IT
LT
LU
LV MT NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK AIS
Figure 25. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation
Score of the EU Management Plan for Numenius arquata.
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.).
Measure relating to hunting bags (result 1) is not applicable in all the 18 Member States
since the hunting of the species is not permitted in any of them. Result 10 relates also to
hunting, but it should not be limited to the countries where Curlew hunting is allowed, since
it requires the cooperation among EU countries in exchange and collecting existent and new
data in order to assess how the hunting pressure in Member States affects temporally and
spatially the Curlew populations in EU. Nevertheless, such a result has been considered
relevant, although not implemented, only in Denmark.
The wintering monitoring (result 9) and the establishment of hunting and disturbance-free
areas including feeding and roosting habitat (result 8) also show significant progress.
9
For the complete list of results/actions and related indicators see Table 22. More information on the
calculation and meaning of the calculated indicators can be found on pp. 4-7.
70
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
high priority
1.0
1.0
medium priority 2
0.5
0.5
low priority
0.0
API
Average IS
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
 API
essential/critical 4
3
1
0.0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. 11.
Action/Result
Figure 26. 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 measures that have the greatest need of further work are related to hunting impact at
EU level and to Curlew breeding areas. According the priority (API), they are:
 Estimation of the impact of hunting in Member States on Curlew populations in EU
(result 10);
 Promotion of agro-environmental schemes to encourage management of agricultural
areas supporting breeding Curlew (result 3), especially in Denmark;
 Protection and restoration of breeding sites (result 2), mainly in Sweden, which supports
greater breeding numbers, that are declining;
 Preparation and implementation of Management Plans or Schemes for key Curlew
breeding areas (result 4), mainly in Sweden and Poland.
Summary of achievements of the Plan
The plan for the Curlew has been applied in at least 18 Member States. The three short-term
objectives have been fully achieved in five countries, including The Netherlands and Spain
which hold a greater number of Curlew, and another six countries are very close to achieving
them, but Sweden, which has the greatest breeding numbers, seems to be quite far. The
objective of improving protection from disturbance is the only achieved across all the
relevant countries, while the other two objectives (Improving management and protection
of breeding/wintering sites - Collection of more robust data on hunting impact/population
regulations) only to some extent.
There has been a fairly good progress in the overall implementation of the plan (AIS=2,5).
NIS is highest in Malta (4,00), fully implementing ringing activities and analyses, and lowest
Slovakia (1,00), where no work, or hardly any, has been done. The greatest progress has
been achieved in providing site/habitat protection, by designating as SPAs all staging and
wintering areas of international importance for Curlew and establishing hunting and
disturbance-free areas. However, greater efforts still should be made in promoting agroenvironmental schemes for breeding areas and in ensuring protection/restoration of
breeding sites, especially in Sweden. No progress has been in assessing how the hunting
pressure in Member States affects temporally and spatially the Curlew populations in EU, on
71
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
which priority work should be carried out by collecting and exchange existent and new data
in cooperation with all countries.
72
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Table 22. CURLEW - Numenius arquata
RESULT/ACTION
Priority
Score
MEMBER STATE
1. An estimate of the annual number of Curlew shot is
available where hunting is permitted
2. Protection and restoration of breeding sites is
initiated where the species is declining
3. Agro-environmental schemes are promoted to
encourage management of agricultural areas
supporting breeding Curlew including evidencebased prescriptions to benefit Curlew
4. Management Plans or Schemes have been prepared
and implementation initiated for key Curlew
breeding areas
5. All staging and wintering areas of international
importance for Curlew are designated SPAs
6. Management Plans or Schemes have been prepared
and implementation initiated for designated sites
(SPAs) of importance for staging and wintering
7. Conservation and wise-use is promoted in wetlands
other than SPAs supporting staging and wintering
8. Hunting and disturbance-free areas are established
in SPAs. These disturbance-free areas should include
feeding and roosting habitat
9. Annual mid-winter census of all areas of
international importance for wintering Curlew are
carried out
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)
11. National ringing activities and analyses of existing
ringing data is supported
National Implementation Score (NIS)
Action
Ave.
Priority
IS
Index
Implementation Score (IS)
BG
CZ
DK
ES
HR
HU
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
3
0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
0,0
0,0
3
0,00 4,00 4,00 2,00 0,00 3,00 1,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 3,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 3,00 1,00
2,5
1,5
3
0,00 4,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 3,00 3,00 0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 1,00
2,2
1,8
2
0,00 1,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 2,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 3,00 1,00
2,1
1,3
3
4,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 0,00
4,0
0,0
2
4,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 1,00 1,00 3,00 0,00
2,6
0,9
2
4,00 1,00 1,00 4,00 2,00 2,00 1,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 1,00
2,0
1,3
3
4,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 2,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 3,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
3,0
1,0
3
4,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 0,00
3,8
0,3
3
0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
1,0
3,0
2
1,00 0,00 1,00 3,00 3,00 3,00 1,50 1,00 1,00 1,00 4,00 1,50 4,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 0,00
1,9
1,4
3,60 2,80 2,73 3,47 2,40 2,85 1,10 2,43 1,33 2,50 4,00 3,35 2,80 3,00 1,91 1,36 3,38 1,00
2,5
Overall
IS
73
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Anas acuta - Pintail
General observations
At least 20 Member States have contributed to the implementation of the management plan
for the Pintail (the plan is not relevant in Slovenia). Seven of them (Cyprus, Spain, Hungary,
Latvia, Malta, The Netherlands and Romania) are still applying it. The Pintail is listed as a
huntable species in 11 countries: Belgium (with no open season), Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark,
Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Portugal and Romania. The Pintail is also huntable in
Finland, but not sufficient information were provided.
Only four States (Cyprus, Spain, Lithuania and Romania, where the EU MP terms have been
integrated in Romania’s specific legislation and are still in effect) have adopted measures
inspired/triggered by the EU Management Plan.
In most cases the plan has not been implemented directly as such, but rather a number of
actions of the plan have been triggered and carried out under different other instruments:
nature conservation legislation and enforcement regulations (covering habitat and species
protection, Natura 2000 Network and other protected areas, periodic monitoring, etc.),
hunting laws and regulations, sectoral plans providing for nature conservation measures,
plans of protected areas, hunting plans, Natura 2000 management plans, Mid-winter
Waterbird Census programme (IWC).
Notes by FACE’s Members
Spain


The Pintail is not a huntable species in some autonomous communities.

There are locally many voluntary actions by the hunting community for the conservation of
wetlands as a refuge for the Pintail in their wintering grounds.
There is no real concern for the conservation of ducks. The real problem is the poor
conservation of wetlands.
Measures taken by Member States also include some not provided in the plan or not
specifically addressed to the Pintail.
In Croatia, Poland and Slovakia the species is strictly protected by law. A number of Italian
Regions have totally closed hunting to Pintails. A tri-annual assessment of the impact of
hunting has been completed in Denmark.
Belgium and Hungary have 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.
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 Environment 2007-2013 to develop a National Monitoring System on
Biodiversity and new/modern methods to assess the status of 253 breeding birds, including
the Pintail, and their habitats at national level.
The project “Natura 2000 Management Planning for Malta and Gozo” is ongoing in Malta
under the Rural Development Programme 2007-2013 to establish management plans for all
74
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
terrestrial Natura 2000 sites in the Maltese Islands. Whilst not directly dealing with the
Pintail, such management plans directly address issues such as habitats restoration and
management that can indirectly be of benefit to this species.
All important wetland sites are counted monthly in The Netherlands as part of the National
Monitoring Scheme ‘NEM’. Analyses of ringing data are produced in the Czech and Slovak
Bird Migration Atlas and data about breeding population are summarised every 10 years in
the Atlas of the breeding distribution of birds in the Czech Republic.
The Pintail is one of the two species not concerned by any specific plan in any country,
despite being the species most listed as huntable.
The hunting community has played some role in the implementation of the plan in four of
the 11 countries where the Pintail is huntable. Such a role is often limited to providing
individuals shot data (Latvia), to providing guidance to their members on how to
appropriately report hunting bags on the forms (carnet de chasse) provided by the authority
(Malta) or to the definition of regulations on hunting seasons and hunting limits (Portugal).
In Italy some landowners improved the management of their respective hunting estates
with artificial supplementary food, management of water levels and reduction of
disturbance, in order to increase bags of this and other waterfowls. However, the benefit for
the Pintail population is controversial, since it was successful locally to such an extent that it
could have been mentioned to minimize in the national figures the decreasing trend
affecting natural reserves. Hunters’ organizations have also been involved in Sweden, where
the Pintail is not huntable, in establishing waterfowl sites.
Notes by FACE’s Members
Italy

Bag limits were proposed by ISPRA (Institute of Environmental Protection and Research, the
national scientific authority entitled by law to provide advice and opinions on wildlife
management) inspired by the EU management plan.

Most important wintering areas are free hunting zones or hunting is limited 1 day/week, as in
private shooting areas in the Veneto coastal zone.

The hunting community has contributed to the plan in different ways:
• creation and conservation of coastal wetlands and lagoons in the North Adriatic area.
Particularly important the Venice Lagoon and Po delta private shooting areas where
management of water level and vegetation and hunting rules for Pintail have resulted in
increasing numbers of wintering and passage Pintail. This is at authority request, but not
related to the EU management plan. Authorities request programs of habitat restoration
and maintenance to allow permission of private shooting areas, where the greatest
number of pintails winters;
• participates in IWC in cooperation with ISPRA and local authorities;
• cooperates in bag survey and in a study of duck harvesting.
Some of the elements that make the implementation of the measures difficult are identified
in the Czech Republic in the few occurring individuals of Pintail and in the lack of knowledge
about the breeding sites. In The Netherlands there is no government based support for
ringing activities and analyses.
In general (79% of the replies), 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
75
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
improving the population status of the Velvet Scoter in the Czech Republic, 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.
Similarly, the implementation of Natura 2000 legislation may have affected the stable trend
of the Dutch wintering population, both on the long and short term.
Achievement of the short-term objectives
Only five Member States, accounting for about 25% of the countries implementing the
management plan for the Pintail, have fully reached all the four short-term objectives set in
the plan. Considering altogether the 20 Member States that have applied the plan, the four
objectives have been only partially achieved.
Short-term objectives
MS
Meas.
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DK
ES
FR
HR
HU
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SK
Overall
1.
Hunting impact
assessment and
collection of
annual bag data
1, 2
Not relevant
Partially
Yes
Not relevant
Yes
No
Partially
Not relevant
Not relevant
Partially
Not relevant
Not relevant
Yes
Yes
Not relevant
Not relevant
No
Yes
Not relevant
Not relevant
Partially
2.
Restoration and
management of
breeding and
wintering sites
3-7
Yes
Partially
Yes
Not relevant
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not relevant
Yes
Partially
Yes
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
3.
4.
Monitoring
Collection of more
population
robust data on
sizes and
population units,
trends
mortality and regulations
8, 9
10
Yes
Yes
Partially
No
Yes
Not relevant
Not relevant
No
Partially
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not relevant
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Not relevant
No
No
No
Yes
No
Partially
Partially
Overall
Yes
Partially
Yes
No
Partially
Partially
Partially
Yes
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Yes
Yes
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Table 23. 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. Achieved: all the
related measures are implemented (IS>1); Not Achieved: all the related measures are not or very little
implemented (IS=1); Partially Achieved: at least one of the related measures is implemented (IS>1).
Bulgaria, Spain, France, Italy and Portugal have not collected updated data on hunting bags
or assessed the impact of hunting. 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
76
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
place for the 2013-2014 hunting season. Data or studies on the impact of hunting are not
available also in Cyprus and Romania. Moreover the hunting season in Italy overlaps the
onset of pre-breeding migration. The objective 1 is therefore reached only in part.
Sweden, where the Pintail occurs with one of the main breeding populations in EU, has not
taken any action aimed at breeding sites. Poland and Romania have not taken actions
related to wintering/staging sites, while Slovakia has not or to a very limited extent carried
out four out of the five actions concerning the restoration, conservation and management of
habitats and sites for the Pintail. Consequently, also the accomplishment of the objective 2
is partial.
Similarly, objective 3 could be also considered as only partially reached, since Bulgaria,
Denmark, Hungary and specially Sweden, have not assessed the annual productivity, as
required by the only action referable to this objective for breeding populations.
Objective 4 is the furthest from being achieved, since 12 (including Sweden) out of the 19
countries where it is considered relevant, have not made any progress in collecting and
analyzing ringing data to identify population units and provide annual estimates of mortality.
Only some basic analyses on existing ringing data of Pintail has been performed recently in
The Netherlands, and ringing activities are carried out in the Czech Republic, but only few
Pintails individuals are caught and ringed.
Implementation of the Plan10
Progress in the overall implementation of the management plan in the 20 Member States
that have applied it, is quite good (AIS=2,7). The National implementation score is the
highest in Malta (NIS=3,71), and the lowest in the Czech Republic, where very little work has
been carried out in ringing activities and analyses (result 10), the only applicable measure.
4.00
4.0
3.5
NIS/AIS
3.0
2.7
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.00
BE BG CY CZ DK ES FR HR HU IT
LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SK AIS
Figure 27. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation
Score of the EU Management Plan for Anas acuta.
Measures with most relevant implementation are the improvement of protection (hunting
season not affecting the breeding population - result 1, designation as SPAs areas of
10
For the complete list of results/actions and related indicators see Table 24. More information on
the calculation and meaning of the calculated indicators can be found on pp. 4-7.
77
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
high priority
1.0
1.0
medium priority 2
0.5
0.5
low priority
0.0
API
Average IS
international importance for Pintail - result 5, establishment of disturbance-free areas result 7) and wintering monitoring (result 8). However, further efforts should be made by
Italy, where the hunting season, in most Regions, is overlapping with the onset of prebreeding migration.
 API
essential/critical 4
3
1
0.0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Action/Result
Figure 28. 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 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),
especially in Sweden, holding the largest breeding population among the 20 countries,
but also in Denmark and Latvia, where the species is also hunted;
 to support ringing activities to identify population units and mortality estimates (result
10), especially in Sweden, The Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, France, Denmark and
Lithuania, that have greater breeding, staging or wintering numbers;
 to restore breeding sites where Pintail has disappeared or in decline (result 3), especially
in Sweden;
 to make available data on the annual number of Pintail shot (measure 2) in Bulgaria,
Spain, France, Italy and Portugal, where the species is hunted and no or little work has
been done up today on bag data and hunting impact assessment. In Cyprus and Romania
the action is fully implemented, but no studies are available on hunting impact.
Summary of achievements of the Plan
At least 20 Member States have contributed to the implementation of the management plan
for the Pintail. Only 25% of them (Belgium, Cyprus, Croatia, Latvia and Malta) have fully
reached all the relevant short-term objectives. Most advancements across all countries have
been in monitoring populations sizes and trends and in sites restoration and management,
while the least progress has been in ringing activities to identify population units and
provide annual estimates of mortality. Only half of countries where the Pintail is hunted
have improved the collection of annual bag data and assessed the potential impact of
hunting.
Progress in the overall implementation of the management plan is quite good (AIS=2,7). The
most progress has been in implementing protection policy and legislative actions (ensuring
78
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
that hunting season does not affect the breeding population, designating as SPAs areas of
international importance, establishing disturbance-free areas) and basic monitoring
measures (mid-winter census of areas of international importance). However, further work
is still needed in Italy, where hunting season overlaps the onset of pre-breeding migration.
Additional research and conservation measures had the least progress, thus requiring the
greatest efforts. In particular, there is still much to be done in identifying population units
and annual mortality, in assessing the annual productivity and restoring breeding sites,
especially in Sweden, and in collecting reliable and updated bag data in Bulgaria, Spain,
France, Italy and Portugal, where the Pintail is hunted.
79
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Table 24. PINTAIL - Anas acuta
RESULT/ACTION
Priority
Score
MEMBER STATE
1. No Pintails are hunted during spring
migration or the end of the breeding
season
2. Data on the annual number of Pintail shot
is available where hunting is permitted
3. Restoration of breeding sites is initiated
where Pintail has disappeared or is in
decline
4. Identification, conservation, wise-use and
management of wetlands and other
habitats with breeding Pintail is supported
5. All staging and wintering areas of
international importance for Pintail are
identified and designated SPAs
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
7. Disturbance-free areas are established in at
least 2 SPAs of international importance for
wintering and/or staging Pintail
8. Annual mid-winter census of all areas of
international importance for wintering
Pintail are carried out
9. A national monitoring programme to assess
annual productivity in late summer prior to
the autumn migration is established
10. National ringing activities and analyses of
existing ringing data to identify population
units and provide annual estimates of
mortality are supported
National Implementation Score (NIS)
Action
Ave.
Priority
IS
Index
Implementation Score (IS)
BE BG CY
CZ DK
ES
FR HR HU
IT
LT
LU
LV MT NL
PL
PT RO SE
SI
SK
3
0,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
3,9
0,1
3
0,00 1,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
2,5
1,5
3
0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 1,00
2,3
1,8
3
3,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 1,00
2,8
1,2
3
4,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 3,00 4,00 0,00 3,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 3,00 4,00 2,00 3,00 0,00 4,00
3,6
0,4
2
3,00 2,00 4,00 0,00 2,00 4,00 3,00 2,00 0,00 2,00 4,00 3,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 1,00 4,00 1,00 3,00 0,00 1,00
2,6
0,9
3
4,00 4,00 3,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 2,00 2,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 2,00 1,00 4,00 1,00 3,00 0,00 1,00
3,0
1,0
3
4,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 2,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 2,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00
3,6
0,4
3
0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 2,00
1,3
2,7
3
4,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 3,00 2,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 3,00 4,00 1,00 4,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00
1,8
2,2
3,71 2,41 3,82 1,00 3,14 3,19 2,85 3,07 2,25 2,45 2,76 3,00 3,35 4,00 2,79 2,59 2,94 2,24 1,80 NR 1,91
2,7
Overall
IS
80
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Coturnix coturnix - Common Quail
General observations
At least 19 Member States have applied the actions of the management plan for the
Common Quail; in six of them it is still being implemented (Belgium, Spain, Hungary, Latvia,
Malta and Romania). The hunting of the Quail is allowed in eight countries: Bulgaria, Croatia,
France, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Romania and Spain (the species is listed as a game species in
the Czech Republic, but there is no open season). The species is also huntable in Cyprus, but
data provided in the enquiry do not allow their analysis.
Only Luxembourg has endowed itself with a specific National “Action Plan for the Common
quail”. In Croatia hunting management plans are developed not for a specific species, but for
each hunting ground. They regulate future management guidelines and determine the
quality of habitats for each wildlife species, wildlife breeding stock, their growth rate,
abundance estimation twice a year and cull quota.
Some measures taken for the Quail in Spain, France, Lithuania and Romania have been
triggered by the plan. In particular, the management plan provisions have been integrated in
Romania’s specific legislation, while the establishment of individual hunting bag records and
daily authorised hunting offtakes established in some departments in France has been
inspired by the plan. All the other countries carried out a number of activities that
contributed to the EU Management Plan implementation, although not taken in this
framework and already in place before the plan was introduced. Member States have also
undertaken a number of initiatives not provided in the plan.
Notes by FACE’s Members
Italy

Daily and annual bag limits are in place in all regions, following ISPRA (Institute of
Environmental Protection and Research, the national scientific authority entitled by law to
provide advice and opinions on wildlife management) bag limits advice, inspired by the EU
management plan.

Hunters community contributed to habitats conservation. In particular, the sub district
hunting management units (ATC, Ambiti territoriali di Caccia) are required by State law to
invest funds to farmers for cover crops suitable for wildlife and stubble maintenance.

ISPRA recommends to avoid release of Japanese Quail but not all regions are following such
advice. Hunter organizations are promoting this issues with their members.

Hunter organizations are planning the captive reproduction of Coturnix coturnix in
cooperation with a Zoothecnic Department.
Some of the measures carried out 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 Poland and Slovakia, while a number of habitat restoration measures, agrienvironmental 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
81
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
aiming at it. Similarly, the agri-environmental schemes “Bio-belts” and “Growing of catch
crops” put in place in the Czech Republic under the Rural Development Programme could
profit also Common Quail. In The Netherlands, the regulation “Subsidy system for Nature
and Landscape Management” (SNL) offers financial compensation for the creation and
management of set-aside strips; on a local scale, set-aside strips in crop fields are managed
for Skylark and Quails. The project “Natura 2000 Management Planning for Malta and Gozo”
under the Rural Development Programme 2007-2013, is drafting management plans for all
terrestrial Natura 2000 sites in the Maltese Islands that will benefit Coturnix coturnix, since
the land areas comprising the Natura 2000 sites consist of ideal habitat used by the species.
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,
regulations and other legal acts (for example, Alien Invasive Species regulations and similar
legal measures to forbid releasing of non-native species and hybrids), to sectoral plans, to
Rural programmes and/or other agri-environmental schemes, to monitoring schemes and
research programmes.
The project “Field studies of species distribution/assessment of the status of species and
habitats throughout the country - I phase”, which is running in Bulgaria under Operational
Programme Environment 2007-2013, is developing a National Monitoring System on
Biodiversity to collect information on distribution and status of 253 breeding birds, including
the Common Quail, and their habitats in Bulgaria.
The species population trend and their habitat are monitored by the “Progetto MITO”
(Common Bird Census) in Italy, the “CAC Project” (Common Bird Census) in Portugal, the
“Common Bird Monitoring” Programme in Romania, the “Network of Ecological Monitoring”
(NEM) in The Netherlands, the Bird Monitoring Scheme (as part of the State Environmental
Monitoring Programme), in Poland.
In France:
 two national programmes for monitoring breeding populations: ACT (1996),“Alaudidae,
Colombidae and Turdidae” programme and STOC (1989), “Suivi Temporel des Oiseaux
Communs”are ongoing;
 an international programme to improve understanding of the demographic functioning
of western metapopulations of the species covering France, Spain, Portugal and Morocco
is ongoing. The programme only concerns breeding.
Studies and research projects on breeding strategy, morphological structure, genetic
structure of Quail populations and the impact of hybridisation with Japanese Quails, have
been conducted in collaboration with Dutch and Spanish researchers.
Notes by FACE’s Members
Spain

Hunters organizations (RFEC) have carried out a census and ringing project of the Quail
covering about ten years, “Anillamiento y seguimiento de la codorniz (Coturnix coturnix) en
España (2002-2011)”.

The real problem for Quail are aggressive agricultural practices, including land consolidation
and harvesting methods – lack for suitable stubble.
82
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
The hunting community provided contributions to the species management only in four of
the eight countries where the Common Quail is hunted. It has been involved in the
definition of regulations on hunting seasons and limits in Portugal, it has been requested to
provide guidance to their members on how to appropriately report hunting bags on the
forms (carnet de chasse) in Malta, and it has contributed at its own initiative to population
and hunting bags monitoring in Spain. The role of the hunters and hunters’ organizations
seems to have been more diversified in France, where they put in place at their own
initiative:
 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 (for example, in Belgium and Luxembourg);
 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);
 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;
 Poor attention is paid to the management plan by both Italian national and regional
administrations.
The contribution of the implemented actions is considered not significant for improving the
population status of the Quail in Italy, Slovakia and Netherlands, and unknown in the other
countries. In particular, the agri-environmental measures were implemented in 2007 and
thus at this time there are no data assessing their effect on the Common Quail population
development.
Achievement of the short-term objectives
The EU Management plan for Coturnix coturnix does not set short-term objectives.
Implementation of the Plan11
The plan implementation in the 19 countries that have been evaluated, is overall moderate
(AIS=2,2). The greatest progresses in implementing actions have been made in Croatia
(NIS=3,57) and Poland (NIS=3,40), whereas they are lower in Slovakia, Belgium and Hungary.
11
For the complete list of results/actions and related indicators see Table 25. More information on
the calculation and meaning of the calculated indicators can be found on pp. 4-7.
83
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
4.0
3.57
3.5
NIS/AIS
3.0
2.5
2.2
2.0
1.5
1.0
BE BG CZ DK ES
FR HR HU IT
LT LU LV MT NL PL
PT RO SE
SK AIS
Figure 29. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation
Score of the EU Management Plan for Coturnix coturnix.
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
API
Average IS
The best implemented measures are those related to hunting, applicable only in the eight
countries where the hunting is allowed. However, in both Italy and Malta further efforts
should be made to ensure that hunting does not affect late breeding birds and birds during
spring migration (result 2) as long as the Common Quail is in unfavourable conservation
status. The earlier opening of hunting season in Italy through derogation from national law
causes overlap with breeding period. Malta did not grant derogations for the spring hunting
of Quail in 2008 and 2009, but it applied derogations again in the spring of 2010, 2011, 2012
and 2013 on the basis that “autumn hunting season cannot be regarded as constituting, in
Malta, another satisfactory solution” for hunting of this species (Court of Justice of the
European Union in Case C-76/08 Commission vs. Malta of 10 September 2009).
France, Italy and Portugal have made no or very little progress in ensuring that hunting level
does not put at risk the recovery of the Quail population (result 3) and having regular bag
statistics (result 8). The last estimate of hunting offtakes in France was done during the
1998-1999 season and a new assessment is expected for the 2013-2014 season. In Portugal
the national bag limits doesn’t rely on robust data.
 API
essential/critical 4
high priority
3
medium priority 2
low priority
1
9.
Action/Result
Figure 30. 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 two essential/critical measures (ban of Japanese Quail release - results 1, and habitat
management - result 4) are at a fairly good point, but greater effort is still needed, especially
84
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
to conserve and restore breeding and staging habitats (result 4), and especially in Belgium,
Bulgaria, Italy, Romania and Slovakia, where nothing, or nearly nothing, has been done.
The least implemented measures requiring further efforts are those implying cooperation
and exchange of knowledge at international level:
 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).
Summary of achievements of the Plan
At least 19 Member States have implemented the management plan for the Common Quail.
Progress in the overall implementation is quite moderate (AIS=2,2), with most successful
implementation in Croatia (NIS=3,57) and least progress in Slovakia (NIS= 1,18).
Measures related to hunting are the best implemented, but further efforts should be made
to ensure that hunting does not involve the breeding season and the spring migration in
Italy and Malta, that bag limits do not affect the recovery of the Quail population and
regular bag statistics are collected and available in France, Italy and Portugal.
Priority work should be focused on habitats protection, management and restoration and on
establishing international cooperation and information sharing to assist African countries in
banning the release of Japanese/hybrid Quails and to improve knowledge about wintering
and breeding populations in Africa.
85
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Table 25. COMMON QUAIL - Coturnix coturnix
RESULT/ACTION
Implementation Score (IS)
PS
AIS
API
4
2,50 0,00 2,50 2,50 3,00 4,00 4,00 1,00 2,00 2,50 2,50 4,00 4,00 3,00 4,00 4,00 1,00 2,50 1,00 2,8
1,6
3
0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 3,5
0,5
2
0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 1,00 4,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 2,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 2,9
0,8
4
1,00 1,00 4,00 1,00 3,00 2,00 4,00 2,00 1,00 2,00 2,00 2,00 3,00 2,00 3,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 2,1
2,6
2
0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,0
2,0
2
0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,1
1,9
2
1,00 1,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 3,00 3,00 2,00 2,00 1,00 0,00 4,00 3,00 4,00 2,00 4,00 2,00 2,9
0,7
3
0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 1,00 4,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 2,9
1,1
1
1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,1
1,0
1,55 2,33 3,18 2,09 2,78 2,62 3,57 1,53 1,74 2,20 2,09 2,60 2,94 2,27 3,40 2,53 2,13 2,09 1,18 2,2
Overall
IS
MEMBER STATE
BE
BG
CZ
DK
ES
FR
HR HU
IT
LT
LU
LV MT NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SK
1. The release both on public and private lands, fenced-in or
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
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
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.
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.
Breeding and staging habitats are conserved, managed
sustainably and, eventually, restored in MSs with
significant numbers of breeding Common Quail.
Technical assistance is provided to African countries
where Quail hunting is important, so as to help ban the
release of Japanese/hybrid Quails.
The knowledge about wintering populations in North and
West Africa, and breeding populations in North Africa, is
improving and made widely available.
A common method is agreed, validated by the EBCC and
used by the MS to monitor species populations.
Regular bag statistics are available where Common Quail
hunting is allowed.
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.
National Implementation Score (NIS)
86
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Netta rufina - Red-crested Pochard
General observations
At least 15 Member States have applied the management plan for the Red-crested Pochard
and in Spain and Netherlands its implementation is still ongoing. The plan is not relevant in
Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta and Sweden, since the species is occasional, irregular visitor
or very rare. The Red-crested Pochard is huntable in Spain and France. The hunting of the
species is also allowed in Cyprus, but data provided were not sufficient for the assessment of
the plan implementation.
In France, a national plan specific for Netta rufina has been produced and it is currently in
the 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, Poland and Slovakia.
In no country has the plan 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, wetlands and lakes management, water level and
quality control in Belgium, wetlands improvement and dispositions preventing land use
changes, in Portugal;
 awareness-raising measures to increase duck identification skills of hunters (posters,
leaflets etc.) in Hungary;
 lead shot ban in wetlands included in SPAs and Ramsar sites in Portugal and review of
lead poisoning due to hunting ammunition in Italy;
 annual waterbird counts, as part of the International Waterbird Census (IWC), the Dutch
Network of Ecological Monitoring (NEM), the Breeding bird Atlas in Czech Republic.
In both countries where the hunting of the Red-crested Pochard is allowed the hunting
community has 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.
87
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
After working with hunters the species was removed from the list of huntable birds in
Romania.
The level of implementation of the plan in the Member States has been found as depending
on the following elements:
 the measures have been carried out not specifically focusing on the species;
 there has been no follow-up of the plan, the Red-crested Pochard being not really a
priority species in France;
 the number of birds is too low to plan any conservation measures and to implement
some specific actions (Belgium, Poland).
In about half of the countries 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 in Denmark, 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 increase of the breeding population, but it could also depend on the water quality
improvement. The actions could have had a positive impact in Portugal, by minimizing the
key threats impacts for the species, in Hungary since the species is spreading as a breeder, in
The Netherlands where both the breeding and wintering populations are increasing, and in
Italy because the population trend is positive.
Achievement of the short-term objectives
The EU Management plan for Netta rufina does not set short-term objectives.
Implementation of the plan12
The average implementation score of the management plan in overall the 15 Member States
that applied it, is fairly good (AIS=2,6).
4.0
3.56
3.5
NIS/AIS
3.0
2.6
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.00
1.0
BE
BG
CZ
DK
ES
FR
HR
HU
IT
LU
NL
PL
PT
RO
SK
AIS
Figure 31. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation
Score of the EU Management Plan for Netta rufina.
12
For the complete list of results/actions and related indicators see Table 26. More information on
the calculation and meaning of the calculated indicators can be found on pp. 4-7.
88
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
The best progress has been made by Spain (NIS=3,56), where the species is present with the
greatest breeding and wintering populations, while the lowest score has been recorded by
Romania (NIS=1,00), which also holds important breeding and non-breeding populations.
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
API
Average IS
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
to be made to assess the relative importance of hunting as a mortality cause (result 9) and
to set hunting at sustainable levels (result 1).
 API
essential/critical 4
high priority
3
medium priority 2
low priority
1
9.
Action/Result
Figure 32. 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.
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). More work has been done to identify, wise-use and manage all wetlands
and other habitats, being this action scored as essential/critical priority, mainly in Romania
and Slovakia.
The action that needs greatest efforts is the identification of large-scale population units and
estimation of the annual mortality (result 8), which has been implemented only in a few
countries (Spain, France, Slovakia and The Netherlands).
Summary of achievements of the Plan
The management plan for the Red-crested Pochard has been applied in at least 15 Member
States and overall progress in its implementation is fairly good (AIS=2,6), with best progress
in Spain (NIS=3,56) and least in Romania (NIS=1,00).
Setting the hunting season so as not to affect Red-crested Pochards during spring migration
or during the end of the breeding season is fully implemented in both Spain and France,
where the species is hunted, but further efforts should be made in France to assess the
relative importance of hunting as a mortality cause and to set hunting at sustainable levels.
Some important efforts have been also made in species and site conservation measures, by
protecting and wisely managing habitats used by Red-crested Pochard and by establishing
89
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
sufficient disturbance-free areas within SPAs of international importance for the species, but
little work has been made in minimising the disturbance by socio-economic activities
through mitigation measures.
Efforts need to continue on reducing habitats loss and priority work should be addressed at
research activities, also at international level, to identify large-scale population units, to
estimate annual mortality and to assess breeding populations size, trend and annual
productivity in key areas.
90
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Table 26. RED-CRESTED POCHARD - Netta rufina
RESULT/ACTION
AIS
API
3
0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,5
1,5
3
0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,0
0,0
4
3,50 4,00 2,50 4,00 4,00 0,00 2,00 3,00 3,00 2,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 2,50 3,00 1,00 0,00 1,50 2,8
1,6
3
0,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 2,00 3,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 4,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 3,0
1,0
2
2,50 1,00 1,50 0,00 4,00 0,00 1,50 1,00 2,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 1,8
1,5
3
3,50 1,00 1,00 4,00 3,00 0,00 3,50 1,00 2,50 3,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 3,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 2,6
1,4
3
4,00 0,00 4,00 2,00 3,00 0,00 2,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 4,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 3,00 2,4
1,6
3
0,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 3,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,50 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 2,50 1,5
2,5
3
0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,5
1,5
MEMBER STATE
1. Hunting is set at sustainable levels, as defined
by the results of studies to be undertaken
under Result n° 9.
2. No red-crested Pochards are hunted during
spring migration or during the end of the
breeding season.
3. All wetlands and other habitats with breeding,
moulting, staging or wintering Red-crested
Pochard are identified, conserved, wisely used
and managed
4. Within SPAs of international importance for
wintering or moulting/staging Red-crested
Pochard, the species can benefit from sufficient
disturbance-free areas
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.
6. The distribution, key sites and population size
are permanently monitored and their changes
rapidly assessed
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
8. Large-scale population units are clearly
identified and annual mortality is estimated
9. The relative importance of hunting as a
mortality cause is assessed, as well as the
sustainability of current harvest rates
National Implementation Score (NIS)
Implementation Score (IS)
PS
BE
BG
CZ
DK
ES
FI
FR
HR HU
IT
LT
LU
LV
3,46 2,40 2,39 3,40 3,56 NR 2,69 1,61 2,31 1,89 NR 2,13 NR
MT NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SK
NR 2,92 2,62 2,22 1,00 NR 2,03 2,6
Overall
IS
91
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Aythya marila - Scaup
General observations
The management plan for Scaup has been implemented in 13 out of the 22 Member States
that have been included in this evaluation, and it is still being implemented in Finland,
Latvia, The Netherlands and Romania. Among these 13 countries, the Scaup hunting is
allowed in Denmark, France, Latvia and Romania. The species is not present in Cyprus, Spain
and Portugal, very rare in the Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Malta and Slovenia, and an
irregular visitor in Croatia and therefore the whole plan is considered not relevant in these
countries. Nevertheless, where the species occurs, although rarely, its conservation is
covered under general nature protection legislation, considered to be sufficient. Moreover,
some of these countries have also adopted additional measures: the species is strictly
protected by law (OG 99/09) in Croatia and the wintering population is monitored during the
international waterbird census in Czech Republic.
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 in Finland, and Romania has integrated the terms of the plan in national
specific legislation. In all the other countries the measures have been taken independently
from the plan. In The Netherlands most of the measures were already running before the
plan was introduced.
A number of countries have also taken measures other than those recommended in the
plan. In Hungary, Italy, Poland and Slovakia the Scaup is protected or strictly protected
under the general nature protection law. Hunting at sea is banned in Italy and hunting in the
Danube Delta (Romania) is forbidden for all species since 2011. In Hungary awarenessraising measures have been put in place to increase duck identification skills of hunters
(posters, leaflets etc.) and avoid accidental shooting of protected species, and waterbird
hunting has been restricted in several wetlands which are important for, among others, the
Scaup. Different monitoring counts of the species are carried out in The Netherlands:
monthly aerial counts in IJsselmeer & Markermeer, five times a year counts in Wadden Sea,
and additional counts in the Wadden Sea in relation with mussel seed installations to
monitor the impact of shell fishery.
A number of measures of the plan have been adopted with different tools: the Key Planning
Decision Wadden Sea (PKB) that strictly regulate fishing activities in the Wadden Sea (mussel
culture, cockle fishing, seabed fishing, trawling, fishing with fixed gear); the Dutch Act for
Preventing Pollution through Ships (WVVS) that executes the MARPOL treaty and the EU
directive port reception facilities; the National Oil spill Action Plans and alert system
(Denmark and Finland); Nature Protection Acts, including Natura 2000 legislation; protected
areas Regulations and Management Plans; Game Management Programs; National Bird
Monitoring Programs.
The hunting community provided some contribution to the plan’s measures only in France
by supporting the estimation of the annual individuals shot, and in Latvia by the control of
predators.
92
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
The main elements regarded as limiting the plan implementation are:
 too few competent field workers in the core breeding region in Finland;
 the scarce occurrence of the Scaup in small numbers in Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Latvia
and Slovakia does not allow to apply specific actions.
The implemented actions are largely (54% of the countries) supposed to have not
contributed on population status of the Scaup, while the impact is not known in the other
countries. In particular, the recent increase in Wadden Sea of wintering numbers of Scaup,
together with numbers of Eider, might be caused by cold winters, when birds move to the
Wadden sea from the Dutch Ijsslemeer population due to ice cover.
Achievement of the short-term objectives
The short-term objectives set in the management plan for the Scaup has been fully achieved
only in Lithuania. All the other 12 Member States have just partially achieved them.
France and The Netherlands, are the closest to achieving them, having not fully reached only
one of them (objective 6). Bulgaria, Denmark, Hungary, Latvia and Slovakia have only missed
one objective each. Sweden, with three objectives not achieved at all is the hindmost
country.
Short-term objectives
1.
WS site
safeguard,
MS
shell
fishery and
disturbance
control
Meas.
5, 7
BG
Yes
DK
Yes
FI
Not relev.
FR
Yes
HU
Yes
IT
Yes
LT
Not relev.
LV
Yes
NL
Yes
PL
Yes
RO
Yes
SE
No
SK
No
Overall
Partially
2.
Identify and
address
causes of the
decline of
breeding
population
3, 4
Not relevant
Not relevant
Yes
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
No
Not relevant
Partially
3.
4.
5.
Take action
Take
Voluntary
to stop
action temporary
drowning in
to avoid hunting
fishing nets
oil spills
ban
and hunting
6
Yes
No
No
Not relevant
Not relevant
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Not relevant
Not relevant
Partially
8
No
Yes
Yes
Not rel.
Not rel.
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Not rel.
Partially
1
Not relev.
Not relev.
Not relev.
Not relev.
Not relev.
Not relev.
Not relev.
No
Not relev.
Not relev.
Yes
Not relev.
Not relev.
Partially
6.
Collect better
data on W pop.
size, mortality,
B success and
links between B
and W pop.
2, 9, 10, 11
Partially
Partially
No
Partially
No
Partially
Not relevant
Yes
Partially
No
Partially
No
Yes
Partially
Overall
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Yes
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Table 27. 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. Achieved: all
the related measures are implemented (IS>1); Not Achieved: all the related measures are not or very
little implemented (IS=1); Partially Achieved: at least one of the related measures is implemented
(IS>1).
93
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
None of the six objectives has been fully reached across the 13 countries.
Objective 1 is the closest to its accomplishment since it has not been reached only by
Sweden and Slovakia (accounting for less than 20% of the relevant countries), where there is
no wintering, staging and moulting sites protection and management plans.
Objective 2, focused at breeding populations, has been achieved only in Finland, while very
little work has been done in Sweden to identify, protect and manage breeding sites or to
reduce nest losses. Similarly, objective 5 shows a partial achievement since only one
(Romania) out of the two countries that considers relevant the introduction of a voluntary
temporary hunting ban, has applied it.
Objective 3 has not been reached in about half of the countries considering drowning in
fishing nets and hunting as a threat. Apart from (occasional) registering of birds drowned in
nets, there are no active measures undertaken by Polish fishing fleet to reduce the by-catch
of sea ducks and other concerned species. Even though a survey is underway to collect data
on possible by-catches of various fisheries of the Finnish fishing fleet, no action has been
taken in Finland to avoid drowning in fishing nets. However, most of the fishery is trawling,
not considered as a threat to seabirds.
Objective 4 has been partly reached because Bulgaria, Italy and Romania have not taken any
action to avoid oil spills.
Finally, objective 6 (collection of better research data) seems to be the least implemented:
four Member States have not taken action to achieve it, while another six have taken only
some of the actions contributing to its achievement. In particular, Finland and Sweden,
which are the only countries with breeding populations of Scaup, have not undertaken
research on survival rates and fecundity or on population structure and relatedness of the
different geographic segments. In Finland only breeding success has been studied and only
at one site in the Bay of Bothnia in 2008-10. With the only exception of Latvia and Slovakia,
which have fully achieved the objective, in all the other countries with wintering/staging
populations no data are collected on population structure and fidelity to breeding, staging
and wintering sites. In France also the annual number of Scaup shot is not available while in
Poland even mid-winter counts are not carried out.
Implementation of the Plan13
The overall implementation of the plan across the 13 Member States that have applied it, is
moderate (AIS=2,3), with greatest progresses in Denmark (NIS=3,17) and the smallest in
Sweden, that holds the main breeding population of Scaup.
The measure reserved to the Wadden Sea, to reduce shell fishing activities (result 7), is
applicable only in Denmark and The Netherlands. The species is huntable in Denmark,
France, Latvia, and Romania 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
13
For the complete list of results/actions and related indicators see Table 28. More information on
the calculation and meaning of the calculated indicators can be found on pp. 4-7.
94
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Sweden and therefore, measures aimed at breeding populations (results 3, 4 and 10) are not
applicable in the other countries.
4.0
3.5
3.17
NIS/AIS
3.0
2.5
2.3
2.0
1.5
1.0
BG
DK
FI
FR
HU
IT
LT
LV
NL
PL
RO
SE
SK
AIS
Figure 33. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation
Score of the EU Management Plan for Aythya marila.
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
high priority
1.0
1.0
medium priority 2
0.5
0.5
low priority
0.0
0.0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
API
Average IS
The best implemented measure is the assessment and regulation of shell fishing activities in
the Wadden Sea (result 7), which shows significant progress in both Denmark and The
Netherlands. The monitoring of wintering and moulting areas of international importance
(result 9), the protection and management of all major wintering, staging and moulting sites
(result 5) and the oil pollution prevention and planning (result 8), also show a good progress.
 API
essential/critical 4
3
1
10. 11.
Action/Result
Figure 34. 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.
The least implemented actions requiring greatest efforts with higher priority are:
 the research on survival rates and fecundity (result 10), not implemented at all in Finland
and in Sweden;
 the nest losses reduction (result 4), not implemented at all in Sweden and with no
significant progress in Finland;
 the assessment of the need for restrictions of fishing activities to reduce by-catch (result
6), which has some significant progress only in Lithuania and The Netherlands.
95
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Summary of achievements of the Plan
The management plan for the Scaup has been implemented in at least 13 Member States, of
which only Lithuania has fully achieved all the relevant short-term objectives. Their overall
achievement across countries is partial. The improvement of the protection of wintering,
staging and moulting sites, accomplished in about 80% of the concerned Member States, is
the closest objective to be reached across countries. On the contrary, the collection of
better research data on populations sizes, mortality, breeding success and links between
breeding and wintering populations is the furthest objective from being achieved, since only
16% of the concerned countries have accomplished it and these do not include the only two
with breeding populations of Scaup (Finland and Sweden).
The overall implementation of the plan is moderate (AIS=2,3), with the highest NIS in
Denmark (3,17) and the least in Sweden (1,29). The best implemented measure is the
assessment and regulation of shell fishing activities in the Wadden Sea, followed by the
census of all wintering and moulting areas of international importance and by the estimate
of the annual number of Scaup shot. However, greater work should be done on annual bag
data collection in France. Priority efforts should focus on research on key parameters of
breeding populations, on minimising nest losses by predation, especially in Sweden, and on
reducing by-catch by fishing activities.
96
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Table 28. SCAUP - Aythya marila
RESULT/ACTION
MEMBER STATE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
A temporary hunting ban is established
An estimate of the annual number of Scaup shot is available
(where hunting continues)
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
Management actions are taken to reduce nest losses due to
predation by man-induced terrestrial or avian predators.
All major wintering, staging and moulting sites are protected,
both the roosts and feeding areas, as SPAs with management
plans
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
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.
Improved pollution prevention and improved oil spill
contingency planning is in place in marine areas.
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.
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)
Research on the population structure and relatedness of the
different geographic segments is supported, including the
fidelity to breeding, staging and wintering sites.
National Implementation Score (NIS)
Implementation Score (IS)
PS
AIS
API
1 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,5
0,5
2 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,0
0,7
3 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,50 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,50 0,00 0,00 2,5
1,5
3 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,5
2,5
3 4,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 3,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 2,00 0,00 2,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 2,7
1,3
3 2,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 3,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 3,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,7
2,3
3 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,5
0,5
2 1,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 3,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 3,00 0,00 1,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 2,7
0,9
3 4,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 4,00 1,00 0,00 3,00 1,00 0,00 4,00 3,0
1,0
3 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,0
3,0
2 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 3,00 1,3
1,8
BG CY CZ DK ES
FI
FR HR HU IT
LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE
SI
SK
2,62 NR NR 3,17 NR 1,91 2,20 NR 2,20 2,15 3,00 NR 2,69 NR 3,06 1,54 NR 2,13 1,29 NR 2,63 2,3
Overal
l IS
97
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Streptopelia turtur - Turtle Dove
General observations
The management plan for the Turtle Dove has been applied in at least 19 Member States
and five of them, Spain, Hungary, Latvia, Malta and Romania are still implementing it. The
plan is not relevant in Sweden and Finland, where the species occurs in very low numbers.
The Turtle Dove is huntable in seven of the 19 countries involved in the plan
implementation: Bulgaria, Spain, France, Italy, Malta, Portugal and Romania.
Luxembourg has a specific national plan for the Turtle Dove, but it has not been yet
published. 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. The plan has been integrated in Romania’s specific
legislation.
Most countries (68%) have taken measures and other initiatives independently from the
plan: agro-environmental measures in specified ‘meadow bird areas’ (excl. nature reserves)
in Belgium; hunting daily limits and a project to develop a National Monitoring System on
Biodiversity to collect information on distribution of 253 breeding birds, including the Turtle
Dove, in Bulgaria; guidelines established for the management of hedgerows and hedgerow
landscape in some regional protected areas in France; the declaration of various sites in the
Maltese Islands, also important for the Turtle Dove, as Nature Reserves, Bird Sanctuaries,
Special Areas of Conservation, Special Protection Areas, Tree Protection Areas, Areas of
Ecological Importance, Sites of Scientific Importance and Ramsar sites; the project for the
development of management plans for all terrestrial Natura 2000 sites in the Maltese
Islands; diverse afforestation projects and restoration of typical Mediterranean habitats that
can potentially be used by this species during migration stop-over in the Maltese Islands;
protection of the breeding habitats for Turtle Dove in the Dutch National Ecological Network
(EHS); the species is protected in Hungary and is listed as strictly protected in Croatia and in
the Slovakian nature protection law.
Almost all the Member States have undertaken the measures of the plan as part of other
instruments:
 the Program Document for Development of the agricultural area (PDPO) and other legal
measures to encourage to maintain or plant hedges (Belgium), agri-environmental
schemes (Hungary), the Rural Development Programme (Czech Republic, Lithuania and
Portugal). Under the Rural Development Programme a “Natura 2000 Management
Planning for Malta and Gozo” is ongoing;
 the Operational Programme Environment 2007-2013 to develop a National Monitoring
System on Biodiversity (Bulgaria);
 hunting acts and regulations (Bulgaria, France, Italy, Malta, Portugal), in particular, the
Italian hunting decree (6 November 2012) binding Regional Administrations to collect
hunting bag data, and the Maltese regulation “Framework for allowing a derogation
opening a Spring Hunting season for Turtle Dove and Quail” (S.L.504.94)
 sectoral plans (Spain) and hunting plans (Bulgaria);
98
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
 national legislations on nature protection (Spain, Croatia, Luxembourg, Malta);
 the Carnet de Prélèvement Universel (CPU) to collect annual hunting bags provided each
years by voluntary hunters (France);
 birds monitoring and ringing schemes, programmes and projects: “Network Ecological
Monitoring, NEM” (The Netherlands), Breeding Bird Monitoring Programme (Czech
Republic), Common Bird Census (“Progetto MITO” in Italy, “CAC” programme in Portugal,
“Common Bird Monitoring” in Romania, “STOC, Common breeding birds survey” in
France), “ACT Alaudidae Columbidae Turdidae monitoring plan” and “Vigie-Nature”
citizens science program in France, Breeding Birds Atlases (Czech Republic, Lithuania,
Malta), Czech and Slovak Bird Migration Atlas, Dutch nest-recording scheme;
 research projects: studies on landscape effects on large scale abundance patterns of
turtle doves (Portugal), studies on the migration of Turtle Dove and Common Quail and
studies on Collared Dove (Malta), 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
(France).
The measures are implemented mainly at national level, but also regional and local scale.
Monitoring activities are also carried out at international scale, involving Western Africa
(Mali, Morroco and Algeria), but only by France.
Notes by FACE’s Members
Italy

Most regions follow ISPRA (Institute of Environmental Protection and Research, the national
scientific authority entitled by law to provide advice and opinions on wildlife management)
advice on daily and annual hunting bag limit inspired by the EU management plan.

Hunters communities through the sub district hunting management units (ATC) played a role
in maintain habitat suitable for the Turtle Dove by using their funds for farmers to adopt
agricultural practices such as stubble maintenance.

Changes in farming systems with increase of autumn sown cereals and sunflower have
increased feeding opportunities for Turtle Dove. Breeding population in Italy is increasing.
The hunting community has provided certain contribution to carry out some measure only in
countries where the Turtle Dove is a huntable species, but not in all of them. In Portugal the
hunting community has been involved in the definition of regulations on hunting seasons
and hunting limits. Hunting organisations in Malta were requested to provide guidance to
their members on how to appropriately report hunting bags on the forms (carnet de chasse)
provided by the authority. In Spain the hunting community has supported on its own
initiative the monitoring of migrating birds, breeding surveys and monitoring hunting bags.
The contribution of the hunting community in central Italy has been limited at the local scale
where hunters’ associations carried voluntarily medium-term monitoring of the breeding
populations through point counts of singing individuals. In France hunters have put in place
a programme to replant hedges and to develop wildlife set-aside land to improve breeding
success in spring. Moreover, some French departments have implemented local daily bag
limits.
99
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
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 the main focus of conservation measures in
Hungary;
 no special actions are considered necessary to improve the status of the species in
Denmark, since the breeding sites (dense conifer plantations) are of less important
nature value;
 negative factors causing the slightly decrease of the population trend are apparently
outside the territory of the Czech Republic and its general conservation is therefore
considered to be sufficient;
 the plan is not put into practice in The Netherlands and the main threats (replacement of
cereals by green maize, use of herbicides) remain;
 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;
 most actions, especially about hunting, are not applicable in Luxembourg;
 lack of available funding for the transposition of the EU management plan at national
level in France;
 the management plan has not been taken into account by both national and regional
administrations in Italy.
Notes by FACE’s Members
Spain

Each region establishes its own hunting rules for seasons and quotas, but such variety of
hunting standards and criteria is not reasonable and the rules are not always set with
sufficient consideration.

For years limitations on catches have been in place, but no management plan or development
of a predictive model to determine a sustainable annual bag has been supported.

Studies on Collared Dove (Streptopelia decaocto) show that it would be necessary to authorize
hunting of this species since it displaces the Turtle Dove and its presence is increasing,
especially near urban centers.

There are catch data by regions, but these seem to be difficult to transfer to the national
administration. Data are also not accurate and are only related to catches. For this reason the
hunting community has launched at its own initiative a monitoring project tracking for this
species in Spain.
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 made in Belgium, where the population is in sharp decrease, and in the Czech
Republic, Italy, Lithuania, Slovakia and The Netherlands. In this last country in particular, it is
believed that the main reason lies in the great difficulty of solving the problem linked to the
replacement of cereals by green maize.
Some comments and suggestions are offered:
 There must be initiatives to develop sustainable hunting in the Maghreb countries,
 AEWA only takes into account waterbirds but not terrestrial migratory species.
100
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Achievement of the short-term objectives
Denmark is the only Member State out of a total of 19 to have fully reached the short-term
objectives of the management plan for the Turtle Dove, by achieving the only one
considered relevant. France and Latvia, with only one objective missed, seem to be the
closest to their full achievement, while Bulgaria and Romania are the hindmost with three
objectives not reached at all.
In overall, none of the four objectives have been fully achieved across the relevant
countries.
Short-term objectives
1.
MS
Meas.
BE
BG
CZ
DK
ES
FR
HR
HU
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
Overall
2.
3.
4.
Collection of data
Analysis of
Collection of more
Improving
on trend, ecology
competition
robust data to
management and
and dynamic, in
between the
better understand
restoration of
breeding and
Collared Dove and the importance of
breeding habitats
wintering areas
the Turtle Dove
hunting
1
6 - 10
10
3, 4, 5
Yes
No
No
Not relevant
No
No
No
Partially
Yes
Partially
No
Not relevant
Not relevant
Yes
Not relevant
Not relevant
Yes
Partially
No
Partially
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Partially
No
Not relevant
Yes
Partially
No
Not relevant
No
Partially
No
Partially
No
Partially
No
Not relevant
Yes
Partially
No
Not relevant
Yes
Yes
No
Not relevant
Not relevant
Partially
Yes
Partially
No
Partially
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Partially
No
Not relevant
Yes
Partially
No
No
No
No
No
Partially
Yes
Partially
No
Not relevant
No
Partially
No
Not relevant
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Overall
Partially
Partially
Partially
Yes
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Partially
Table 29. 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.
Achieved: all the related measures are implemented (IS>1); Not Achieved: all the related measures
are not or very little implemented (IS=1); Partially Achieved: at least one of the related measures is
implemented (IS>1).
Objective 1 would seem to be the closest to the full achievement, since it has been reached
by around 56% of the countries. Particular attention for the management of hedges and
hedgerow landscape, important areas for the breeding population, is given in France, and
habitat restoration actions in Hungary have certainly positively benefited the Turtle Dove at
several sites, although it was not the target species. However, seven States have not yet
101
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
started any action to maintain and better protect wooded farmland, hedges and other
habitats important for breeding Turtle Dove.
Objective 2 involves different monitoring and research studies, including international
cooperation actions. None of these has been carried out in Belgium, Bulgaria and Romania,
while all of them show a good progress in France, where different initiatives have been
supported also involving African countries. However, most countries (almost 70%) show only
some little degree of progress, having implemented only a few of the activities contributing
to the objective. In particular, more than half of countries have not carried out any research
on links with habitat management, nor on productivity and breeding success. Moreover,
only France has gathered population data from outside EU, while most of the other Member
States deem the suggested measures not relevant and the remaining 30% has not started
any work.
Objective 3 seems to be the hindmost to be accomplished, since only one Member State,
Malta, has carried out some studies on the Collared Dove. However, no specific interspecific
competition assessment has been carried out because turtle doves rarely breed in Malta. All
the other countries have missed the objective.
Objective 4 concerns only the seven countries where hunting is allowed. Only France has
fully achieved it, while the other six countries have carried out none (Portugal) or only one
of the three actions related to the objective. With the only exception of Portugal, all have
collected, although with different levels of implementation, their own hunting bags data,
but none from key countries outside the EU, nor they have developed a predictive model to
determine a sustainable annual bag. Furthermore, gathering hunting bags information from
key non European countries is deemed not relevant in Bulgaria, Spain and France, and, in
the latter, even the development of a predictive model of sustainable bag, thereby achieving
the objective.
Implementation of the Plan14
The management plan has a fairly poor implementation (AIS=1,9), with the best progresses
in two countries where hunting Turtle Dove is allowed and in particular in France (NIS=3,12),
that included scientific research also in the international context.
4.0
3.5
3.12
NIS/AIS
3.0
2.5
1.9
2.0
1.5
1.0
BE BG CZ DK ES
FR HR HU IT
LT
LU LV MT NL PL
PT RO
SI
SK AIS
Figure 35. National Implementation Scores for each Member State and the Average Implementation
Score of the EU Management Plan for Streptopelia turtur.
14
For the complete list of results/actions and related indicators see Table 30. More information on
the calculation and meaning of the calculated indicators can be found on pp. 4-7.
102
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
API
Average IS
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.
 API
essential/critical 4
high priority
3
medium priority 2
low priority
1
0.0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Action/Result
Figure 36. 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.
Enforcement of hunting legislation setting the hunting season (result 2) is the best
performed measure. It is fully implemented in all countries where the Turtle Dove is hunted
with two exceptions, Italy and Malta, where further efforts are required to ensure that
hunting does not affect late breeding birds and birds during spring migration as long as the
Turtle Dove is in unfavourable conservation status:
 Italy, where derogations are allowed by most Regions (16 out of 20 in 2013) to anticipate
the hunting season to early September;
 Malta, where derogations for the spring hunting of the Turtle Dove are still granted since
“autumn hunting season cannot be regarded as constituting, in Malta, another
satisfactory solution” for hunting of the species (Court of Justice of the European Union
in Case C-76/08 Commission vs. Malta of 10 September 2009).
Notwithstanding the significant progress in relation to the bag statistics (result 3), further
work has to be made, especially in Portugal, where little work has been carried out, and
Italy, where national data on hunting bags are not available since some regional
administrations are regularly collecting data from the hunting cards, but these data are not
gathered with standardized protocols and are not conveyed to a national coordination
scheme.
The actions needing the greatest efforts in order of priority (API) are:
 to develop a predictive model to determine a sustainable annual bag (result 5), fully
implemented only in Malta, while Bulgaria, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Romania have
carried out little or no work, and France considers it as not relevant;
 to collect hunting bags information from key countries outside the EU where European
populations pass on migration and winter (result 4), which has received no
implementation in Italy, Malta, Portugal and Romania and it is evaluated as not relevant
in Bulgaria, France and Spain;
 to collect information on populations in Turkey, Russia and West Africa (result 9) and
annual estimates of breeding success (result 8), for which almost all countries have done
103
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
nothing or very little, or evaluate information from key countries neighboring the EU as
not relevant.
Summary of achievements of the Plan
The management plan for the Turtle Dove has been applied in at least 19 Member States,
but only one of them, Denmark, has fully reached the relevant short-term objectives. Overall
achievement of the four objectives across countries is partial. The greatest accomplishment
has been in improving management and restoration of breeding habitats, reached in about
half of the concerned countries, while the smallest has been in the analysis of the potential
competition with the Collared Dove, achieved only in Malta.
The overall implementation of the plan his fairly poor (AIS=1,9), with the best progresses in
two countries where hunting Turtle Dove is allowed and in particular in France (NIS=3,12)
and Malta (NIS=2,71), and the least in Belgium, Lithuania and Slovakia (NIS=1,20). The
measures of the plan are focused on hunting and on monitoring/research. The best
implemented are establishing hunting seasons and derogations so as not to overlap with the
breeding period and making available hunting bag statistics. However, further efforts should
be made by Italy, Malta and Portugal. Also the species monitoring with common guidelines
shows some progress, but all the other measures related to research activities are very little
implemented (1,3<AIS<1,7). The main efforts should be addressed to develop a predictive
model to determine a sustainable annual bag and to collect hunting bags information from
key countries outside the EU, very little or not implemented.
104
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Table 30. TURTLE DOVE - Streptopelia turtur
RESULT/ACTION
AIS
API
2
2,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 2,00 1,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 3,00 2,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 3,00 1,00 0,00 2,00 1,00 1,7
1,5
2
0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,4
0,4
3
0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,0
1,0
2
0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,0
2,0
3
0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,5
2,5
2
1,00 1,00 4,00 2,00 3,00 0,00 4,00 2,00 2,00 3,00 2,00 2,00 3,00 0,00 4,00 1,00 4,00 1,00 0,00 4,00 2,00 2,5
1,0
2
1,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 4,00 3,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 1,00 4,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 1,7
1,5
2
1,00 1,00 4,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 3,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 1,4
1,8
2
0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,3
1,8
2
1,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 2,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,00 2,00 2,00 4,00 1,00 2,00 2,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 1,00 1,6
1,6
1,20 1,83 2,17 2,00 2,33 NR 3,12 1,60 1,60 1,50 1,20 1,80 2,20 2,71 1,50 1,80 1,82 1,68 NR 2,00 1,20 1,9
Overa
ll IS
MEMBER STATE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Wooded farmland, hedges and other habitats important for
breeding are maintained and better protected
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.
Annual bag statistics are available (where hunting is
allowed).
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).
A predictive model is developed to help determine what
annual bag would be sustainable (where hunting is
permitted).
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).
National ringing activities and analyses of existing ringing
data to estimate mortality and identify population units is
supported
Annual estimates of breeding success is provided on
breeding grounds
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
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.
National Implementation Score (NIS)
Implementation Score (IS)
PS
BE BG CZ DK ES
FI
FR HR HU IT
LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE
SI
SK
105
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Conclusions
The 13 species of the EU Management Plans are not huntable or huntable with no open
season in most of the 22 countries concerned by this analysis. Seven States15 have
elaborated or are drafting national plans specific for one or more species.
A limited number of the activities carried out for the species seems to have been triggered
by the EU Management Plans, while most conservation measures are taken regardless of the
Plans, including measures different from the ones recommended by the Plans. The
implementation of the measures is generally undertaken in the framework of a wide range
of different instruments: legislative, regulatory, planning, programmatic, financial.
Most Member States have no information on the contribution of the implemented actions
to the population status of the species concerned. However, when an opinion is expressed,
those believing no contribution are much more than those reputing a possible positive
impact of the implemented measures of the plans. Sometime the positive contribution
would seem to be limited to offset some pressures, other times it is linked to actions
undertaken regardless of the plans and, anyway, the key positive role would be played by
the species protection and the implementation of the Natura 2000 legislation with the legal
protection of the sites.
The hunting community contributes to the implementation of the actions, usually where the
concerned species is huntable and significantly important for hunters’ interests. Hunters
contributed to actions related to hunting and to a lesser extent to species and habitat
management. However, hunters organizations have also contributed to the management of
not huntable species. In particular, they played a significant role in Denmark and in Romania
in the removal of different species from the huntable bird species list, in Italy they helped to
improve the knowledge on the winter population size of the Golden Plover by promoting
winter counts, while in Lithuania they contribute to minimize the predation on the Golden
Plover and the Redshank.
The short-term objectives of most of the plans have been achieved only partly since only
some of the measures that contribute to their achievement have been implemented. Only
three plans (Limosa limosa, Melanitta fusca and Numenius arquata) have objectives
achieved across all countries, one per plan: a temporary ban in the EU for the Black-tailed
Godwit, taking action to avoid oil spills for the Velvet Scoter, improving protection from
disturbance for the Curlew. However, all the objectives of each plan have been
accomplished by at least one country and the objectives of the plans for Melanitta fusca and
for Numenius arquata are those achieved by the greatest number of countries. Latvia seems
to have reached a greater number of objectives set by the plans.
The EU Management Plans require Member States with significant populations or where
their hunting is allowed, to be most active, but also the efforts of all EU Member States with
breeding, staging or wintering populations. Nevertheless, the level of implementation of the
plans in the different Member States depends mainly on whether the species are considered
threatened and therefore in need of actions in addition to the general conservation ones.
15
Denmark, France, Luxembourg, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Poland and Sweden.
106
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
The main reasons for not implementing the measures of 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.
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 seem that
significant progress is made by the countries where the species does not occur to a
significant extent or is more localised, as in the case of the plans for Limosa limosa (Denmark
and Sweden have a NIS higher than The Netherlands), Larus canus (Bulgaria has a NIS higher
than Poland), Anas acuta (Malta, Cyprus and Belgium have the highest NIS), Netta rufina
(Belgium has a NIS similar to Spain), Aythya marila (Bulgaria and Slovakia have a NIS higher
than Poland and France).
In general, policy and legislative protection actions (such as identification, protection and
designations of important sites, protection from disturbance, shell fishing regulation, oil spill
planning), are well implemented. Also monitoring of the populations sizes have a good level
of implementation showing significant progresses.
The actions requiring a greater effort in respect to the basic protection, management and
research activities show a lower implementation. Protection from predation, habitats
management, fishery activities, mitigation measures, are not always implemented or do not
show a significant progress. Similarly, management plans or schemes are not always
produced. Incentives and agri-environmental schemes for farmland habitats management,
although in place in most Member States, do not record an overall adequate improvement.
Ringing activities and ecological research are almost always not implemented and have
ranked among the lowest-scoring actions.
Actions relating to hunting have overall a good progress, but with a certain gap between
categories of actions and countries. They seem to be better applied for the binding
legislative rules (i.e. harvesting seasons), with some exception (France and Italy for Skylark,
Malta for Common Quail and Turtle Dove). Also voluntary hunting restrictions and bags
statistics are overall well implemented. However, only half of the countries where the
relative species are huntable, deemed relevant to set a temporary hunting ban. On the other
hand, bag data are not available or only very partially in 25% of answers (in Sweden for
Common Gull, in Spain for Lapwing, in France for Scaup, Common Quail and Velvet Scoter, in
Portugal for Common Quail and Turtle Dove, in Bulgaria, Spain, France, Italy and Portugal for
Pintail). All other measures show only relative progress. Notably, hunting impact and
sustainability are not, or only in a small measure taken into consideration, together with the
measures implying further studies and/or the involvement of countries outside the EU.
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.). For the species linked to farmland management,
the importance of correctly designing the agri-environmental schemes and their application
in the agricultural policy, are not always easy. Member States frequently mention problems
related to farmland management and in putting concrete conservation measures into
practice on a large scale. Lack of sufficient human resources, competent field workers and
107
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
funding is often identified as a factor limiting the implementation of the actions. The main
reason for the poor performance in Italy and the very poor score reached (NIS=1,59) could
be linked to a possible lack of interests in managing the species and implementing the
management plans by the competent administrations. Another issue evidenced in the
Netherlands is the lack of government support for ringing activities and results analyses.
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 limits
the applicable actions in Member States where the species are not allowed to be hunted.
Moreover, there might be a loss of interest of stakeholders for the not huntable species.
108
Annex I – Questionnaires
BLACK-TAILED GODWIT - Limosa limosa
1 Name of the authority filling in the present document:
2 Competent for (nature conservation/hunting/agriculture, etc.):
I. GENERAL QUESTIONS
3 Is this species listed as a huntable species in your MS, and if so does it
have an open season? Under what conditions can it be hunted?
4 Has your MS implemented the EU 2007-2009 MP?
5 If yes, is it still being implemented?
6 Has your MS a specific national/regional plan(s) for the species? If yes,
please provide a weblink.
7 Have the measures taken for the species at regional/national level been
inspired/triggered by the EU MP?
8 Have other measures been taken independently from the EU MP?
9 Which proportion of the EU MP' s actions relevant
for your country have been implemented? (please
tick the appropriate box) - (The recommended
actions of the EU MP are listed in part III below)
Most (> 75%)
10 What are the main reasons explaining the level of implementation of the
actions?
Many (> 30%)
Few (< 30%)
None
11 Have the implemented actions globally contributed to improving the
population status of the Black-tailed Godwit? Yes/No/Do not know. Please
explain the reasons why the actions were/were not successfull.
12 Has the hunting community (hunters or hunters' organizations) played a
specific role in the implementation of the measures? If yes, at its own
initiative or at the authorities' request?
13 If the hunting community has played a role, please specify (what
measures? relative importance of the hunting community's involvement?
etc.)
II. SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES OF THE EU MP
14 Has the MS improved the management and protection of breeding and
wintering sites? If yes, please provide the number of sites, specifying the
Natura 2000 sites
15 Has a temporary hunting ban been established? If yes, when and for how
long?
16 Has the MS collected up to date information on hunting of the Black-tailed
Godwit? If yes, please provide details on hunting bags
17 Has the MS collected data on breeding ecology, and staging and wintering
population numbers? If yes, please specify the population involved
(staging? wintering? both?)
109
III. RESULTS & ACTIONS
For each of the following actions please
provide:
- Implementation scores [column B]
- Geographical scale of implementation
[column C]
- Who is in charge of implementation,
control and evaluation [column D]
- Whether the actions has been
integrated in other instruments
[column E]
18 Hunting was temporary banned
(minimum five years).
19 Agri-environmental schemes is
promoted to encourage a management
of agricultural areas supporting
breeding Black-tailed Godwit
20 MS designated as Special Protection
Areas (SPA) all:
- breeding sites of international
importance for the species
- staging and wintering sites of
international importance for the
species.
- Several SPAs with no-hunting and
disturbance free areas are provided for
that cover at least 50% of the national
wintering or staging population
21 Management Plans for SPAs important
for the species are produced and
implementation initiated
22 Specific conservation measures and
wise-use are promoted in staging and
wintering areas
23 Up to date estimates of breeding
populations size, trends and key
demographic parameters from all
important sites are made available
24 Annual mid-winter census of all areas
of international importance for
wintering is carried out
25 Ringing activities with a reinforcement
of colour-marking, analyses of existing
ringing data to identify population
units, interactions between these units
and annual estimates of mortality, are
supported
26 Further ecological research on: (1)
management prescriptions for Blacktailed Godwits breeding outside
protected areas, (2) link between ricefields 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
Action valid
for breeding
(B)/winterin
g and
staging
(WS)/both
populations
B
IMPLEMENTATION SCORES
0: Action not needed/not
relevant
1: Little or no work (0-10%)
carried out;
2: Some work started (1150%), but no significant
progress yet;
3: Significant progress (5175%), but target still not
reached;
4: Action fully implemented,
no further work required
except continuation of ongoing work (e.g. in case of
monitoring)
C
GEOGRAPHICAL
SCALE OF
IMPLEMENTATI
ON
National?
Regional? Local?
D
WHO IS IN
CHARGE OF
IMPLEMENTATI
ON, CONTROL
AND
EVALUATION?
NGOs, public
bodies, hunters,
landwoners…oth
er
E
IS THE
MEASURE
INTEGRATED IN
OTHER
INSTRUMENTS?
Sectorial plans,
Rural
programmes,
hunting plans,
regulations,
projects, other,
etc. (please
specify)?
WS
B
B
WS
WS
B
WS
WS
B
WS
B
WS
B
WS
110
COMMON GULL - Larus canus
1 Name of the authority filling in the present document:
2 Competent for (nature conservation/hunting/agriculture, etc.)
I. GENERAL QUESTIONS
3 Is this species listed as a huntable species in your MS, and if so does it
have an open season? Under what conditions can it be hunted?
4 Has your MS implemented the EU 2007-2009 MP?
5 If yes, is it still being implemented?
6 Has your MS a specific national/regional plan(s) for the species? If yes,
please provide a weblink.
7 Have the measures taken for the species at regional/national level been
inspired/triggered by the EU MP?
8 Have other measures been taken independently from the EU MP?
9 Which proportion of the EU MP' s actions relevant
for your country have been implemented? (please
tick the appropriate box) - (The recommended
actions of the EU MP are listed in part III below)
Most (> 75%)
10 What are the mains reasons explaining the level of implementation of the
actions?
Many (> 30%)
Few (< 30%)
None
11 Have the implemented actions globally contributed to improving the
population status of the Common gull? Yes/No/Do not know. Please
explain the reasons why the actions were/were not successfull.
12 Has the hunting community (hunters or hunters' organizations) played a
specific role in the implementation of the measures? If yes, at its own
initiative or at the authorities' request?
13 If the hunting community has played a role, please specify (what
measures? relative importance of the hunting community's involvement?
etc.)
II. SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES OF THE EU MP
14 Has the MS increased the protection of breeding sites?
15 Has the MS created new potential breeding sites or restored breeding
habitat? If yes, please provide the number of sites, specifying the Natura
2000 sites
16 Has the MS implemented the management of terrestrial and avian
predators at large colony sites exposed to nest predation?
17 Has the MS acquired quantitative data on population regulation or
hunting for impact assessment? If yes, please provide details on hunting
bags
18 Has the MS improved the population monitoring scheme?
111
III. RESULTS & ACTIONS
For each of the following actions
please provide:
- Implementation scores [column B]
- Geographical scale of implementation
[column C]
- Who is in charge of implementation,
control and evaluation [column D]
- Whether the actions has been
integrated in other instruments
[column E]
19 Annual estimates are available of
individuals taken:
- during hunting seasons
- under derogations. Numbers killed
and reasons for derogations are
provided
20 MS identified and protected, as SPAs
where appropriate:
- Important breeding sites
- Important wintering sites
- Measures to restore former or create
new breeding sites are taken
Action valid
for breeding
(B)/winterin
g and
staging
(WS)/both
populations
E
IS THE
MEASURE
INTEGRATED IN
OTHER
INSTRUMENTS?
0: Action not needed/not
relevant
1: Little or no work (0-10%)
carried out;
2: Some work started (1150%), but no significant
progress yet;
3: Significant progress (5175%), but target still not
reached;
4: Action fully implemented,
no further work required
except continuation of ongoing work (e.g. in case of
monitoring)
National?
Regional? Local?
NGOs, public
bodies, hunters,
landwoners…oth
er
Sectorial plans,
Rural
programmes,
hunting plans,
regulations,
projects, other,
etc. (please
specify)?
B
WS
B
22 Key breeding sites are protected from
human disturbance and egg collection.
Alternative breeding sites are created
B
24 MS supports research of survival rates
and fecundity, allowing for population
modelling and assessment of
additional factors causing mortality
D
WHO IS IN
CHARGE OF
IMPLEMENTATI
ON, CONTROL
AND
EVALUATION?
B/WS
B
- for wintering populations
C
GEOGRAPHICAL
SCALE OF
IMPLEMENTATI
ON
WS
21 Management actions are taken to
reduce nest loss due to predation and
unfavourable water level control
23 A monitoring scheme with habitat
description is implemented:
- for breeding populations
B
IMPLEMENTATION SCORES
B
WS
B
112
GOLDEN PLOVER - Pluvialis apricaria
1 Name of the authority filling in the present document:
2 Competent for (nature conservation/hunting/agriculture, etc.):
I. GENERAL QUESTIONS
3 Is this species listed as a huntable species in your MS, and if so does it
have an open season? Under what conditions can it be hunted?
4 Has your MS implemented the EU 2007-2009 MP?
5 If yes, is it still being implemented?
6 Has your MS a specific national/regional plan(s) for the species? If yes,
please provide a weblink.
7 Have the measures taken for the species at regional/national level been
inspired/triggered by the EU MP?
8 Have other measures been taken independently from the EU MP?
9 Which proportion of the EU MP' s actions relevant
for your country have been implemented? (please
tick the appropriate box) - (The recommended
actions of the EU MP are listed in part III below)
Most (> 75%)
10 What are the mains reasons explaining the level of implementation of the
actions?
Many (> 30%)
Few (< 30%)
None
11 Have the implemented actions globally contributed to improving the
population status of the Golden Plover? Yes/No/Do not know. Please
explain the reasons why the actions were/were not successfull.
12 Has the hunting community (hunters or hunters' organizations) played a
specific role in the implementation of the measures? If yes, at its own
initiative or at the authorities' request?
13 If the hunting community has played a role, please specify (what
measures? relative importance of the hunting community's involvement?
etc.)
113
For each of the following actions please
provide:
- Implementation scores [column B]
- Geographical scale of implementation
[column C]
- Who is in charge of implementation,
control and evaluation [column D]
- Whether the actions has been
integrated in other instruments [column
E]
14 Hunting relies on reliable bag size
statistics and on appropriate evaluations
of the harvest potential
15 Breeding habitat is managed favouring
breeding productivity. In particular:
- Afforestation is stopped on breeding
grounds
- Sheep grazing schemes focus on
maintaining the open structure
- Muirburn is encouraged to control
heather vegetation height
- Traditional Red Grouse hunting is
supported where appropriate
16 Important staging grounds and stop-over
routes are managed securing access to
feeding opportunities
17 Wintering habitat is managed favouring
winter survival. In particular, naturefriendly agriculture (especially
conservation and appropriate
management of permanent pasture) is
encouraged to maintain soil earthworms
and other invertebrates biodiversity
18 Measures are taken to minimize
predation in areas with breeding
populations of the nominate subspecies
19 Common and specific threats on
breeding, staging and wintering grounds
are identified
20 Management options for breeding,
staging and wintering habitat
enhancement, resulting from research
promoted under Result 12 is
communicated
21 Knowledge about wintering numbers of
the Golden Plover in South-West Europe
and North Africa is improved and made
available.
22 A European-wide survey of winter
populations is agreed and launched in
coordination by all MSs, to be repeated
every 5 years
23 Bag statistics are available where
hunting is allowed
24 Ringing schemes are pursued, new ones
are started and data are disseminate to
monitor the long-term trends in survival
of the species
25 MS supports an international study to
determine movements of birds from
Britain and Ireland to France and
Portugal where they are hunted
26 MS supports research programmes to
determine optimum managem. options
for breeding/wintering habitat quality
Action valid
for breeding
(B)/winterin
g and
staging
(WS)/both
populations
II. RESULTS & ACTIONS
B
IMPLEMENTATION SCORES
0: Action not needed/not
relevant
1: Little or no work (0-10%)
carried out;
2: Some work started (1150%), but no significant
progress yet;
3: Significant progress (5175%), but target still not
reached;
4: Action fully implemented,
no further work required
except continuation of ongoing work (e.g. in case of
monitoring)
C
GEOGRAPHICAL
SCALE OF
IMPLEMENTATI
ON
National?
Regional? Local?
D
WHO IS IN
CHARGE OF
IMPLEMENTATI
ON, CONTROL
AND
EVALUATION?
NGOs, public
bodies, hunters,
landwoners…oth
er
E
IS THE
MEASURE
INTEGRATED IN
OTHER
INSTRUMENTS?
Sectorial plans,
Rural
programmes,
hunting plans,
regulations,
projects, other,
etc. (please
specify)?
WS
B
WS
WS
B
B
WS
B
WS
WS
WS
WS
B
WS
B
WS
B
WS
114
LAPWING - Vanellus vanellus
1 Name of the authority filling in the present document:
2 Competent for (nature conservation/hunting/agriculture, etc.):
I. GENERAL QUESTIONS
3 Is this species listed as a huntable species in your MS, and if so does it
have an open season? Under what conditions can it be hunted?
4 Has your MS implemented the EU 2007-2009 MP?
5 If yes, is it still being implemented?
6 Has your MS a specific national/regional plan(s) for the species? If yes,
please provide a weblink.
7 Have the measures taken for the species at regional/national level been
inspired/triggered by the EU MP?
8 Have other measures been taken independently from the EU MP?
9 Which proportion of the EU MP' s actions relevant
for your country have been implemented? (please
tick the appropriate box) - (The recommended
actions of the EU MP are listed in part III below)
Most (> 75%)
10 What are the mains reasons explaining the level of implementation of the
actions?
Many (> 30%)
Few (< 30%)
None
11 Have the implemented actions globally contributed to improving the
population status of the Lapwing? Yes/No/Do not know. Please explain the
reasons why the actions were/were not successfull.
12 Has the hunting community (hunters or hunters' organizations) played a
specific role in the implementation of the measures? If yes, at its own
initiative or at the authorities' request?
13 If the hunting community has played a role, please specify (what
measures? relative importance of the hunting community's involvement?
etc.)
II. SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES OF THE EU MP
14 Has the MS put into force regulations, incentives and other initiatives to
restoring the Lapwing to a Favourable Conservation Status?
15 Has the MS collected more robust data on key population parameters such
as population size, trends and productivity, including bag-statistics? If yes,
please provide details on hunting bags
115
III. RESULTS & ACTIONS
For each of the following actions
please provide:
- Implementation scores [column B]
- Geographical scale of implementation
[column C]
- Who is in charge of implementation,
control and evaluation [column D]
- Whether the actions has been
integrated in other instruments
[column E]
16 Incentives exist and are taken up by
farmers for:
- retaining and restoring pastoral
pockets in arable areas
- sowing crops in spring instead of in
autumn
- retaining and restoring damp or wet
areas
- extensification of grassland
management (e.g. through less
effective drainage, low or no input of
fertilizer/manure)
- maintaining and restoring extensive
grazing regimes
- using low or no input of pesticides
and biocides
- for organic farming, for omitting
mechanical weeding, rolling and
similar operations between 10 and 60
days after sowing of spring cereals or
root crops
17 Special efforts to improve the breeding
success are made by MS where
Lapwings breed and are hunted
18 Reliable bag statistics are available and
hunting/trapping pressure is estimated
19 Restrictions on hunting are taken until
2011 if there are clear evidences of
excessive local hunting pressure
20 Awareness-raising campaigns exist on
the conservation status and decrease
of Lapwing population targeted at
Lapwing hunters
21 In areas with breeding Lapwings,
measures are taken to minimize
predation
22 A national programme for monitoring
breeding populations of common
farmland birds exists
23 A study of the Lapwing fledging
success and causes of chick loss under
different management regimes has
been carried out
24 A national programme for monitoring
wintering populations is developed
(for MSs with more than 100,000
wintering Lapwing)
25 Studies to determine means of habitat
management minimising predation
rates are carried out
Action valid
for breeding
(B)/winterin
g and
staging
(WS)/both
populations
B
C
D
E
IMPLEMENTATION SCORES
GEOGRAPHICAL
SCALE OF
IMPLEMENTATI
ON
WHO IS IN
CHARGE OF
IMPLEMENTATI
ON, CONTROL
AND
EVALUATION?
IS THE
MEASURE
INTEGRATED IN
OTHER
INSTRUMENTS?
0: Action not needed/not
relevant
1: Little or no work (0-10%)
carried out;
2: Some work started (1150%), but no significant
progress yet;
3: Significant progress (5175%), but target still not
reached;
4: Action fully implemented,
no further work required
except continuation of ongoing work (e.g. in case of
monitoring)
National?
Regional? Local?
NGOs, public
bodies, hunters,
landwoners…oth
er
Sectorial plans,
Rural
programmes,
hunting plans,
regulations,
projects, other,
etc. (please
specify)?
B/WS
B
B/WS
B/WS
B/WS
B/WS
B
B
WS
WS
WS
B
B
B
WS
B
116
REDSHANK - Tringa totanus
1 Name of the authority filling in the present document:
2 Competent for (nature conservation/hunting/agriculture, etc.):
I. GENERAL QUESTIONS
3 Is this species listed as a huntable species in your MS, and if so does it
have an open season? Under what conditions can it be hunted?
4 Has your MS implemented the EU 2007-2009 MP?
5 If yes, is it still being implemented?
6 Has your MS a specific national/regional plan(s) for the species? If yes,
please provide a weblink.
7 Have the measures taken for the species at regional/national level been
inspired/triggered by the EU MP?
8 Have other measures been taken independently from the EU MP?
9 Which proportion of the EU MP' s actions relevant
for your country have been implemented? (please
tick the appropriate box) - (The recommended
actions of the EU MP are listed in part III below)
Most (> 75%)
10 What are the mains reasons explaining the level of implementation of the
actions?
11 Have the implemented actions globally contributed to improving the
population status of the Redshank? Yes/No/Do not know. Please explain
the reasons why the actions were/were not successfull.
12 Has the hunting community (hunters or hunters' organizations) played a
specific role in the implementation of the measures? If yes, at its own
initiative or at the authorities' request?
13 If the hunting community has played a role, please specify (what
measures? relative importance of the hunting community's involvement?
etc.)
Many (> 30%)
Few (< 30%)
None
II. SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES OF THE EU MP
14 Has the MS improved management and protection of breeding sites? If
yes, please provide the number of sites, specifying the Natura 2000 sites
15 Has the MS improved management and protection of staging and
wintering sites? If yes, please provide the number of sites, specifying the
Natura 2000 sites
16 Has the MS collected better data on the impact of hunting and more
robust data on population dynamics? If yes, please provide details on
hunting bags and the impact of hunting
117
III. RESULTS & ACTIONS
For each of the following actions please
provide:
- Implementation scores [column B]
- Geographical scale of implementation
[column C]
- Who is in charge of implementation,
control and evaluation [column D]
- Whether the actions has been
integrated in other instruments [column
E]
17 An estimate of the annual number of
the Redshank shot is available where
hunting is permitted
18 Management Plans are prepared and
implemented for:
- important breeding sites. Measures
are taken to minimize the predation
- SPAs of importance for staging and
wintering
19 All staging and wintering sites of
international importance for the
species are designed as SPAs. At least 2
SPAs include hunting and disturbancefree areas
20 Conservation and wise-use is promoted
in staging and wintering sites other
than SPAs
21 Up to date estimates of breeding
populations from all important sites are
available
22 Annual mid-winter censuses of all areas
of international importance for
wintering are carried out
23 National ringing, colour-marking
activities, analyses of existing ringing
data are supported
Action valid
for breeding
(B)/winterin
g and
staging
(WS)/both
populations
B
IMPLEMENTATION SCORES
0: Action not needed/not
relevant
1: Little or no work (0-10%)
carried out;
2: Some work started (1150%), but no significant
progress yet;
3: Significant progress (5175%), but target still not
reached;
4: Action fully implemented,
no further work required
except continuation of ongoing work (e.g. in case of
monitoring)
C
GEOGRAPHICAL
SCALE OF
IMPLEMENTATI
ON
National?
Regional? Local?
D
WHO IS IN
CHARGE OF
IMPLEMENTATI
ON, CONTROL
AND
EVALUATION?
NGOs, public
bodies, hunters,
landwoners…oth
er
E
IS THE
MEASURE
INTEGRATED IN
OTHER
INSTRUMENTS?
Sectorial plans,
Rural
programmes,
hunting plans,
regulations,
projects, other,
etc. (please
specify)?
WS
B
WS
WS
WS
B
WS
B
WS
118
SKYLARK - Alauda arvensis
1 Name of the authority filling in the present document:
2 Competent for (nature conservation/hunting/agriculture, etc.):
I. GENERAL QUESTIONS
3 Is this species listed as a huntable species in your MS, and if so does it
have an open season? Under what conditions can it be hunted?
4 Has your MS implemented the EU 2007-2009 MP?
5 If yes, is it still being implemented?
6 Has your MS a specific national/regional plan(s) for the species? If yes,
please provide a weblink.
7 Have the measures taken for the species at regional/national level been
inspired/triggered by the EU MP?
8 Have other measures been taken independently from the EU MP?
9 Which proportion of the EU MP' s actions relevant
for your country have been implemented? (please
tick the appropriate box) - (The recommended
actions of the EU MP are listed in part III below)
Most (> 75%)
10 What are the mains reasons explaining the level of implementation of the
actions?
Many (> 30%)
Few (< 30%)
None
11 Have the implemented actions globally contributed to improving the
population status of the Skylark? Yes/No/Do not know. Please explain the
reasons why the actions were/were not successfull.
12 Has the hunting community (hunters or hunters' organizations) played a
specific role in the implementation of the measures? If yes, at its own
initiative or at the authorities' request?
13 If the hunting community has played a role, please specify (what
measures? relative importance of the hunting community's involvement?
etc.)
II. SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES OF THE EU MP
14 Has the MS improved management of farmland as breeding and wintering
sites? If yes, please provide the number of sites, specifying the Natura
2000 sites
15 Has the MS collected more robust data on hunting impact? If yes, please
provide details on hunting bags and the impact of hunting
16 Has the MS improved monitoring of winter populations?
119
III. RESULTS & ACTIONS
For each of the following actions please
provide:
- Implementation scores [column B]
- Geographical scale of implementation
[column C]
- Who is in charge of implementation,
control and evaluation [column D]
- Whether the actions has been
integrated in other instruments [column
E]
17 The percentage of agricultural land that
is farmed organically has increased
18 Incentives exist and are taken up by
farmers for:
- sowing crops in spring instead of in
autumn
- securing sowing of winter cereals and
increasing their areas (only in boral
regions)
- leaving cereal stubbles over winter
- leaving unsown patches in autumnsown cereal crops
- extensification of grassland
management (e.g. through reduced or
no input of fertiliser/manure, later and
less frequent mowing)
19 MS ensures that rules for set-aside
prevent nests destruction and
encourage the retention of weed-rich
stubbles over winter
20 Decision support systems for
optimisation of pesticide use are
available to farmers
21 Regulations restricting irrigation to the
minimum amount necessary for
optimum crop growth exist
22 Data on the number of Skylark
harvested annually are available where
harvesting of the species is permitted
23 Harvesting is conform with the Birds
Directive and does not hinder the
recovery of the species to Favourable
Conservation Status
24 Programmes for monitoring the size of
the winter population exist
25 Sex ratio of harvested birds is being
monitored at different sites through a
co-operation with hunters
Action valid
for breeding
(B)/winterin
g and
staging
(WS)/both
populations
B
C
D
E
IMPLEMENTATION SCORES
GEOGRAPHICAL
SCALE OF
IMPLEMENTATI
ON
WHO IS IN
CHARGE OF
IMPLEMENTATI
ON, CONTROL
AND
EVALUATION?
IS THE
MEASURE
INTEGRATED IN
OTHER
INSTRUMENTS?
0: Action not needed/not
relevant
1: Little or no work (0-10%)
carried out;
2: Some work started (1150%), but no significant
progress yet;
3: Significant progress (5175%), but target still not
reached;
4: Action fully implemented,
no further work required
except continuation of ongoing work (e.g. in case of
monitoring)
National?
Regional? Local?
NGOs, public
bodies, hunters,
landwoners…oth
er
Sectorial plans,
Rural
programmes,
hunting plans,
regulations,
projects, other,
etc. (please
specify)?
B/WS
B/WS
B/WS
B/WS
B
B/WS
B/WS
B/WS
B
WS
B
WS
WS
WS
120
VELVET SCOTER - Melanitta fusca
1 Name of the authority filling in the present document:
2 Competent for (nature conservation/hunting/agriculture, etc.):
I. GENERAL QUESTIONS
3 Is this species listed as a huntable species in your MS, and if so does it
have an open season? Under what conditions can it be hunted?
4 Has your MS implemented the EU 2007-2009 MP?
5 If yes, is it still being implemented?
6 Has your MS a specific national/regional plan(s) for the species? If yes,
please provide a weblink.
7 Have the measures taken for the species at regional/national level been
inspired/triggered by the EU MP?
8 Have other measures been taken independently from the EU MP?
9 Which proportion of the EU MP' s actions relevant
for your country have been implemented? (please
tick the appropriate box) - (The recommended
actions of the EU MP are listed in part III below)
Most (> 75%)
10 What are the mains reasons explaining the level of implementation of the
actions?
Many (> 30%)
Few (< 30%)
None
11 Have the implemented actions globally contributed to improving the
population status of the Velvet Scoter? Yes/No/Do not know. Please
explain the reasons why the actions were/were not successfull.
12 Has the hunting community (hunters or hunters' organizations) played a
specific role in the implementation of the measures? If yes, at its own
initiative or at the authorities' request?
13 If the hunting community has played a role, please specify (what
measures? relative importance of the hunting community's involvement?
etc.)
II. SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES OF THE EU MP
14 Has the MS halted the degradation of breeding and wintering habitats?
15 Has the MS taken action to stop drowning in fishing nets?
16 Has the MS taken action to avoid oil spills?
17 Has the MS taken action to reduce disturbance in breeding and wintering
areas?
18 Has the MS collected better data on size of winter population and
breeding success?
121
III. RESULTS & ACTIONS
For each of the following actions please
provide:
- Implementation scores [column B]
- Geographical scale of implementation
[column C]
- Who is in charge of implementation,
control and evaluation [column D]
- Whether the actions has been
integrated in other instruments [column
E]
19 Hunting does not affect birds on spring
migration or breeding nor hinder the
recovery to favourable conservation
status
20 Estimates of annual numbers shot are
available where hunting is permitted
21 Important breeding sites along the
coast of the Baltic Sea are identified
and protected
22 The inland breeding populations in
Sweden and Finland are assessed to
determine the need for special
conservation efforts
23 All offshore staging and wintering areas
of international importance are
designated SPAs
24 Hunting and disturbance-free areas are
established in at least 2 SPAs of
international importance for wintering
and/or staging
25 Improved pollution prevention and
improved oil spill contingency planning
is in place in the Baltic Sea and other
marine areas important to Velvet
Scoter
26 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
27 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
28 MS supports research, including
ringing, on survival rates and fecundity,
allowing modelling of population
development and assessing effects of
additional mortalities
Action valid
for breeding
(B)/winterin
g and
staging
(WS)/both
populations
B
C
D
E
IMPLEMENTATION SCORES
GEOGRAPHICAL
SCALE OF
IMPLEMENTATI
ON
WHO IS IN
CHARGE OF
IMPLEMENTATI
ON, CONTROL
AND
EVALUATION?
IS THE
MEASURE
INTEGRATED IN
OTHER
INSTRUMENTS?
0: Action not needed/not
relevant
1: Little or no work (0-10%)
carried out;
2: Some work started (1150%), but no significant
progress yet;
3: Significant progress (5175%), but target still not
reached;
4: Action fully implemented,
no further work required
except continuation of ongoing work (e.g. in case of
monitoring)
National?
Regional? Local?
NGOs, public
bodies, hunters,
landwoners…oth
er
Sectorial plans,
Rural
programmes,
hunting plans,
regulations,
projects, other,
etc. (please
specify)?
B
WS
B
B
WS
WS
B
WS
B
WS
WS
B
122
CURLEW - Numenius arquata
1 Name of the authority filling in the present document:
2 Competent for (nature conservation/hunting/agriculture, etc.):
I. GENERAL QUESTIONS
3 Is this species listed as a huntable species in your MS, and if so does it
have an open season? Under what conditions can it be hunted?
4 Has your MS implemented the EU 2007-2009 MP?
5 If yes, is it still being implemented?
6 Has your MS a specific national/regional plan(s) for the species? If yes,
please provide a weblink.
7 Have the measures taken for the species at regional/national level been
inspired/triggered by the EU MP?
8 Have other measures been taken independently from the EU MP?
9 Which proportion of the EU MP' s actions relevant
for your country have been implemented? (please
tick the appropriate box) - (The recommended
actions of the EU MP are listed in part III below)
Most (> 75%)
10 What are the mains reasons explaining the level of implementation of the
actions?
Many (> 30%)
Few (< 30%)
None
11 Have the implemented actions globally contributed to improving the
population status of the Curlew? Yes/No/Do not know. Please explain the
reasons why the actions were/were not successfull.
12 Has the hunting community (hunters or hunters' organizations) played a
specific role in the implementation of the measures? If yes, at its own
initiative or at the authorities' request?
13 If the hunting community has played a role, please specify (what
measures? relative importance of the hunting community's involvement?
etc.)
II. SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES OF THE EU MP
14 Has MS improved management and protection of breeding and wintering
sites? If yes, please provide the number of sites, specifying the Natura
2000 sites
15 Has MS improved the protection from disturbance?
16 Has MS collected more robust data to better understand the potential
importance of hunting and other types of population regulations? If yes,
please provide details on hunting bags and the impact of hunting
123
III. RESULTS & ACTIONS
For each of the following actions please
provide:
- Implementation scores [column B]
- Geographical scale of implementation
[column C]
- Who is in charge of implementation,
control and evaluation [column D]
- Whether the actions has been
integrated in other instruments
[column E]
17 An estimate of the annual number of
Curlew shot is available where hunting
is permitted
18 Protection and restoration of breeding
sites is initiated where the species is
declining
19 Agro-environmental schemes are
promoted to encourage management
of agricultural areas supporting
breeding Curlew including evidencebased prescriptions designed to
benefit Curlew
20 Management Plans or Schemes have
been prepared and implementation
initiated for:
- key Curlew breeding areas
- designated sites (SPAs) of importance
for staging and wintering
21 All staging and wintering areas of
international importance for Curlew
are designated SPAs
22 Conservation and wise-use is
promoted in wetlands other than SPAs
supporting staging and wintering
23 Hunting and disturbance-free areas are
established in SPAs. These disturbancefree areas should include feeding and
roosting habitat
24 Annual mid-winter census of all areas
of international importance are carried
out
25 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)
26 National ringing activities and analyses
of existing ringing data is supported
B
IMPLEMENTATION SCORES
Action valid
for breeding
(B)/winterin
g and
staging
(WS)/both
populations
0: Action not needed/not
relevant
1: Little or no work (0-10%)
carried out;
2: Some work started (1150%), but no significant
progress yet;
3: Significant progress (5175%), but target still not
reached;
4: Action fully implemented,
no further work required
except continuation of ongoing work (e.g. in case of
monitoring)
C
GEOGRAPHICAL
SCALE OF
IMPLEMENTATIO
N
National?
Regional? Local?
D
WHO IS IN
CHARGE OF
IMPLEMENTATI
ON, CONTROL
AND
EVALUATION?
NGOs, public
bodies, hunters,
landwoners…oth
er
E
IS THE
MEASURE
INTEGRATED IN
OTHER
INSTRUMENTS?
Sectorial plans,
Rural
programmes,
hunting plans,
regulations,
projects, other,
etc. (please
specify)?
WS
B
B
B
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
B
WS
B
WS
124
PINTAIL - Anas acuta
1 Name of the authority filling in the present document:
2 Competent for (nature conservation/hunting/agriculture, etc.):
I. GENERAL QUESTIONS
3 Is this species listed as a huntable species in your MS, and if so does it
have an open season? Under what conditions can it be hunted?
4 Has your MS implemented the EU 2007-2009 MP?
5 If yes, is it still being implemented?
6 Has your MS a specific national/regional plan(s) for the species? If yes,
please provide a weblink.
7 Have the measures taken for the species at regional/national level been
inspired/triggered by the EU MP?
8 Have other measures been taken independently from the EU MP?
9 Which proportion of the EU MP' s actions relevant
for your country have been implemented? (please
tick the appropriate box) - (The recommended
actions of the EU MP are listed in part III below)
Most (> 75%)
10 What are the mains reasons explaining the level of implementation of the
actions?
Many (> 30%)
Few (< 30%)
None
11 Have the implemented actions globally contributed to improving the
population status of the Pintail? Yes/No/Do not know. Please explain the
reasons why the actions were/were not successfull.
12 Has the hunting community (hunters or hunters' organizations) played a
specific role in the implementation of the measures? If yes, at its own
initiative or at the authorities' request?
13 If the hunting community has played a role, please specify (what
measures? relative importance of the hunting community's involvement?
etc.)
II. SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES OF THE EU MP
14 Has MS assessed the potential impact of hunting and collected annual bag
data? If yes, please provide details on hunting bags and the impact of
hunting
15 Has MS restored and managed breeding and wintering sites? If yes, please
provide the number of sites, specifying the Natura 2000 sites
16 Has MS monitored population sizes and trends?
17 Has MS collected more robust data to identify population units, estimates
of mortality and other types of population regulations?
125
III. RESULTS & ACTIONS
For each of the following actions please
provide:
- Implementation scores [column B]
- Geographical scale of implementation
[column C]
- Who is in charge of implementation,
control and evaluation [column D]
- Whether the actions has been
integrated in other instruments [column
E]
18 No Pintails are hunted during spring
migration or the end of the breeding
season
19 Data on the annual number of Pintail
shot is available where hunting is
permitted
20 Restoration of breeding sites is initiated
where Pintail has disappeared or is in
decline
21 Identification, conservation, wise-use
and management of wetlands and
other habitats with breeding Pintail is
supported
B
IMPLEMENTATION SCORES
Action valid
for breeding
(B)/winterin
g and
staging
(WS)/both
populations
0: Action not needed/not
relevant
1: Little or no work (0-10%)
carried out;
2: Some work started (1150%), but no significant
progress yet;
3: Significant progress (5175%), but target still not
reached;
4: Action fully implemented,
no further work required
except continuation of ongoing work (e.g. in case of
monitoring)
C
GEOGRAPHICAL
SCALE OF
IMPLEMENTATI
ON
National?
Regional? Local?
D
WHO IS IN
CHARGE OF
IMPLEMENTATI
ON, CONTROL
AND
EVALUATION?
NGOs, public
bodies, hunters,
landwoners…oth
er
E
IS THE
MEASURE
INTEGRATED IN
OTHER
INSTRUMENTS?
Sectorial plans,
Rural
programmes,
hunting plans,
regulations,
projects, other,
etc. (please
specify)?
B
WS
B
B
22 All staging and wintering areas of
international importance for Pintail are
identified and designated SPAs
WS
23 SPAs of international importance as
staging and wintering resorts are
managed in a way that stops habitat
degradation and secure access to
feeding opportunities
WS
24 Disturbance-free areas are established
in at least 2 SPAs of international
importance for wintering and/or
staging Pintail
WS
25 Annual mid-winter census of all areas
of international importance for
wintering Pintail are carried out
WS
26 A national monitoring programme to
assess annual productivity in late
summer prior to the autumn migration
is established
B
27 National ringing activities and analyses
of existing ringing data are supported
B
WS
126
COMMON QUAIL - Coturnix coturnix
1 Name of the authority filling in the present document:
2 Competent for (nature conservation/hunting/agriculture, etc.):
I. GENERAL QUESTIONS
3 Is this species listed as a huntable species in your MS, and if so does it
have an open season? Under what conditions can it be hunted?
4 Has your MS implemented the EU 2007-2009 MP?
5 If yes, is it still being implemented?
6 Has your MS a specific national/regional plan(s) for the species? If yes,
please provide a weblink.
7 Have the measures taken for the species at regional/national level been
inspired/triggered by the EU MP?
8 Have other measures been taken independently from the EU MP?
9 Which proportion of the EU MP' s actions relevant
for your country have been implemented? (please
tick the appropriate box) - (The recommended
actions of the EU MP are listed in part III below)
Most (> 75%)
10 What are the mains reasons explaining the level of implementation of the
actions?
Many (> 30%)
Few (< 30%)
None
11 Have the implemented actions globally contributed to improving the
population status of the Common Quail? Yes/No/Do not know. Please
explain the reasons why the actions were/were not successfull.
12 Has the hunting community (hunters or hunters' organizations) played a
specific role in the implementation of the measures? If yes, at its own
initiative or at the authorities' request?
13 If the hunting community has played a role, please specify (what
measures? relative importance of the hunting community's involvement?
etc.)
127
II. RESULTS & ACTIONS
For each of the following actions please
provide:
- Implementation scores [column B]
- Geographical scale of implementation
[column C]
- Who is in charge of implementation,
control and evaluation [column D]
- Whether the actions has been
integrated in other instruments [column
E]
14 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.
15 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.
16 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.
17 Breeding and staging habitats are
conserved, managed sustainably and,
eventually, restored in MSs with
significant numbers of breeding Quails
18 Technical assistance is provided to
those African countries where Quail
hunting is important, so as to help ban
the release of Japanese/hybrid Quails.
19 The knowledge about wintering
populations in North and West Africa,
and breeding populations in North Africa,
is improving and made widely available.
20 A common method is agreed, validated
by the EBCC and used by the MS to
monitor species populations.
21 Regular bag statistics are available where
Common Quail hunting is allowed.
22 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.
Action valid
for breeding
(B)/winterin
g and
staging
(WS)/both
populations
B
C
D
E
IMPLEMENTATION SCORES
GEOGRAPHICAL
SCALE OF
IMPLEMENTATI
ON
WHO IS IN
CHARGE OF
IMPLEMENTATI
ON, CONTROL
AND
EVALUATION?
IS THE
MEASURE
INTEGRATED IN
OTHER
INSTRUMENTS?
0: Action not needed/not
relevant
1: Little or no work (0-10%)
carried out;
2: Some work started (1150%), but no significant
progress yet;
3: Significant progress (5175%), but target still not
reached;
4: Action fully implemented,
no further work required
except continuation of ongoing work (e.g. in case of
monitoring)
National?
Regional? Local?
NGOs, public
bodies, hunters,
landwoners…oth
er
Sectorial plans,
Rural
programmes,
hunting plans,
regulations,
projects, other,
etc. (please
specify)?
B/WS
B
WS
B
B
WS
B
WS
B
WS
B
WS
128
RED-CRESTED POCHARD - Netta rufina
1 Name of the authority filling in the present document:
2 Competent for (nature conservation/hunting/agriculture, etc.):
I. GENERAL QUESTIONS
3 Is this species listed as a huntable species in your MS, and if so does it have
an open season? Under what conditions can it be hunted?
4 Has your MS implemented the EU 2007-2009 MP?
5 If yes, is it still being implemented?
6 Has your MS a specific national/regional plan(s) for the species? If yes,
please provide a weblink.
7 Have the measures taken for the species at regional/national level been
inspired/triggered by the EU MP?
8 Have other measures been taken independently from the EU MP?
9 Which proportion of the EU MP' s actions relevant
for your country have been implemented? (please
tick the appropriate box) - (The recommended
actions of the EU MP are listed in part III below)
Most (> 75%)
10 What are the mains reasons explaining the level of implementation of the
actions?
Many (> 30%)
Few (< 30%)
None
11 Have the implemented actions globally contributed to improving the
population status of the Red-crested Pochard? Yes/No/Do not know.
Please explain the reasons why the actions were/were not successfull.
12 Has the hunting community (hunters or hunters' organizations) played a
specific role in the implementation of the measures? If yes, at its own
initiative or at the authorities' request?
13 If the hunting community has played a role, please specify (what
measures? relative importance of the hunting community's involvement?
etc.)
129
II. RESULTS & ACTIONS
For each of the following actions
please provide:
- Implementation scores [column B]
- Geographical scale of implementation
[column C]
- Who is in charge of implementation,
control and evaluation [column D]
- Whether the actions has been
integrated in other instruments
[column E]
Action valid
for breeding
(B)/winterin
g and
staging
(WS)/both
populations
14 Hunting is set at sustainable levels, as
defined by the results of studies to be
undertaken under Result n° 9 below.
WS
15 No red-crested Pochards are hunted
during spring migration or during the
end of the breeding season.
B
16 All wetlands and other habitats with
breeding, moulting, staging or
wintering Red-crested Pochard are
identified, conserved, wisely used and
managed
17 Within SPAs of international
importance for wintering or
moulting/staging Red-crested Pochard,
the species can benefit from sufficient
disturbance-free areas
D
E
WHO IS IN
CHARGE OF
IMPLEMENTATI
ON, CONTROL
AND
EVALUATION?
IS THE
MEASURE
INTEGRATED IN
OTHER
INSTRUMENTS?
0: Action not needed/not
relevant
1: Little or no work (0-10%)
carried out;
2: Some work started (1150%), but no significant
progress yet;
3: Significant progress (5175%), but target still not
reached;
4: Action fully implemented,
no further work required
except continuation of ongoing work (e.g. in case of
monitoring)
National?
Regional? Local?
NGOs, public
bodies, hunters,
landwoners…oth
er
Sectorial plans,
Rural
programmes,
hunting plans,
regulations,
projects, other,
etc. (please
specify)?
WS
WS
WS
20 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
B
22 The relative importance of hunting as a
mortality cause is assessed, as well as
the sustainability of current harvest
rates
C
GEOGRAPHICAL
SCALE OF
IMPLEMENTATI
ON
B
18 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.
19 The distribution, key sites and
population size are permanently
monitored and their changes rapidly
assessed
21 Large-scale population units are clearly
identified and annual mortality is
estimated
B
IMPLEMENTATION SCORES
B
B
WS
B
WS
WS
130
SCAUP - Aythya marila
1 Name of the authority filling in the present document:
2 Competent for (nature conservation/hunting/agriculture, etc.):
I. GENERAL QUESTIONS
3 Is this species listed as a huntable species in your MS, and if so does it
have an open season? Under what conditions can it be hunted?
4 Has your MS implemented the EU 2007-2009 MP?
5 If yes, is it still being implemented?
6 Has your MS a specific national/regional plan(s) for the species? If yes,
please provide a weblink.
7 Have the measures taken for the species at regional/national level been
inspired/triggered by the EU MP?
8 Have other measures been taken independently from the EU MP?
9 Which proportion of the EU MP' s actions relevant
for your country have been implemented? (please
tick the appropriate box) - (The recommended
actions of the EU MP are listed in part III below)
Most (> 75%)
Many (> 30%)
Few (< 30%)
None
10 What are the mains reasons explaining the level of implementation of the
actions?
11 Have the implemented actions globally contributed to improving the
population status of the Scaup? Yes/No/Do not know. Please explain the
reasons why the actions were/were not successfull.
12 Has the hunting community (hunters or hunters' organizations) played a
specific role in the implementation of the measures? If yes, at its own
initiative or at the authorities' request?
13 If the hunting community has played a role, please specify (what
measures? relative importance of the hunting community's involvement?
etc.)
II. SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES OF THE EU MP
14 Has MS protected wintering, staging and moulting habitats through site
safeguard and control of shell fisheries and disturbance? If yes, please
provide the number of sites, specifying the Natura 2000 sites
15 Has MS identified and addressed the causes of the decline of the breeding
population?
16 Has MS taken action to stop drowning in fishing nets and hunting?
17 Has MS taken action to avoid oil spills?
18 Has MS introduced voluntary temporary hunting ban if appropriate? If
yes, when and for how long?
19 Have MS collected better data on size of winter population, mortality,
breeding success and links between breeding and wintering populations?
131
III. RESULTS & ACTIONS
For each of the following actions please
provide:
- Implementation scores [column B]
- Geographical scale of implementation
[column C]
- Who is in charge of implementation,
control and evaluation [column D]
- Whether the actions has been
integrated in other instruments [column
E]
20 A temporary hunting ban is established.
21 An estimate of the annual number of
Scaup shot is available (where hunting
continues)
22 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
23 Management actions are taken to reduce
nest losses due to predation by maninduced terrestrial or avian predators.
24 All major wintering, staging and moulting
sites are protected, both the roosts and
feeding areas, as SPAs with management
plans
25 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.
26 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.
27 Improved pollution prevention and
improved oil spill contingency planning is
in place in marine areas.
28 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 midwinter counts every 3 years and surveys
of moulting areas in August every 6 years
29 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)
30 Research on the population structure and
relatedness of the different geographic
segments is supported, including the
fidelity to breeding, staging and
wintering sites.
Action valid
for breeding
(B)/winterin
g and
staging
(WS)/both
populations
B
IMPLEMENTATION SCORES
0: Action not needed/not
relevant
1: Little or no work (0-10%)
carried out;
2: Some work started (1150%), but no significant
progress yet;
3: Significant progress (5175%), but target still not
reached;
4: Action fully implemented,
no further work required
except continuation of ongoing work (e.g. in case of
monitoring)
C
GEOGRAPHICAL
SCALE OF
IMPLEMENTATI
ON
National?
Regional? Local?
D
WHO IS IN
CHARGE OF
IMPLEMENTATI
ON, CONTROL
AND
EVALUATION?
NGOs, public
bodies, hunters,
landwoners…oth
er
E
IS THE
MEASURE
INTEGRATED IN
OTHER
INSTRUMENTS?
Sectorial plans,
Rural
programmes,
hunting plans,
regulations,
projects, other,
etc. (please
specify)?
WS
WS
B
B
WS
WS
B
WS
B
WS
WS
B
B
WS
132
TURTLE DOVE - Streptopelia turtur
1 Name of the authority filling in the present document:
2 Competent for (nature conservation/hunting/agriculture, etc.):
I. GENERAL QUESTIONS
3 Is this species listed as a huntable species in your MS, and if so does it
have an open season? Under what conditions can it be hunted?
4 Has your MS implemented the EU 2007-2009 MP?
5 If yes, is it still being implemented?
6 Has your MS a specific national/regional plan(s) for the species? If yes,
please provide a weblink.
7 Have the measures taken for the species at regional/national level been
inspired/triggered by the EU MP?
8 Have other measures been taken independently from the EU MP?
9 Which proportion of the EU MP' s actions relevant
for your country have been implemented? (please
tick the appropriate box) - (The recommended
actions of the EU MP are listed in part III below)
Most (> 75%)
Many (> 30%)
Few (< 30%)
None
10 What are the mains reasons explaining the level of implementation of the
actions?
11 Have the implemented actions globally contributed to improving the
population status of the Turtle Dove? Yes/No/Do not know. Please explain
the reasons why the actions were/were not successfull.
12 Has the hunting community (hunters or hunters' organizations) played a
specific role in the implementation of the measures? If yes, at its own
initiative or at the authorities' request?
13 If the hunting community has played a role, please specify (what
measures? relative importance of the hunting community's involvement?
etc.)
II. SHORT TERM OBJECTIVES OF THE EU MP
14 Have MS improved management (including restoration) of breeding
habitats?
15 Has MS collected scientific data about population trend, ecology and
dynamic, in both breeding and wintering areas?
16 Has MS analysed potential competition between the Collared Dove and
the Turtle Dove?
17 Has MS collected more robust scientific data to better understand the
potential importance of hunting on the populations? If yes, please provide
details on hunting bags and the impact of hunting
133
III. RESULTS & ACTIONS
For each of the following actions please
provide:
- Implementation scores [column B]
- Geographical scale of implementation
[column C]
- Who is in charge of implementation,
control and evaluation [column D]
- Whether the actions has been
integrated in other instruments [column
E]
18 Wooded farmland, hedges and other
habitats important for breeding are
maintained and better protected
19 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.
20 Annual bag statistics are available
(where hunting is allowed).
21 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).
22 A predictive model is developed to help
determine what annual bag would be
sustainable (where hunting is
permitted).
23 From the existing monitoring schemes,
common guidelines for monitoring the
species are agreed and used to monitor
populations (can be included in a panEuropean monitoring scheme for
common birds).
24 National ringing activities and analyses
of existing ringing data to estimate
mortality and identify population units
is supported
25 Annual estimates of breeding success is
provided on breeding grounds
26 Accurate information is gathered:
- on the breeding population size and
trend in Turkey and Russia
- on numbers, distribution and ecology
of wintering populations in West Africa
27 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.
B
IMPLEMENTATION SCORES
Action valid
for breeding
(B)/winterin
g and
staging
(WS)/both
populations
0: Action not needed/not
relevant
1: Little or no work (0-10%)
carried out;
2: Some work started (1150%), but no significant
progress yet;
3: Significant progress (5175%), but target still not
reached;
4: Action fully implemented,
no further work required
except continuation of ongoing work (e.g. in case of
monitoring)
C
GEOGRAPHICAL
SCALE OF
IMPLEMENTATI
ON
National?
Regional? Local?
D
WHO IS IN
CHARGE OF
IMPLEMENTATI
ON, CONTROL
AND
EVALUATION?
NGOs, public
bodies, hunters,
landwoners…oth
er
E
IS THE
MEASURE
INTEGRATED IN
OTHER
INSTRUMENTS?
Sectorial plans,
Rural
programmes,
hunting plans,
regulations,
projects, other,
etc. (please
specify)?
B
B
WS
WS
WS
B
B
B
B
WS
B
WS
134
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
Annex II – List of the authorities who have responded to the enquiry
BELGIUM
Species
Limosa limosa, Pluvialis
apricaria, Tringa totanus
Larus canus, Vanellus vanellus,
Alauda arvensis, Anas acuta,
Coturnix coturnix, Netta rufina,
Streptopelia turtur
Melanitta fusca
Authority
Agency for Nature and Forests Flemish Government
Competence
Competent for Nature conservation,
hunting
Agency for Nature and Forests Flemish Government
Competent for Nature conservation,
hunting
Directorate-General for
Agriculture, Natural Resources
and the Environment (DGARNE)
- Walloon Government
Competent for Nature conservation,
environment, agriculture, waste, air,
soil, water and forests
Agency for Nature and Forests Flemish Government
Competent for Nature conservation,
hunting
Directorate-General for
Agriculture, Natural Resources
and the Environment (DGARNE)
- Walloon Government
Competent for Nature conservation,
environment, agriculture, waste, air,
soil, water and forests
DG Environment - Service Milieu
Marin - Federal Government
Competent for Nature conservation,
hunting, health, food chain safety,
environment
BULGARIA
Species
Limosa limosa, Larus canus,
Pluvialis apricaria, Vanellus
vanellus, Tringa totanus,
Alauda arvensis, Melanitta
fusca, Numenius arquata, Netta
rufina, Aythya marila
Anas acuta, Coturnix coturnix,
Streptopelia turtur
Authority
Competence
Ministry of Environment and
Water
Competent for Nature conservation
Ministry of Environment and
Water
Competent for Nature conservation
Executive Forestry Agency
Competent for Hunting and Game
protection
135
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
CROATIA
Species
Limosa limosa, Larus canus,
Pluvialis apricaria, Vanellus
vanellus, Tringa totanus,
Alauda arvensis, Melanitta
fusca, Numenius arquata, Anas
acuta, Netta rufina, Aythya
marila, Streptopelia turtur
Coturnix coturnix
Authority
Competence
State Institute for Nature
Protection, Zagreb
Competent for nature conservation
Ministry of Agriculture
Competent for
hunting/agriculture/forestry
CYPRUS
Species
Vanellus vanellus, Alauda
arvensis, Melanitta fusca, Anas
acuta, Aythya marila
Authority
Game & Fauna Department
(Ministry of the Interior)
Competence
Competent for Wild Birds Directive
(Conservation and Management of
Wild Birds as well as hunting issues)
CZECH REPUBLIC
Species
Limosa limosa, Larus canus,
Pluvialis apricaria, Vanellus
vanellus, Tringa totanus,
Alauda arvensis, Melanitta
fusca, Numenius arquata, Anas
acuta, Coturnix coturnix, Netta
rufina, Aythya marila,
Streptopelia turtur
Authority
Ministry of the Environment of
the Czech Republic
Competence
Competent for nature conservation
DENMARK
Species
Limosa limosa, Larus canus,
Pluvialis apricaria, Vanellus
vanellus, Tringa totanus,
Alauda arvensis, Melanitta
fusca, Numenius arquata, Anas
acuta, Coturnix coturnix, Netta
rufina, Aythya marila,
Streptopelia turtur
Authority
Danish Nature Agency, Ministry
of Environment
Competence
Competent for Nature
conservation/hunting
136
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
FINLAND
Species
Limosa limosa, Tringa totanus,
Netta rufina, Aythya marila,
Streptopelia turtur
Authority
Competence
Regional governmental authority Competent for Nature conservation
Tringa totanus, Aythya marila
Competent for Monitoring & research
Netta rufina
Ministry of the Environment
Streptopelia turtur
Finnish Game and Fisheries
Research Institute
Competent for evaluation of Red
Data of birds and for reporting of
Birds' Directive 2006–2012
FRANCE
Species
Limosa limosa
Authority
MEDDE/DEB/ONCFS
Larus canus
National Museum of Natural
History - Natural Heritage
Service
Alauda arvensis, Coturnix
coturnix, Aythya marila,
Melanitta fusca, Anas acuta,
Streptopelia turtur
MEDDE/ONCFS (Office National
de la Chasse et de la Faune
Sauvage)
Netta rufina
ONCFS
Competence
Competent for Biological
conservation
Competent for wildlife
conservation/wildlife
management/hunting
HUNGARY
Species
Limosa limosa, Larus canus,
Pluvialis apricaria, Vanellus
vanellus, Tringa totanus,
Alauda arvensis, Melanitta
fusca, Numenius arquata, Anas
acuta, Coturnix coturnix, Netta
rufina, Aythya marila,
Streptopelia turtur
Authority
Department for Nature
Conservation, Ministry of Rural
Development
Competence
Competent for nature conservation
137
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
ITALY
Species
Limosa limosa, Larus canus,
Pluvialis apricaria, Vanellus
vanellus, Tringa totanus,
Alauda arvensis, Melanitta
fusca, Numenius arquata, Anas
acuta, Coturnix coturnix, Netta
rufina, Aythya marila,
Streptopelia turtur
Authority
Competence
Competent for Nature Conservation
and Hunting
ISPRA
LATVIA
Species
Limosa limosa, Larus canus,
Pluvialis apricaria, Vanellus
vanellus, Tringa totanus,
Alauda arvensis, Melanitta
fusca, Numenius arquata, Anas
acuta, Coturnix coturnix, Netta
rufina, Aythya marila,
Streptopelia turtur
Authority
Ministry of Environmental
Protection and Regional
Development
Competence
Competent for Nature Conservation
LITHUANIA
Species
Limosa limosa, Larus canus,
Pluvialis apricaria, Vanellus
vanellus, Tringa totanus,
Alauda arvensis, Melanitta
fusca, Numenius arquata, Anas
acuta, Coturnix coturnix, Netta
rufina, Aythya marila,
Streptopelia turtur
Authority
Ministry of Environment
Competence
Competent for Nature
conservation/hunting
LUXEMBOURG
Species
Limosa limosa, Larus canus,
Pluvialis apricaria, Vanellus
vanellus, Tringa totanus,
Alauda arvensis, Melanitta
fusca, Numenius arquata, Anas
acuta, Coturnix coturnix, Netta
rufina, Aythya marila,
Streptopelia turtur
Authority
Ministry for Sustainable
Development and
Infrastructures - Luxembourg &
natur&ëmwelt - Centrale
Ornithologique (BirdLife
Luxembourg)
Competence
Competent for nature conservation &
hunting
138
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
MALTA
Species
Limosa limosa, Larus canus,
Pluvialis apricaria, Vanellus
vanellus, Tringa totanus,
Alauda arvensis, Melanitta
fusca, Numenius arquata, Anas
acuta, Coturnix coturnix, Netta
rufina, Aythya marila,
Streptopelia turtur
Authority
Wild Birds Regulation Unit,
Parliamentary Secretariat for
Agriculture, Fisheries and Animal
Rights, Ministry for Sustainable
Development, the Environment
and Climate Change, Malta;
Malta Environment and Planning
Authority
Competence
Competent for Sustainable hunting
governance, conservation
NETHERLANDS
Species
Limosa limosa, Larus canus,
Pluvialis apricaria, Vanellus
vanellus, Tringa totanus,
Alauda arvensis, Melanitta
fusca, Numenius arquata, Anas
acuta, Coturnix coturnix, Netta
rufina, Aythya marila,
Streptopelia turtur
Authority
Ministry of Economic Affairs
(Sovon - Dutch centre for field
ornithology, on behalf of the
Ministry of Economic Affairs)
Competence
Competent for Nature
POLAND
Species
Limosa limosa, Larus canus,
Pluvialis apricaria, Vanellus
vanellus, Tringa totanus,
Alauda arvensis, Melanitta
fusca, Numenius arquata, Anas
acuta, Coturnix coturnix, Netta
rufina, Aythya marila,
Streptopelia turtur
Authority
General Directorate for
Environmental Protection
Competence
Competent for nature conservation
PORTUGAL
Species
Limosa limosa, Larus canus,
Pluvialis apricaria, Vanellus
vanellus, Tringa totanus,
Alauda arvensis, Melanitta
fusca, Numenius arquata, Anas
acuta, Coturnix coturnix, Netta
rufina, Aythya marila,
Streptopelia turtur
Authority
ICNF (Instituto da Conservação
da Natureza e das Florestas)
Competence
Competent for nature
conservation/hunting/fishing/forestry
139
Implementation review of 13 Management Plans for Birds
ROMANIA
Species
Limosa limosa, Larus canus,
Pluvialis apricaria, Tringa
totanus, Alauda arvensis,
Melanitta fusca, Numenius
arquata, Anas acuta, Coturnix
coturnix, Netta rufina, Aythya
marila, Streptopelia turtur
Authority
Ministry of Environment and
Climate Change
Competence
Competent for Nature Conservation
and Hunting
SPAIN
Species
Limosa limosa, Larus canus,
Pluvialis apricaria, Vanellus
vanellus, Tringa totanus,
Alauda arvensis, Melanitta
fusca, Numenius arquata, Anas
acuta, Coturnix coturnix, Netta
rufina, Aythya marila,
Streptopelia turtur
Authority
Deputy General Directorate on
Nature. Ministry of Agriculture,
Food and Environment
Competence
Competent for Nature conservation
SLOVENIA
Species
Limosa limosa, Pluvialis
apricaria, Tringa totanus,
Alauda arvensis, Melanitta
fusca, Numenius arquata, Anas
acuta, Aythya marila,
Streptopelia turtur
Authority
Ministry of Agriculture and the
Environment
Competence
Competent for nature conservation
SWEDEN
Species
Limosa limosa, Larus canus,
Pluvialis apricaria, Vanellus
vanellus, Tringa totanus,
Alauda arvensis, Melanitta
fusca, Numenius arquata, Anas
acuta, Coturnix coturnix, Netta
rufina, Aythya marila,
Streptopelia turtur
Authority
SEPA
Competence
Competent for Nature conservation,
hunting
140