Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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, ΣISMS= 1 1 1 3 (1+1+1+...+1) 1 2,1 15=9 1, 9 1Implementation 1 4 2 1 2,2 24,615=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, 73= 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) 4933= 1,48 Overall IS IS (MSxActions)= Σ 347187=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 (1NIS<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