birds in the european union - a status assessment (pdf, 1.3 mb)
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
BirdLife in the European UnionThe BirdLife International Partnership works in all Member States of the European Union and beyond
w w w. b i r d l i f e . o r g
BIRDS IN THE EUROPEAN UNIONa status assessment
BIRDS IN THE EUROPEAN UNIONa status assessment
BIRDS IN THE EUROPEAN UNIONa status assessment
This report has been produced with the support of:
For further information please contact:BirdLife International European Community Office (ECO), Rue de la Loi 81a, box 4, B-1040 Brussels, Belgium
Tel. +32 2 280 08 30 Fax +32 2 230 38 02 Email [email protected]
Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality
European Commission Vogelbescherming NederlandThe BirdLife Partner in the Netherlands
BIR
DS IN
TH
E EUR
OP
EAN
UN
ION
a sta
tus a
ssessm
en
tB
irdLife International
![Page 2: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
i
BIRDS IN THEEUROPEAN UNION:
a status assessmentCompilers
Clairie Papazoglou, Konstantin Kreiser, Zoltรกn Waliczky, Ian Burfield
ContributorsFrans van Bommel, Ariel Brunner, Ian Burfield, Bernard Deceuninck, Paul Donald, Alison Duncan,
Mauro Fasola, Mich Herrick, Konstantin Kreiser, Szabolcs Nagy, Eduard Osieck, Clairie Papazoglou,Fiona Sanderson, Carlota Viada, Zoltรกn Waliczky
โ โ โ โ โ
This BirdLife International publication was supported byThe European Commission
The Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Qualityand BirdLife/Vogelbescherming Nederland
BirdLifeI N T E R N A T I O N A L
Together for birds and people
Birds in the EU_ status_prelims.p65 25/10/2004, 16:011
![Page 3: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
ii
To download this publication please refer to the website http://birdsineurope.birdlife.org
Recommended citation:BirdLife International (2004) Birds in the European Union: a status assessment. Wageningen, The Netherlands: BirdLifeInternational.
ยฉ 2004 BirdLife InternationalWellbrook Court, Girton Road, Cambridge CB3 0NA, United KingdomTel. +44 1223 277318; Fax: +44 1223 277200; Email: [email protected]; Internet: www.birdlife.org
BirdLife International is a UK-registered charity
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or byany means, electronic, electrical, chemical, mechanical, optical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permissionof the publisher.
ISBN 0 946888 56 6
British Library-in-Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
First published 2004 by BirdLife International
Designed and produced by NatureBureau, 36 Kingfisher Court, Hambridge Road, Newbury, Berkshire RG14 5SJ, United Kingdom
For photographs on the cover we thank the European Parliament, A. Hay, C. Ziechaus and I. J. รien.
The presentation of material in this book and the geographical designations employed do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoeveron the part of BirdLife International concerning the legal status of any country, territory or area, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiersor boundaries.
Birds in the EU_ status_prelims.p65 25/10/2004, 16:012
![Page 4: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
iii
iv Executive summary
v Forewords
vi Acknowledgements
1 Introduction
3 Methodology
8 Results: Birds in the EU and the impact of the Birds Directive8 Populations of all birds: articles 2 and 3 of the Birds Directive
11 SPAs, Annex I and migrants: article 4 of the Birds Directive18 Trade of wild birds: article 6 of the Birds Directive18 Hunting: article 7 of the Birds Directive19 Monitoring under article 4 of the Birds Directive and article 6 of the Habitats Directive20 The implementation of the Birds Directive: judgements and infringement procedures21 Research: article 10 and Annex V of the Birds Directive22 Reporting: article 1222 The EU Sustainable Development Strategy and the 2010 Target: The outermost regions of the EU
25 Conclusions and recommendations
28 Species tables28 List of all bird species occurring in the European Union and their Conservation Status44 List of all species of Annex I of the Birds Directive and their Conservation Status47 List of all species of Annex II of the Birds Directive and their Conservation Status
49 References
โ โ โ โ โ CONTENTS
Birds in the EU_ status_prelims.p65 25/10/2004, 16:013
![Page 5: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
iv
Birds in the European Union, published by BirdLifeInternational marks the 25th anniversary of the EU BirdsDirective (79/409/EEC). Using the most recent data, theeffectiveness of the Directive has been assessed, and knowledgegaps as well as challenges for the future have been identified.
This assessment shows that the Birds Directive has beensuccessful in protecting some of Europeโs threatened specieswhen properly implemented and backed by plans and resources.Evidence that the Directive works includes:
โข Overall, the population trends of Annex I species were morepositive than non-Annex I species between 1990โ2000.
โข The analysis revealed that the populations of Annex I speciesin the EU15 did better than the same species in non-EU15between 1990โ2000.
โข Significant progress has been made through theimplementation of Species Action Plans (SAP) for speciessuch as Zinoโs Petrel, Pterodroma madeira and DalmatianPelican, Pelecanus crispus.
โข Annex I species with a Species Action Plan did better thanthose without a SAP in the EU15, in the period 1990โ2000.
โข The almost complete coverage of the species with SAPs bythe Special Protection Area (SPA) network is suggested asa key reason why these species fare better in general whencompared to other Annex I species.
โข The Birds Directive has been successful by almost completelyeliminating the trade of wild birds, which is illegal accordingto its provisions, across the EU.
โข Cases brought before national or EU courts have beensuccessful not only in clarifying important aspects of theDirective, but also to help solving conflicts betweenconservation and development.
The Birds Directive, however, does not work in isolation andthe overall picture for birds does not look so positive. Inparticular, the analysis revealed:
โข The Conservation Status of birds has deteriorated in Europe,although within the EU the overall situation did not changein the last 10 years.
โข There is a higher proportion of species with UnfavourableStatus within the EU25 than at the Pan-European level.
โข Farmland birds are still in steep decline at the EU and onPan-European level, a trend that is linked to increased yieldsdriven, within the EU, by the Common Agricultural Policy.
โข The SPA network in the EU15 is unfortunately ratherincomplete when compared to Important Bird Areasidentified by BirdLife International (only 44% of IBA areais covered by SPA classification). There is a strong differencethough between individual countries and between regionsin terms of SPA classifications.
โข The status of Annex II species (which can be hunted) hasworsened. A total of 36 species out of 79 (46%) on Annex IIhave Unfavourable Conservation Status at EU25 level and atotal of 31 (39%) have the same status at the Pan-Europeanlevel.
โข Long-distance migrants are declining at an alarming rate.
Most of these changes are linked to damaging land use policies,such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The root causeof the crash in migratory bird populations is not known, but itis likely that it cannot be explained by actions in the EU alone.However, the slow rate of classification of the most valuablesites as SPAs is clearly a responsibility of the EU Member States,many of whom are still delaying unreasonably this all-importantissue.
โ โ โ โ โ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
It is also noted in the assessment that a major omission inthe existing EU nature legislation is the protection of theoutstanding bird diversity of the EUโs tropical outermostregions, the French departments of French Guiana,Guadeloupe, Martinique and Rรฉunion Island. These territoriestogether hold a bird fauna that is richer than the whole ofEurope, with eight globally threatened and 13 near-threatenedspecies. The application of some of the EUโs policies andbudgets in these territories, without adequate legislativesafeguards for the protection of biodiversity, can spell doomfor these species.
For the next 25 years, BirdLife has the followingrecommendations for strengthening the implementation of theDirective in order to improve the Conservation Status of birdsin the EU:
โข Full implementation of all provisions of the Birds andHabitats Directives across all EU Member States.
โข Full integration of the provisions of these Directives in otherEU policies, like CAP, transport, regional development,energy and others.
โข Classification of all IBAs as Special Protection Areas (SPAs)in the EU.
โข Consideration of the list of species with UnfavourableConservation Status in this publication in possible futurereviews of the Annex I list of the Birds Directive.
โข Full implementation, including financing, of the SpeciesAction Plans.
โข Ensuring adequate and targeted EU co-funding for natureconservation measures with the โLIFE Natureโ (or anequivalent) instrument and updating the list of priorityspecies for this funding, taking into account the results ofthis review.
โข Continuation and strengthening of control of illegal tradeof wild birds in order to eliminate all occurrences across theEU.
โข Completion, implementation and assessment of the speciesmanagement plans for all Annex II species withUnfavourable Conservation Status and cooperative workto reverse those trends.
โข Monitoring systems set in place by the Commission andMember States to provide necessary information concerning:โ Effective delivery of the nature directives against their
overall goals.โ The contribution to broader biodiversity conservation
objectives within the EU.โ Effective delivery of SPAs against their objectives (e.g.
through identification of targets and site specificindicators for all SPAs).
โข Promotion and support of:โ Research in order to set baselines, targets and investigate
network coherence.โ Development of predictive modelling for the effect of
issues like climate change on biodiversity.โ Gap analysis and prioritisation.โ Research on habitat management requirements.
โข Use of the indicators suggested by BirdLife Internationalfor monitoring common birds, sites and threatened birds inMember Statesโ regular reports to the European Commissionevery three years.
โข Development of special legislation to protect birds and otherwildlife in the biodiversity rich outermost regions of the EU.
Birds in the EU_ status_prelims.p65 25/10/2004, 16:014
![Page 6: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
v
HE European Commission is delighted to support thispublication from BirdLife International, as it makes animportant contribution to this yearโs celebration of the
25th anniversary of the Birds Directive. This Directive is oneof the pillars of EU biodiversity legislation, and to implementit effectively we need reliable scientific information. Birdsare valuable indicators of environmental quality, soinformation on their status and trends provides importantinsights into how successfully we are meeting ourcommitment to halt the decline of biodiversity by 2010. Thisis the target that was set by EU Heads of State andGovernment when they launched the EUโs SustainableDevelopment Strategy in Gothenburg in 2001.
To obtain this important information, birds need to bemonitored. Given the amount of work this entails, we rely onlarge numbers of expert volunteers all over Europe, whoโin away that is perhaps uniqueโwork together with scientific
โ โ โ โ โ FOREWORDS
โ โ โ โ โ
WENTY-FIVE years ago, with the EU Birds Directive,a comprehensive piece of legislation was establishedin order to protect the wild birds of Europe. Since then,
EU Institutions and Member States, NGOs, scientists andcountless volunteers have helped putting it into practice. As partof this process, a wealth of bird data was collected in the territoryof the currently enlarged European Union by BirdLifeInternational and its Partner network.
On the basis of these extensive data-set BirdLife Internationalhas now published Birds in the European Union: a statusassessment. This unique analystโs report shows us how far weare today with the implementation of the Birds Directive: wherethe Birds Directive has been successful, and which challenges
specialists to gather the necessary data. BirdLife International,with its partners in all the Member States, has successfullyharnessed this energy to provide authoritative data on the statusof birds, their habitats and the threats they are facing acrossthe enlarged European Union. The credibility of this data ishigh, not only among the scientific community but also amongpolicy-makers at both national and EU levels.
This publication clearly shows that, despite our successes,especially with some of the rarer bird species, many of Europeโscommon farmland birds are under severe pressure due tochanges in land use. This is a key challenge that will need to bemet by better integration of bird protection requirements intoagricultural and other policies. This is essential to achieve ourbiodiversity targets in the coming years.
Catherine DayDirector-General for the Environment
Commission of the European Communities
still lie ahead on our way to halt and reverse the decline ofEuropeโs birds, our common heritage.
During the Netherlands Presidency of the European Union,its Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality is proudto support this valuable publication. Birds are true Europeans,they bridge civil society, countries and continents on theirflyways, they are delightful and inspiring, and last but not leastexcellent indicators for the health of our environment.
I congratulate BirdLife International on this importantpublication.
Giuseppe RaaphorstDirector of Nature, Ministry of Agriculture,Nature and Food Quality, The Netherlands
T
T
Birds in the EU_ status_prelims.p65 25/10/2004, 16:015
![Page 7: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
vi
The data presented and analysed in this publication are basedon a huge amount of work carried out by several thousandornithologists across the European Union and beyond over thelast decades.
Particular thanks are given to the national compilers andcontributorsโand the numerous organisations which theyrepresent or with which they are associatedโwho collated andsynthesised the ornithological information that formed the basisfor this book.
This review is closely related with and based on the data ofthe publication Birds in Europe (BirdLife International 2004),produced by BirdLife International and launchedsimultaneously in November 2004 on the occasion of aconference celebrating the 25th Anniversary of the EU BirdsDirective, organised in Bergen op Zoom (NL) by theNetherlands EU Presidency (Netherlands Ministry forAgriculture, Nature and Food Quality) and the EuropeanCommissionโs Environment Directorate General.
Thanks are given to all contributors to Birds in Europe(2004).
Overall the review production was coordinated by ClairiePapazoglou and Konstantin Kreiser of the BirdLife InternationalEuropean Community Office. Ian Burfield did all analysesregarding the status assessment for birds at the EU level. PaulDonald and Fiona Sanderson analysed population trends.
The whole project received support from a working groupof the BirdLife Birds and Habitats Directive Task Force thatincluded Eduard Osieck (then Task Force Coordinator), ArielBrunner (LIPU/BirdLife Italy) and Zoltรกn Waliczky, PaulDonald and Nicola Crockford (RSPB/BirdLife UK).
The following persons helped with the analyses on SpecialProtection Areas (SPAs) and Important Bird Areas (IBAs):
โ โ โ โ โ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Austria: Michael Dvorak; Belgium: Wim van de Bossche,Roland de Schaetzen, Peter Symens; Denmark: ThomasVikstrรธm; Finland: Teemu Lehtiniemi; France: BernardDeceuninck; Germany: Claus Mayr, Hermann Hรถtker; Greece:Stavroula Papoulia; Ireland: Olivia Crowe; Italy: Ariel Brunner;Luxembourg: Patrick Lorgรฉ; Netherlands: Eduard Osieck;Portugal: Ivรกn Ramirez; Spain: Carlota Viada, Oscar Frรญas;Sweden: Bjรถrn Welander, Torsten Larsson; United Kingdom:Ian Fisher, Rhoda Ludford; Czech Republic: David Lacina;Cyprus: Iris Charalambidou; Estonia: Andres Kalamees;Hungary: Gergล Halmos; Latvia: Edmunds Raฤinskis;Lithuania: Liutauras Raudonikis; Malta: Joseph Mangion;Poland: Bogna Blaszkowska, Pawel Sidlo; Slovakia: RastislavRybaniฤ; Slovenia: Tomaลพ Janฤar.
Thanks are given to Peter and Barbara Creed fromNatureBureau for layout, design and print management. MichHerrick designed the cover pages. Illustrations by: RichardAllen (Saxicola torquata), Tomasz Cofta (Acrocephaluspaludicola and Acrocephalus schoenobaenus), Koen Devos(Charadrius alexandrinus and Milvus migrans), Ren Hathaway(Pandion haliaetus), Paul Hirst (Puffinus yelkouan), MarkHulme (Platalea leucorodia), Jens Overgaard Christensen(Tetrao tetrix), Pavel Prochazka (Netta rufina), Michal Skakuj(Falco peregrinus), Maris Strazds (Limosa limosa and Ciconiaciconia), Carl Christian Tofte (Buteo rufinus), Juan Varela(Aquila adalberti and Tetrax tetrax), Jos Zwarts (Passermontanus).
The European Commission, the Netherlands Ministry ofAgriculture, Nature and Food Quality and VogelbeschermingNederland, the BirdLife Partner in the Netherlands, are thankedfor funding this publication. Special thanks are given to UmbertoGallo-Orsi and Johanna Winkelman for securing these funds.
Birds in the EU_ status_prelims.p65 25/10/2004, 16:016
![Page 8: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
1
WHY THIS REVIEW?
Celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) BirdLife International aims to reflect on the successes ofthis remarkable piece of European legislation, and at the sametime to contribute to its future implementation.
This review looks back into the past 25 years, assessing theeffect of the Directive for Europeโs wild birds and looking intothe future to identify what we need to know to take the rightpolitical decisions for birds and their habitats.
In particular, BirdLife International presents within this review:1. A report, article by article of the Directive, of the status of
birds at the Pan-European level and at the level of the EUwith its current 25 Member States (EU25), assessing, wherepossible, the impact of the Directive, based on cutting-edgedata.
2. Recommendations for action to address the challengesidentified for the future.
3. In addition, two comprehensive lists of the species listed onAnnex I and Annex II of the Birds Directive with theirconservation status.
THE BIRDS DIRECTIVE
The EU Birds Directive, the Directive for the Conservation ofWild Birds (79/409/EEC) was adopted in 1979. The Directivewas adopted under a French Presidency of the Community, ata time of widespread concern about declining populations ofEuropean birds. At that time, there were nine members of theEuropean Economic Community (as it was called then). Since1979, the Birds Directive has formed a solid framework forbird conservation across the EU, and its geographical scopehas enlarged together with the Union, to include also the tennew Members who joined in May 2004.
It is no coincidence that birds were chosen for the firstDirective on nature protection and it is no coincidence that theโHabitatsโ Directive, which covers the rest of Europeโs wildlifeand habitats, came so much later in 1992. Birds are beautiful,inspirational, popular, valued and international. Birds areexcellent flagships and indicators of biodiversity, theenvironment and the sustainability of human activities.
In 2004, the Birds Directive celebrates its 25th anniversary,and it quite fittingly applies now to 25 Member States.
โ โ โ โ โ What exactly is the Birds Directive and why is itso important?
The Directive defines the minimum legal requirements andstandards that all Member States must comply with, to protectand conserve wild birds and their habitats in their territory andin the EU as a whole. Together with the Habitats Directive(92/43/EEC), it forms the principal means by which the EUdelivers its obligations under international Conventions, suchas the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and theRamsar, Bonn and Bern Conventions. The Birds Directive,together with the Habitats Directive are also among the maintools by which the EU can make progress towards achievingone of the objectives set by the EU Heads of State during theGothenburg European Council in 2001, which is to haltbiodiversity decline by 2010.
โ โ โ โ โ What does the Birds Directive regulate?The Directive regulates a number of elements in particularregarding species, sites and habitat protection:
โ โ โ โ โ INTRODUCTION
โข It requires Member States to classify Special ProtectionAreas (SPAs) for those species listed in Annex I as well asfor migratory bird species.
โข It requires management and conservation of the sitesclassified as Special Protection Areas.
โข It sets general provisions for species protection, whereby allspecies are protected from deliberate killing or destruction,destruction or damage to their eggs or nests, taking of theireggs etc.
โข It regulates trade of species listed in Annex III.
โข It regulates the hunting of certain species listed in Annex IIand sets the limits within which Member States can definetheir hunting season, by saying hunting should not take placeduring the breeding seasons or during the return migration(in the case of migratory species).
โข It includes a derogation article, which allows Member Statesto derogate from the protection articles, for species causingagricultural damage or for reasons of air safety amongothers.
โข It encourages Member States to undertake ornithologicalresearch and lists a number of priority issues in Annex V.
โข It requires Member States to report about theimplementation of the Directive in their country.
BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL AND THE BIRDSDIRECTIVE
The Birds Directive is very central to the work priorities ofBirdLife International. In the European Union BirdLifeInternational has tied its work programme to the provisions ofthe Birds Directive. This is especially true as regards the siteand species protection aspects of the Directive.
โ โ โ โ โ Site ProtectionThe Important Bird Area (IBA) programme of BirdLifeInternational is closely linked to the provisions of the BirdsDirective. In fact, the SPA obligations arising from theDirective were the reason why BirdLife International startedits IBA programme. The first IBA inventory was done bythe International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP,precursor of BirdLife International) by Osieck and MรถrzerBruyns (1981). Then the first European IBA inventory waspublished by Grimmett and Jones (1989). The second andmore comprehensive inventory of IBAs for Europe waspublished in the year 2000 (Heath and Evans 2000). SeveralBirdLife Partners have also published their national IBAinventories in EU Member States.
In 1998, BirdLife International re-developed its original setof criteria for IBA identification in order to take into accountthe needs for a global system of site selection. At the same time,the original criteria for selecting IBAs of Community Interestwere also adapted to fit them into a coherent system of siteselection criteria. These new criteria were called IBA C criteria(BirdLife International 1998) and were applied for the 15 EUcountries that were members of the Union in 2000 (Heath andEvans 2000).
BirdLife International has also worked closely with the tencountries that joined the Union in 2004. For all these countries,BirdLife Partners have done inventories applying the criteriaC on their IBAs (Hora, Marhoul and Urban 2002, Lovรกszi 2002,Boลพiฤ 2003, Kuus and Kalamees 2003, Borg and Sultana 2004,Iezekiel, Makris and Antoniou 2004, Raฤinskis 2004,Raudonikis 2004, Rybaniฤ, ล utiakova and Benko 2004).
The European Commission has used the IBA inventory anumber of times to pursue action against certain Member States
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:401
![Page 9: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
2
to demonstrate that they had classified insufficient numbersand areas of SPAs. Four of these cases have been judged at theEuropean Court of Justice and four Member States have beencondemned (these are the Netherlands Case C-3/96, FranceCase C-202/01, Finland Case C-240/00, Italy Case C-378/01)for insufficient numbers and areas of SPAs classified ascompared to the IBA inventories for those countries. TheCommission in taking the above cases to the Court used theโIBA 89โ assessment (Grimmett and Jones 1989), the IBA 2000inventory (Heath and Evans 2000) and national inventories.The cases concerned the obligations arising from articles 4 (1)and 4 (2) of the Directive.
โ โ โ โ โ SpeciesAs regards the species protection obligations arising from theDirective, BirdLife International has contributed the first everinventory of bird Conservation Status in Europe. That was Birdsin Europe (Tucker and Heath 1994) and it provided informationon all Species of European Conservation Concern classified
according to a set of standard criteria. BirdLife International isalso coordinating the unification of European monitoringschemes for common birds, under a scheme called the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBMS).BirdLife International works together with the European BirdCensus Council (www.ebcc.info) to coordinate this.
Furthermore, BirdLifeโs monitoring strategy closely mirrorsthe provisions of the Birds Directive. This includes three strands:site monitoring (IBAs), common species monitoring (Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme) and threatenedspecies monitoring.
Finally, BirdLife International works actively on reformingthe Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). BirdLife Internationaldata have demonstrated severe declines in farmland birds, whichhave been linked to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).BirdLife recommendations on the policy changes have beenlargely based on the BirdLife data. BirdLife has been runninga campaign to reform the Common Agricultural Policy in theEU since 2002 (www.birdlifecapcampaign.org).
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Introduction
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:402
![Page 10: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
3
GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE
The geographical scope of this assessment is the Europeanterritory of the 25 Member States of the European Union as ofMay 2004, including the Azores, Madeira and the CanaryIslands (hereafter โEU25โ). In several of the analyses, someother country groups are mentioned: โEU15โ (EU MemberStates before 1 May 2004), โAC10โ (countries that acceded tothe EU on 1 May 2004) and โnon-EU25โ (countries beyondthe EU25 borders)โsee Figure 1.
DATA COLLECTION
To assess the Conservation Status of birds in the EuropeanUnion, it was necessary to obtain updated populationinformation on all species from every country. This wasachieved in the framework of a larger project (Birds in Europe,BirdLife International 2004a, hereafter โBiE2โ) to update thepublication Birds in Europe (Tucker and Heath 1994, hereafterโBiE1โ). It involved a continent-wide network of nationalcoordinators (all of whom are listed in BiE2), and collaborationfrom many relevant experts, monitoring organisations, regionalcontributors and volunteers.
For all wild bird species occurring naturally and regularly inthe European Union, the following data were collected from eachcountry:
โข Breeding population size (in or around the year 2000).
โข Breeding population trend (over the period 1990โ2000).
Where available, equivalent midwinter population data werealso collected, mainly for species covered by the InternationalWaterbird Census run by Wetlands International. For waders,many data were effectively collected in parallel with thoseprovided for the International Wader Study Group projects,Breeding waders in Europe 2000 (Thorup et al. in press) andStatus of migratory wader populations in Africa and WesternEurasia in the 1990s (Stroud et al. 2004).
Wherever possible, national coordinators suppliedpopulation trend data as actual percentage change figures overthe 1990โ2000 period. For a number of widespread commonspecies, particularly detailed information was supplied bycountries participating in the Pan-European Common BirdMonitoring Scheme (PECBMS), run by the European BirdCensus Council (EBCC, www.ebcc.info) and BirdLifeInternational. For species and countries not covered byPECBMS, national coordinators supplied data on trenddirection and magnitude using a fixed set of categories andcodes (Table 1). Trend categories ranged from -5 to 5, with thesign indicating the direction of the change. Stable populationswere represented by a value of zero. There were thus 11population trend categories, plus special codes for fluctuatingtrends, new breeders and extinct species.
โ โ โ โ โ METHODOLOGY
1
24
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1415
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
Figure 1. The European Union with its first 15 Member States (EU15) and its new Members (AC10) who have acceded on1 May 2004.
AC10EU15Non-EU25Non-Europe
Austria (1), Belgium (2),Cyprus (3), Czech Republic (4),Denmark (5), Estonia (6),Finland (7), France (8),Germany (9), Greece (10),Hungary (11), Ireland (12),Italy (13), Latvia (14),Lithuania (15), Luxembourg (16),Malta (17), Netherlands (18),Poland (19), Portugal (20),Slovakia (21), Slovenia (22),Spain (23), Sweden (24),United Kingdom (25)
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:403
![Page 11: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
4
In addition, national coordinators recorded the accuracyand reliability of each population size and trend estimate usingdata quality codes:
1. Poorly known, with no quantitative data available.2. Generally well known, but only poor or incomplete
quantitative data available.3. Reliable quantitative data available (e.g. atlas, survey or
monitoring data) for the whole period and region inquestion.
All data were checked by staff at the BirdLife Secretariat, andany queries were referred back to national coordinators forcomment and approval before amendment. Together with theexisting data from 1970โ1990 (from BiE1), these new dataformed the basis of the status assessment.
DATA ANALYSIS
The starting point for this review was the list of 448 speciesthat breed or winter regularly in the EU25. For each species,the assessment was based on four main parameters (for moredetails, see BiE2):
โข EU25 population size (in or around the year 2000): For BiE2,all national population size estimates were supplied asranges, with minimum and maximum values. To calculatethe minimum, maximum and geometric mean EU25population sizes for the current assessment, national valueswere summed.
โข EU25 breeding range size: Calculated by summing thenumber of occupied 50 x 50 km squares in the EBCC Atlas(Hagemeijer and Blair 1997);
โข EU25 population trend during 1970โ1990: Calculated fromthe data collected for BiE1, using the method describedtherein. Thus, a species that declined during 1970โ1990 byat least 20% in 33โ65% of its population, or by at least 50%in 12โ24% of its population, and where the total size ofdeclining populations exceeded the total size of increasingpopulations, was classified as having undergone a moderatehistorical decline. Similarly, a species that declined during
1970โ1990 by at least 20% in at least 66% of its population,or by at least 50% in at least 25% of its population, andwhere the total size of the declining populations exceededthe total size of the increasing populations, was classified ashaving undergone a large historical decline. Analogouscriteria were used to identify species that underwentmoderate or large historical increases in the EU25 during1970โ1990. Species that met neither these criteria, northose for historical declines, were classified as historicallystable.
โข EU25 population trend during 1990โ2000: Calculated fromthe data collected for BiE2, using the method describedtherein. Thus, the upper and lower limits of the 1990โ2000trend estimate from each country were applied to therelevant geometric mean national population estimate, toback-calculate the most likely minimum and maximumpopulation sizes in 1990. These back-calculated figures weresummed to produce EU25 minimum and maximumpopulation estimates for 1990. These estimates werecompared with the geometric mean EU25 populationestimate for 2000, thereby calculating the โbestโ and โworstcaseโ EU25 trend scenarios over 1990โ2000. Speciesโ trendswere then allocated as follows, using the โworst caseโ trendscenario in accordance with the precautionary principle,which was also applied in BiE1 and BiE2 (Table 2).
CONSERVATION STATUS ASSESSMENT
โ โ โ โ โ Criteria developmentThe aim of this assessment is to identify species with anUnfavourable Conservation Status in the European Union. TheBirds Directive requires bird populations to be maintained at(or adapted to) a level that corresponds to ecological, scientificand cultural requirements, while taking account of economicand recreational requirements (Box 1). In the early 1990s, noobjective criteria existed for assessing a speciesโs ConservationStatus at a regional level. When compiling BiE1, BirdLifetherefore used the articles in the Birds Directive (Box 1) todevelop a system by which species were allocated a Europeanthreat status. Endangered corresponded with article 4(1)a,Vulnerable with article 4(1)b, and Rare and Localised witharticle 4(1)c, while Declining referred to articles 2 and 4(1)d.Species classified as Secure had Favourable ConservationStatus, but all others had Unfavourable Conservation Status,and were therefore treated as Species of European ConservationConcern (SPECs) in BiE1.
More recently, IUCN (the World Conservation Union)published guidelines for applying its Red List Categories andCriteria at regional levels (IUCN 2003). Over the past decade,the IUCN Red List Criteria (IUCN 2001) have gained broadinternational acceptance for their ability to classify speciesโrelative extinction risk, and have thus become one of the mostwidely used decision-support tools in conservation. The newguidelines make it possible to assess speciesโ relative extinctionrisk at EU level, classifying those with a high risk as CriticallyEndangered, Endangered or Vulnerable. All species with arelatively high risk of extinction are clearly of conservationconcern. Given the advantages of using a widely accepted andstandardised system to identify such species, the Endangeredand Vulnerable criteria outlined above were therefore replacedby the IUCN Red List Criteria in both the current assessmentand in BiE2.
However, as stated above, the Birds Directive is concernedwith far more than just preventing extinctions, and the termUnfavourable Conservation Status refers to many more speciesthan just those meeting the IUCN Red List Criteria. This is setout very clearly in article 1 of the Habitats Directive (Box 2),which is currently applied by the European Commission as aworking definition of the meaning of article 2 of the BirdsDirective (European Commission 2004). To ensure consistencywith this definition of Favourable Conservation Status, theadditional criteria listed above (Rare, Localised and Declining)
Table 1. Categories and codes for recording populationtrend direction and magnitude.
Trend magnitude categories (%)Trend direction (codes) 0โ19 20โ29 30โ49 50โ79 >80
Increasing (+) +1 +2 +3 +4 +5Decreasing (-) -1 -2 -3 -4 -5
Stable (0) 0 n/a n/a n/a n/aFluctuating (F)1 n/a F F F F
New breeder (N)2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aExtinct (X)3 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
1. Species that underwent interannual changes exceeding 20% during 1990โ2000, butwhose numbers remained broadly stable over the decade as a whole.
2. Species that began to breed regularly during 1990โ2000, either for the first time or as partof a recolonisation.
3. Species that went extinct during 1990โ2000, or which were recorded during 1970โ1990in Birds in Europe but not since.
Table 2. Species trends in Birds in Europe (2004).
โWorst caseโ trend scenario 1990โ20001990โ2000 trend category Criteria met>30% decline Large decline IUCN Red List Criteria
10โ29% decline Moderate decline Declining<10% decline and <10% increase Stable -
10โ29% increase Moderate increase ->30% increase Large increase -
Unknown (insufficient data) Unknown -
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Methodology
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:404
![Page 12: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
5
were retained in the current assessment (and in BiE2), applyingthem in exactly the same way as in BiE1. The only minordifferences were: modifying the Declining criterion (becausetrend data were collected over 10 years, rather than 20); usinga lower population threshold for the Rare criterion (becausethe EU cannot be expected to hold as many birds as Pan-Europe); and introducing a Depleted criterion (see Box 3). Thelatter was added to highlight species that have already sufferedthe declines that the Birds and Habitats Directives intend toprevent, but which have yet to recover.
Overall, this approach ensures that all species that cannotbe described as Secure in the long term are allocatedUnfavourable Conservation Status, and not only those with arelatively high extinction risk. Thus, the only significantdifference between this system and that used in BiE1 is thereplacement of the Endangered and Vulnerable criteria withIUCN Red List Criteria. By retaining a system as close aspossible to that applied in BiE1, the results of the currentassessment (and those in BiE2) are comparable to those fromthe original Pan-European assessment. This is importantbecause any changes to the list of species of conservationconcern should reflect genuine changes in status, rather thanchanges in the criteria. More information about the methodsand criteria applied are described in BiE2, which should bereferred to for details (BirdLife International 2004a). Thecriteria were applied in a three-step process (see Figure 2).
All species of global conservation concern are consideredto have an Unfavourable Conservation Status in the EU25.The EU has a global responsibility to ensure that the status ofthese species does not deteriorate within its territory, becauseany deterioration would increase their (already relatively high)risk of extinction. The list of species produced by Step 1 clarifieswhich species are of most concern, and highlights those whoseglobal status has deteriorated most recently, based on the latest
Figure 2. Flowchart illustrating the 3-step process of assessingthe Conservation Status of birds in the European Union.
3. Is the species Declining,Rare, Depleted or Localized
in the EU25?3
All native bird species inthe EU25 (n = 448 species)
1. Is the species of globalconservation concern?1
2. Is the species CriticallyEndangered, Endangered
or Vulnerable in the EU25?2
Unfavourable
Favourable
Unfavourable
Unfavourable
EU25Conservation
Status
Species regarded as Securein the EU25
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
1. Species classified as Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable, NearThreatened or Data Deficient under the IUCN Red List Criteria at global level(BirdLife International 2004a; IUCN 2004).
2. Species whose EU25 threat status is classified as Critically Endangered,Endangered or Vulnerable under a regional application of the IUCN Red ListCriteria.
3. Species whose EU25 threat status is classified as Declining, Rare, Depleted orLocalised as described in Box 3.
Box 1. Provisions of the EU Wild Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) relevant for the methodology ofthis book.
Article 1 states that the Directive relates to the conservation of all species of wild birds occurringnaturally in the European territory of the Member States, and that it applies to birds, their eggs, nestsand habitats.
Article 2 requires Member States to take measures to maintain the population of the species referredto in article 1 at a level that corresponds in particular to ecological, scientific and culturalrequirements, while taking account of economic and recreational requirements, or to adapt thepopulation of these species to that level.
Article 4(1) requires Member States to take special habitat conservation measures to ensure thesurvival and reproduction in their area of distribution of species listed on Annex I that are: (a) indanger of extinction; (b) vulnerable to specific changes in their habitats; (c) considered rare, becauseof small populations or restricted local distribution; or (d) in need of particular attention, due to thespecific nature of their habitat.
In particular, Member States are required to classify the most suitable territories in number and size asspecial protection areas for the conservation of these species, as well as regularly occurring migratoryspecies (covered by article 4(2)), taking into account their protection requirements in thegeographical sea and land area where the Directive applies.
The Directive also states that trends and variations in population levels should be taken into accountas a background for evaluations. For details of the species listed on Annex I as of 2004, see chapterโSpecies Tablesโ.
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Methodology
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:405
![Page 13: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
6
global assessment (www.redlist.org). In Step 2, the guidelinesfor applying the IUCN Red List Criteria at regional levels(IUCN 2003) were followed closely at all stages. For details ofthe decisions that must be made at various points in any regionalRed List assessment (e.g. which species to assess), see BiE2. Allspecies that pass through these three steps without meeting anyof the criteria are classified as Secure in the EU25, and thereforehave a Favourable Conservation Status.
It is important to note that no data were collected on rangetrends during 1990โ2000, and that extremely little reliableinformation was available on projected future populationor range trends. Consequently, the vast majority of statusassessments were based solely on current population andrange sizes, and on recent (1970โ2000) population trends.Had more information on recent range trends and projectedpopulation and range trends been available, it is very likelythat the Conservation Status of many more species wouldhave been assessed as Unfavourable. Thus, the results of thecurrent assessment should be viewed as conservative.
For selected well-monitored waterbirds, separateassessments were made for breeding and winteringpopulations, and EU25 Conservation Status was allocatedaccording to the data from the season with the higher degreeof threat.
Box 3. Additional (non-IUCN) criteria for identifying species with Unfavourable ConservationStatus in the European Union.
Based on the equivalent criteria in Birds in Europe (Tucker and Heath 1994), a species is consideredto be:
Declining if its population does not meet the IUCN Red List Criteria in the EU, but declined by morethan 10% over the last 10 years (i.e. 1990โ2000) or three generations. Declining species haveUnfavourable Conservation Status because they are unable to maintain their populations and/ornatural ranges in the long-term.
Rare if its population does not meet the IUCN Red List Criteria and is not Declining in the EU, butnumbers fewer than 5,000 breeding pairs (or 10,000 breeding individuals or 20,000 winteringindividuals), and is not marginal to a larger non-EU population. Rare species have UnfavourableConservation Status because they were often more abundant historically, and because their smallpopulations render them more susceptible to accelerated declines via:
โข break-up of social structure;โข loss of genetic diversity;โข large-scale population fluctuations and catastrophic chance events;โข existing or potential exploitation, persecution, disturbance and interference by man.
Depleted if its population does not meet the IUCN Red List Criteria and is not Rare or Declining inthe EU, but has not yet recovered from moderate or large historical declines suffered during 1970โ1990. Depleted species have an Unfavourable Conservation Status because they have alreadysuffered the declines that the Birds and Habitats Directives intend to prevent, and have yet to recover.
Localised if its population does not meet the IUCN Red List Criteria and is not Declining, Rare orDepleted in the EU, but is concentrated, with more than 90% of the EU population occurring at 10 orfewer sites in the EU, as listed in Important Bird Areas in Europe (Heath and Evans 2000). Localisedspecies have an Unfavourable Conservation Status because their small ranges render them moresusceptible to accelerated declines via:โข large-scale population fluctuations and catastrophic chance events;โข existing or potential exploitation, persecution, disturbance and interference by man.
Box 2. Favourable Conservation Status according to the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC).
Article 1(i) defines the Conservation Status of a species as โthe sum of the influences acting on thespecies concerned that may affect the long-term distribution and abundance of its populations in theEuropean territory of the Member Statesโ. It states that a speciesโ Conservation Status will be taken asโFavourableโ when:
โข population dynamics data on the species concerned indicate that it is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats; and
โข the natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for theforeseeable future; and
โข there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations ona long-term basis.
FURTHER ANALYSES
โ โ โ โ โ Trend calculationAs explained above (see section on data collection), elevencategories were used to describe trends. Data were analysedusing mixed effects models (Littell et al. 1996) with a normaldistribution and with the 11-level trend as the dependentvariable. Both species and country were entered as factorialfixed or random effects in all models. Trend was weighted bythe data quality code, and all models excluded species occurringin fewer than five countries. To derive mean trends for eachspecies, species was fitted as a fixed factor and country as arandom factor, this order being reversed to derive mean countrytrends. When sub-groupings of countries (e.g. EU versus non-EU) or species (e.g. comparing trends of species in differenthabitats) were included as predictor variables, conditionalhierarchical mixed models were used, in which the sub-groupingof interest was fitted as a fixed factor and the main class (speciesor country) was fitted as a random factor, nested within thesub-grouping (Littell et al. 1996).
โ โ โ โ โ Habitat classificationSpecies were classified to habitat using the assessment of Tuckerand Evans (1997), with the exception that montane grassland,
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Methodology
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:406
![Page 14: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
7
Table 3. Species and subspecies that were added to Annex Ion 1 May 2004.
Scientific name Common name
Puffinus yelkouan Yelkouan ShearwaterPolysticta stelleri Stellerโs Eider
Falco cherrug Saker FalconFalco vespertinus Red-footed Falcon
Charadrius alexandrinus Kentish PloverCalidris alpina schinzii Dunlin ssp. schinzii
Larus minutus Little GullOenanthe cypriaca Cyprus Wheatear
Oenanthe pleschanka Pied WheatearSylvia melanothorax Cyprus Warbler
Certhia brachydactyla dorothea Short-toed Treecreeper ssp. dorotheaParus ater cypriotes Coal Tit ssp. cypriotes
Lanius nubicus Masked Shrike
included a sub-classification of agricultural habitats by Tuckerand Evans (1997), was here classified as a separate habitat.This was due to the fact that this habitat supports an avifaunadistinct from that occurring in other agricultural habitats; thetrends of these species are therefore not representative ofagricultural habitats in general. All species with more than 75%of their population occurring in one of the following eighthabitats were classified as specialists of that habitat: marine;coastal; inland wetland; tundra, mires and moorland; borealand temperate forests; Mediterranean forest, shrubland androcky habitats; agricultural and grassland (excluding montanegrassland); and montane grassland (Tucker and Evans 1997).In addition, species with 10โ75% of their population usingonly one of the above were classed as specialists in thathabitat, either according to Tucker and Evans (1997) forspecies of European Conservation Concern (SPECs) oraccording to the description of Snow and Perrins (1997) fornon-SPECs. Remaining species with 10โ75% of theirpopulation occurring in more than one habitat were classedas non-specialists. Any species which did not meet the abovecriteria (due to insufficient data) remained unclassified. Tuckerand Evans (1997) include a further habitat of lowland Atlanticheathland; however, no species met the criteria to be classed asa specialist of this habitat.
โ โ โ โ โ Agriculture intensity data and farmland birdtrends
Indices of agricultural intensity for the year 1993, the closestyear to the mid-point of the time series for which sufficientdata were available, were derived from the FAOSTATdatabase of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation(http://apps.fao.org/faostat/default.jsp). These includedcereal yield, fertiliser use per unit area, the population densityof agricultural workers, the number of tractors per unit areaand livestock density. The yield of wheat, the most widelygrown cereal, was selected as an index of intensity of cerealmanagement, as it was strongly positively correlated with theyields of other cereal types (wheat, barley, oats and rye;r42 > 0.85). Analyses excluded countries for which agriculturaldata are not available from the FAOSTAT database andcountries with negligible areas of agricultural land. Thisexcluded Andorra, Armenia, the Azores, the Canary Islands,the Faeroe Islands, Gibraltar, Greenland, Iceland,Liechtenstein, Madeira, Malta and Svalbard, leaving 40countries included in the analyses.
Estimated mean country trend for farmland species wasentered as the dependent variable into a backwards selectionleast squares regression model in which the northing and eastingof the capital city and the agricultural variables were enteredas explanatory variables.
โ โ โ โ โ Species considered for Annex I analysesThere are 194 species and subspecies listed on Annex I of theBirds Directive. Ten new species and three subspecies wereadded with the accession of the new Member States on 1 May2004 (Table 3). The analyses by BirdLife International in Birdsin Europe (BirdLife International 2004a) and in this report didnot consider subspecies. There are 21 subspecies listed on AnnexI and as most of them refer to marginal populations ofwidespread species they were not considered as part of theAnnex I list in the relevant analyses.
There are only three exceptions to this: the BalearicShearwater Puffinus mauretanicus, which BirdLife recognisesas a distinct species and therefore was included in all analysesregarding Annex I, the subspecies of Black Grouse Tetrao tetraotetrix which is the continental subspecies and the mostwidespread and the two Rock Partridge Alectoris graecasubspecies, which represent most of the population of thisspecies and therefore the species was included in the Annex Ianalyses. Furthermore, there are two species, which do notoccur at EU25 level. These are Pallid Harrier Circus macrourusand Pied Wheatear Oenanthe pleschanka. This means thatresults at Pan-European level refer to 176 species, whereasresults at EU25 level refer to 174 species.
Finally, some analyses looked only at populations of AnnexI species of the EU15 (EU countries before May 2004): forthose comparisons the species included in Annex I in May 2004were not taken into account. This makes the list of speciesconsidered 166.
โ โ โ โ โ Species considered for Annex II analysesThere are 81 species listed in Annex II of the Birds Directive,23 species and one subspecies on Annex II/1 and 57 species andone subspecies on Annex II/2. The two subspecies listed onAnnex II/1 and Annex II/2 are of the same species (the WillowPtarmigan Lagopus lagopus) and have been treated as onespecies. Annex II/2 includes the Black Francolin Francolinusfrancolinus, which was added after the accession of Cyprus inMay 2004 (i.e. 23+57+1=81). There is also one species on AnnexII, which does not occur naturally in Europe and therefore thereare no data for it. This is the Wild Turkey Maleagris gallopavo.Finally, one species the Canada Goose Branta canadensis doesnot occur in the EU25 as a breeding species and therefore wasnot included in the EU25 analyses. Canada Goose was alsonot considered in the 1994 analysis of the Conservation Statusat Pan-European level (Tucker and Heath 1994). Therefore theanalyses refer to 80 species as concerns the Pan-European level,and 79 as concerns the EU25 level.
โ โ โ โ โ Important Bird Area/SPA overlap analysesDuring 2004, BirdLife Partners in the EU15 Member States wereasked to report on the percentage overlap by area between theIBAs identified to date and classified SPAs. In order to obtaincomparable results, they should provide data reflecting the statusof December 2003, although there are a few exceptions wheredata was unavailable for this date. Information was also providedon the number of IBAs that are not covered at all by SPAs.Purely marine sites (i.e. those that lie entirely outside coastalwaters) were separated out from other sites. The area of IBAsand SPAs were provided in ha for the analysis.
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Methodology
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:407
![Page 15: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
8
This section presents the results of BirdLife Internationalโsanalyses in relation to the obligations arising from the differentarticles of the Birds Directive. The basis for all analyses andinterpretation presented in this chapter is Table 1 of the chapterSpecies Tables, which shows analytically the results for eachspecies.
POPULATIONS OF ALL BIRDS: ARTICLES 2AND 3 OF THE BIRDS DIRECTIVE
Articles 2 and 3 of the Birds Directive make reference to allnaturally occurring wild birds in the territory where thisDirective applies. The Member States have obligations toprotect, conserve and prevent declines in the populations of allthose species. This section reports what the analyses tell about:
โข The status of all birds at the Pan-European level.
โข The status of all birds at the European Union level anddifferences between Pan-European and EU level.
โข The population trends of bird species associated with specifichabitat types.
โ โ โ โ โ The status of all birds at the Pan-European levelThe publication Birds in Europe (BirdLife International 2004a),hereafter BiE2, presents the status and trend data for all 524species occurring in Europe and identifies those that are Speciesof European Conservation Concern (SPEC). The publicationconsiders the changes in trends since 1994, when the lastBirdLife International publication on the status of birds inEurope was published (Tucker and Heath 1994).
According to BiE2, 226 species out of 524 (or 43% of theEuropean avifauna) have Unfavourable ConservationsStatus in Europe. Ten years ago, at the time of the first Birdsin Europe assessment, this figure was 195 species out of 511assessed (i.e. 38%) (Tucker and Heath 1994). Overall this meansthat 31 more species are in trouble now than ten years ago (anincrease of 5%).
The species identified as being Species of EuropeanConservation Concern are listed in three SPEC categories (seechapter Methodology). According to BiE2 there are 40 (8%)species in the SPEC 1 category of globally threatened species,
Figure 1. Absolute numbers and percentage of Europeanbird species in each category in BiE1 and BiE2; Non-SPECE
corresponds to the SPEC 4 category of Birds in Europe(Tucker and Heath 1994).
โ โ โ โ โ RESULTS: BIRDS IN THE EU AND THEIMPACT OF THE BIRDS DIRECTIVE
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
24
40
41
45
130
141
83
94
233
204
100%
1994 (BiE1)
2004 (BiE2)
SPEC 1SPEC 2
SPEC 3Non-SPECE
Non-SPEC
45 (9%) species in the SPEC 2 category, which is the categorythat includes species with Unfavourable Conservation Statusin Europe and their global population concentrated in Europe,and 141 (27%) species in the SPEC 3 category, the species groupwith Unfavourable Conservation Status in Europe but whoseglobal population is not concentrated in Europe (see Figure 1).
In most cases, population decline is the main reason for aspecies qualifying as a SPEC. Of the 129 SPECs listed in BiE1on the grounds of decreasing populations between 1970 and1990, 79 species (61%) continued to decline during the 1990s.They have now been joined by 35 species formerly consideredto have a Favourable Conservation Status in Europe.Regarding the period 1990โ2000, only 72 species have increasedbut 144 species had declining populations.
In total, there are 45 species, which in BiE1 still hadFavourable Conservation Status but deteriorated toUnfavourable by 2004, while there are 14, which improved fromUnfavourable to Favourable (Tucker and Heath 1994, BirdLifeInternational 2004a).
Among the species slipping to Unfavourable ConservationStatus in 2004 are many migrant waders and passerines, severalwaterbirds, and some of Europeโs most familiar species, suchas House Sparrow Passer domesticus and Common StarlingSturnus vulgaris. A group particularly affected is farmlandbirds. Among the ones that have recovered by 2004 to aFavourable Status are species such as the Peregrine FalconFalco peregrinus and Northern Gannet Morus bassanus. Thefull list of species changing status is given in Table 1.
Conclusion:In 2000 there were 226 (43%) species out of 524,which have Unfavourable Conservation Status atPan-European level, while in 1990 there were 195out of 511 (38%) bird species which hadUnfavourable Conservation Status across Europe.This represents an overall increase of 5% in thenumber of species that are in trouble in Europe inthe last 10 years.
There are 40 (8%) SPEC 1, 45 (9%) SPEC 2, and141 (27%) classified SPEC 3 at Pan-European level.
โ โ โ โ โ The status of all birds at the European Unionlevel and differences between Pan-European andEU level
On 1 May 2004, ten countries became new members of theEuropean Union, which made the bloc grow to 25 MemberStates (EU25). This was the biggest single enlargement of theUnion to date, and brought about a considerable enrichmentof the EUโs avifauna. Through the enlargement process a fewmore species were added to the EU list, and more importantly,many species โgainedโ enormously in their EU population, e.g.Red-footed Falcon Falco vespertinus and Stellerโs EiderPolysticta stelleri. This gain in biodiversity and unique naturalhabitats brings along an increased responsibility of theEuropean Union for its natural heritage, including wild birds.
In this review BirdLife International for the first timeassesses the Conservation Status of birds at the EU25 level, i.e.taking into account only the populations occurring in the 25Member States (EU25). BirdLife through this analysis foundthat, 216 (48%) species out of 448 species have UnfavourableConservation Status at the EU25 level. This shows that there
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:408
![Page 16: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
9
Species which had Unfavourable Conservation Status in 1994 but FavourableConservation Status in 2004 (n=14)Scientific name Common name
Hydrobates pelagicus European Storm-petrelMorus bassanus Northern Gannet
Branta leucopsis Barnacle GooseNetta rufina Red-crested Pochard
Gyps fulvus Eurasian GriffonFalco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon
Recurvirostra avosetta Pied AvocetLimosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit
Prunella ocularis Raddeโs AccentorSaxicola torquata Common Stonechat
Oenanthe cypriaca Cyprus WheatearHippolais olivetorum Olive-tree Warbler
Sylvia melanothorax Cyprus WarblerBucanetes githagineus Trumpeter Finch
Species which had Favourable Conservation Status in 1994 but UnfavourableConservation Status in 2004 (n=45)Scientific name Common name
Podiceps auritus Horned GrebePuffinus griseus Sooty Shearwater
Puffinus mauretanicus Balearic ShearwaterGeronticus eremita Northern Bald Ibis
Anas clypeata Northern ShovelerAythya ferina Common Pochard
Aythya fuligula Tufted DuckMilvus milvus Red Kite
Ammoperdix griseogularis See-see PartridgeVanellus indicus Red-wattled Lapwing
Vanellus vanellus Northern LapwingPhilomachus pugnax Ruff
Gallinago gallinago Common SnipeTringa erythropus Spotted Redshank
Actitis hypoleucos Common SandpiperLarus genei Slender-billed Gull
Larus armenicus Armenian GullUria lomvia Thick-billed Murre
Otus brucei Pallid Scops-owlKetupa zeylonensis Brown Fish-owl
Apus unicolor Plain SwiftApus affinis Little Swift
Halcyon smyrnensis White-throated KingfisherCeryle rudis Pied Kingfisher
Upupa epops Eurasian HoopoeAmmomanes deserti Desert Lark
Calandrella cheleensis Asian Short-toed LarkDelichon urbica Northern House Martin
Erythropygia galactotes Rufous-tailed Scrub-robinOenanthe oenanthe Northern Wheatear
Oenanthe xanthoprymna Rufous-tailed WheatearPrinia gracilis Graceful Prinia
Phylloscopus bonelli Bonelliโs WarblerPhylloscopus sibilatrix Wood Warbler
Phylloscopus sindianus Mountain ChiffchaffParus palustris Marsh Tit
Parus cristatus Crested TitSitta krueperi Krueperโs Nuthatch
Sturnus vulgaris Common StarlingPasser domesticus House Sparrow
Passer montanus Eurasian Tree SparrowCarduelis cannabina Eurasian Linnet
Pyrrhula murina Azores BullfinchEmberiza aureola Yellow-breasted Bunting
Miliaria calandra Corn Bunting
Table 1. List of species changing status category between 1994 and 2004 at Pan-European level.
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Results
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:409
![Page 17: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
10
Species with Unfavourable Conservation Status in Europe but FavourableConservation Status in EU25 (n=14)Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night-heron
Anas strepera GadwallMilvus migrans Black Kite
Circaetus gallicus Short-toed Snake-eagleButeo rufinus Long-legged Buzzard
Pandion haliaetus OspreyCoturnix coturnix Common Quail
Larus minutus Little GullCepphus grylle Black Guillemot
Fratercula arctica Atlantic PuffinBubo bubo Eurasian Eagle-owl
Apus affinis Little SwiftCeryle rudis Pied Kingfisher
Parus cristatus Crested Tit
Species with Favourable Conservation Status in Europe but Unfavourable ConservationStatus in EU25 (n=31)Podiceps nigricollis Black-necked Grebe
Falco columbarius MerlinBonasa bonasia Hazel Grouse
Lagopus lagopus Willow PtarmiganLagopus mutus Rock Ptarmigan
Tetrao urogallus Western CapercaillieEudromias morinellus Eurasian Dotterel
Pluvialis apricaria Eurasian Golden-ploverCalidris temminckii Temminckโs Stint
Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed GodwitNumenius phaeopus Whimbrel
Arenaria interpres Ruddy TurnstoneCuculus canorus Common Cuckoo
Eremophila alpestris Horned LarkAnthus trivialis Tree Pipit
Anthus pratensis Meadow PipitAnthus cervinus Red-throated Pipit
Anthus petrosus Rock PipitMotacilla flava Yellow Wagtail
Saxicola rubetra WhinchatAcrocephalus arundinaceus Great Reed-warbler
Hippolais olivetorum Olive-tree WarblerSylvia rueppelli Ruppellโs Warbler
Phylloscopus trochilus Willow WarblerParus montanus Willow Tit
Oriolus oriolus Eurasian Golden-orioleCarduelis flavirostris Twite
Plectrophenax nivalis Snow BuntingEmberiza citrinella Yellowhammer
Emberiza rustica Rustic BuntingEmberiza schoeniclus Reed Bunting
Table 2. Differences in Conservation Status of bird species between Pan-European and EU25 level.
is a higher proportion of species with Unfavourable Status thanat the Pan-European level. However, looking at the situation in1990, the percentage of species with Unfavourable ConservationStatus at (today) EU25 level was slightly higher (51%) than in2000. This suggests the overall situation of birds has slightlyimproved in the EU and in the new joining countries.
Conclusion:There are 216 (48%) species out of 448 species withUnfavourable Conservation Status at the EU25level. There is a higher proportion of species withUnfavourable Status within the EU25 than at thePan-European level.
There is an interesting difference, though, between theConservation Status of individual species at the EU25 and Pan-European levels. There are 31 species (mostly farmland birdsand waders, especially upland/moorland species), that do betterat the Pan-European level than at EU25 level. On the otherhand, 14 species (including a number of raptors) have betterstatus when their population is considered at EU25 level thanwhen all of Europe is taken into account (see Table 2).
Overall conclusion on status of birds atEU25 and at Pan-European level:The overall Conservation Status of birds has slightlyimproved at the EU25 level over the last decade,whereas at the Pan-European level it has worsened.
โ โ โ โ โ The population trends of bird species associatedwith specific habitat types
In this part of the analysis, differences are reported among thepopulation trends of species (see chapter Methodology) thatare associated with specific habitat types (Tucker and Evans1997). For these analyses, only the first 15 EU Member Statesare considered (EU15), in order to evaluate the effect of theBirds Directive and other EU policies for changes that occurredin the period 1990โ2000. It must be noted here that even ifpopulations show positive trends during the last ten years, thisdoes not mean that their Conservation Status has improved,as the latter has a broader scope than just population trends.
Marine, coastal, inland wetland and Mediterraneanforest habitatsPopulation trends of bird species inhabiting marine, coastal,inland wetland and Mediterranean forest habitats increasedduring the last decade.
Conclusion:Marine and coastal species are increasing in the EU,as well as species living in inland wetlands andMediterranean Forests.
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Results
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4010
![Page 18: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
11
Farmland birdsAccording to the analysis of population trends, speciesassociated with agricultural habitats continue to decline bothin the EU and outside. This fact was already shown with the1994 data. The only exception is for species on montanegrasslands, where there is a significant increase within the EU15,while a decline outside. Downward trends in farmland speciesare significantly correlated with cereal yield, indicating a strongcorrelation between the intensity of agricultural production anddecline in farmland birds (see Figure 2).
Conclusion:Farmland birds are still in steep declines on EU andon Pan-European level. Results show that steeperdeclines are correlated to higher cereal yields.
SPAS, ANNEX I AND MIGRANTS: ARTICLE 4 OFTHE BIRDS DIRECTIVE
Article 4 of the Birds Directive requires Member States toclassify the most suitable territories in number and size asSpecial Protection Areas (SPAs) for those species requiringspecial conservation measures: these are the species listed inAnnex I and all migratory species. In this section is reportedwhat the analyses tell about.
โข The status of species listed on Annex I, at Pan-Europeanand EU level.
โข The population trends of Annex I species in relation to non-Annex I species.
โข The population trends of Annex I species in the EU15 (EUbefore May 2004) versus the trends of Annex I species inthe countries outside the EU15.
โข Action plans for Europeโs most threatened birds: helpingstop declines.
โข The population trends of Annex I species with aninternational Species Action Plan (SAP) compared to thosewithout a SAP (in the EU15) and with a link to ImportantBird Areas (IBAs) and SPAs.
โข The population trends of bird species with differingmigration strategies.
โข Overlap between Important Bird Areas and SPAs in the EU.
โข Experience from case studies.
โ โ โ โ โ The status of species listed on Annex I (speciallyprotected species) at Pan-European and EU level
From all 176 Annex I species, 126 (72%) have UnfavourableConservation Status at Pan-European level. At the EU25 level
1. Out of the 166 species considered (see chapter on methodology) data for two were not available for the 1994 assessment. These were Balearic Shearwater and Azores Bullfinch.
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Wheat yield (tonnes/ha-1)
Mea
n tr
end
Figure 2. Mean trends of farmland birds (56 species) in theEU15 against wheat yield (the dots represent the 15Member States)โhttp://apps.fao.org/faostat/default.jsp
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Results
the situation is very similar, with 126 (72%) species out of 174being of Unfavourable Conservation Status. Of the 14 speciesthat have improved from Unfavourable to Favourable Statusat Pan-European level (since the last assessment of Tucker andHeath 1994) ten are listed on Annex I (see Table 1). These are:European Storm Petrel Hydrobates pelagicus, Barnacle GooseBranta leucopsis, Eurasian Griffon Gyps fulvus, PeregrineFalcon Falco peregrinus, Pied Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta,Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica, Olive-tree WarblerHippolais olivetorum, Trumpeter Finch Bucanetes githagineus.There are also the two Cypriot endemic species on this list butthese were only added to Annex I in May 2004. See Table 2 inthe chapter Species Tables for a complete list of Annex I specieswith their status at Pan-European and EU25 level.
Comparing the proportion of Annex I species withUnfavourable Conservation Status between 1990 and 2000, wesee that the situation remained stable, with 120 out of 1641
species (73%) having Unfavourable Conservation Status.Furthermore it becomes clear that out of the 216 species
with Unfavourable Conservation Status in the EU25, only 126are listed on Annex I.
Conclusion:The proportion of Annex I species withUnfavourable Conservation Status remained stableduring the last ten years, although it is still high(72%). Ten of the 14 species that moved toFavourable Status between 1990 and 2000 are onAnnex I.
โ โ โ โ โ The population trends of Annex I species inrelation to non-Annex I species in the EU15
The stable situation concerning the Conservation Status ofAnnex I species can also be shown by a different type ofassessment, which only looks at the population trends, and notat population size in each country. According to this assessment,in the EU15 Annex I species are doing significantly better thanother species. Among the species that are doing particularlywell are Barnacle Goose Branta bernicla, White Stork Ciconiaciconia, Spoonbill Platalea leucorodia, Little Egret Egrettagarzetta and White-tailed Eagle Haeliaetus albicilla.
Conclusion:In the EU15 Annex I species did better than non-Annex I species between 1990โ2000, as shown bypopulation trends.
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4011
![Page 19: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
12
Conclusion:Annex I species with a Species Action Plan didbetter than those without a SAP in the EU15, inthe period 1990โ2000.
โ โ โ โ โ IBAs and SPAs for species with a Species ActionPlan (SAP)
According to the same report (Nagy and Crockford, 2004) itwas concluded that overall the obligations arising from article4 of the Directive had played an important role in the protectionof species with a SAP. In most cases, the Important Bird Areas(IBA) that had been proposed for those species had beenclassified as SPAs, and thereby covered the majority of thepopulations. The species for which this was not the case were:Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca, Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni,Corncrake Crex crex, Great Bustard Otis tarda, HoubaraBustard Chlamydotis undulata and Aquatic WarblerAcrocephalus paludicola.
The low coverage of species like Corncrake and AquaticWarbler results from the fact that the large part of thepopulation of these species occur in the new Member Statesand at the time of compiling the report above these countrieshad not submitted SPA lists yet.
The almost complete coverage of these species by the SPAnetwork can be one of the reasons why these species do betterwhen compared to other Annex I species.
Conclusion:The almost complete coverage of the species withSAPs by the SPA network can be one of the reasonswhy these species do better in general whencompared to other Annex I species.
โ โ โ โ โ The population trends of bird species withdiffering migration strategies
BirdLife International also compared the population trends ofspecies with differing migration strategies. These were speciesthat are long-distance migrants, i.e. cross the Sahara to get totheir wintering grounds, short distance migrants and partialmigrants or residents. Short-distance migrants are species whichwinter in Europe, North Africa or the Middle East, while partialmigrants or residents, are species, which do not migrate ormigrate very short distances often responding to adverseweather conditions. The results show that long distancemigrants are doing significantly worse than residents or short-distance migrants. The overall trend for long distance migrantswas one of strong decline at EU and Pan-European level. Thiswas significantly different to the trends of short-distancemigrants and residents.
Conclusion:Long-distance migrants are declining alarmingly.
2. LIFE Nature, the EU Financial Instrument, introduced in 1992 co-finances projects aimed at conservation of natural habitats and the wild fauna and flora of EU interest, in support ofimplementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives.
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Results
โ โ โ โ โ The population trends of Annex I species in theEU15 versus Annex I species in the countriesoutside the EU15
In order to investigate further the effect of inclusion on AnnexI of the Birds Directive, we compared the population trends ofAnnex I species in the EU15 countries with the trend for thesame species in countries outside the EU15.
The results again showed positive trends for the EU15 anda significant difference between EU15 and countries outsidethe EU15.
Conclusion:Annex I species in the EU15 did better than thesame species in non-EU15 countries as shown bypopulation trends in the period between 1990โ2000.
โ โ โ โ โ Action plans for Europeโs most threatened birds:helping stop declines
In July 2004, BirdLife International produced a report for theEuropean Commission reviewing implementation of the first23 international Species Action Plans (SAPs), as adopted in1996 (Nagy and Crockford 2004). BirdLife International foundout the following:
โข Implementation of the SAPs was fullest in the UK, theNetherlands, Hungary, Portugal and Austria.
โข The most complete implementation was for two criticallyendangered birds, Zinoโs Petrel Pterodroma madeira andSlender-billed Curlew Numenius tenuirostris, with DalmatianPelican Pelecanus crispus being the next most complete.
โข Significant progress was made in implementation of 18 ofthe 23 species action plans.
โข Progress was limited for only two species; White-headedDuck Oxyura leucocephala, due to inadequate eradicationof the introduced Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis andLesser Kestrel Falco naumanni.
โข The EU LIFE Nature2 fund contributed to the conservationof all 23 species; it was the main driving force in theconservation of the eight island endemics in Portugal andSpain, and has played a very significant role in theimplementation of some 14 plans in Spain and Greece.
Overall, BirdLife International found that the situation hasimproved for 12 species, been maintained for three and declinedfor six species. Data were insufficient to assess the status changeof two Canarian endemics (Nagy and Crockford, 2004).
Conclusion:Significant progress has been made for certainspecies through the implementation of SpeciesAction Plans.
โ โ โ โ โ The population trends of Annex I species with aninternational Species Action Plan compared tothose without a SAP in the EU 15
In order to investigate further whether having a Species ActionPlan (SAP) can make a difference for the Conservation Statusof a species, the population trends of those Annex I species witha SAP were compared with those without a SAP. The comparisonwas done on 166 Annex I species taking into account those 23with a SAP from the mid-1990s. The results showed that thespecies with a SAP did better compared to those without.
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4012
![Page 20: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
13
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Luxembourg
United Kingdom
FranceItaly
GreeceSpain
GermanyAustriaIrelandSweden
PortugalFinland
BelgiumNetherlands
Denmark
Figure 3. Percentage of IBA area covered by SPAclassification (in black) in the EU15 Member States (EUbefore May 2004).
โ โ โ โ โ Overlap between Important Bird Areas and SPAsin the EU
Article 4 of the Birds Directive requires Member States toโclassify in particular the most suitable territories in numberand size as Special Protection Areasโ for Annex I species, aswell as for regularly occurring migratory species. In the absenceof a generally accepted set of criteria for selecting SPAs,BirdLife International has been publishing inventories ofImportant Bird Areas (IBAs) since 1981, which are identifiedas the most suitable sites for SPA classification. Variousjudgements of the European Court of Justice (cases C-3/96, C-240/00, C-202-01 and C-378-01) condemned the Member Statesof the Netherlands, Finland, France and Italy for failure ofclassifying a sufficient number and area of SPAs in theirterritory. The first of these Court cases stated that the IBAinventories published by BirdLife, although not legally bindingon the Member States, can by reason of their acknowledgedscientific value be used as a basis of reference for assessing theextent to which Member States have complied with theirobligation to classify SPAs. Various IBA inventories have beenused in the other Court judgements in a similar way, in theabsence of better scientific criteria and data.
BirdLife International believes that all the sites selected asIBAs within the territory of the EU Member States should beclassified as SPAs. Therefore, the number and size of IBAsprovides a benchmark against which Member Statesโperformance in classifying SPAs should be measured.
Figure 3 shows the results of an area overlap analysisbetween non-marine IBAs and SPAs in the 15 first MemberStates of the EU. This shows that 25 years after the BirdsDirective was adopted, only five Member States (Luxembourg,Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium and Finland) have classifiedmore than 70% of the IBAs identified, a figure that can beconsidered more or less acceptable. For the rest of the countries,the situation is clearly inadequate, with France doing worstwith 22% of the IBAs classified (despite the above mentionedjudgement for failing to classify SPAs). In total, the proportionof SPAs in the EU does not even reach half of the territory ofall the IBAs, and is just above 44%, a very unsatisfactoryperformance. There is a long list of 778 IBAs (29% of the total),which are not covered at all by any SPAs, not even partially.
For marine SPAs, the process and criteria for identifyingthem is still under discussion, therefore it is not surprising thatthe classification of such sites is still incomplete. According toBirdLife data, only about 11% of the marine IBAs identifiedso far have legal protection as SPAs, with the largest area(208,000 ha) in any country covered by two marine SPAs inthe Netherlands. Eight out of the 13 identified marine IBAshave no legal protection at all.
In the new Member States that acceded on 1 May 2004, thepicture is rather varied. According to preliminary informationfrom BirdLife Partners, five of the countries (Estonia, Latvia,Lithuania, Slovakia and Slovenia) have submitted official SPAlists to the Commission, which cover a substantial proportion(estimated between 88 and 94%) of the IBAs identified in thesecountries. This is a very big step, which immediately put thesecountries as front runners in the EU league table. One mustadd, however, that some of these countries have not yet finalisedthe legal classification of all of the SPAs. At the other end ofthe spectrum, it looks like the lists transmitted by thegovernments of Malta and Poland are not sufficient in numberor area, and the governments of Cyprus, Czech Republic andHungary have not yet submitted their lists of SPAs, henceclearly breaching the accession agreements.
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Results
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4013
![Page 21: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
14
Box 1. The SPA network in France.
IBA protection has made very slow progress in France, as up until the end of 2003 only about 22% of the total area of IBAs has beenclassified as SPAs. The first SPA classifications started in 1986. Between 1986 and 1992, an average of 12 new sites were classifiedevery year. Nearly no new areas were classified between 1993 and 2000, until the Commissionโs case against France led to a decisionby the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Thanks to the ECJ judgement, new classifications of SPAs started in 2001. The pace accelerateda little bit: After this, 49 new sites were classified between 2000 and 2004. Now, there are 153 SPAs in France, and about 50 new sitesare expected to be classified before the end of 2004.
The proportion of IBAs under protection is very heterogeneous from one administrative region to another. For instance, the Poitou-Charentes region (where LPO-BirdLife France has its headquarters) has the best proportion of IBAs classified as SPAs (59%), followedby Haute-Normandie (58.81%), Bretagne (50.88%) and Provence-Cรดte dโAzur (48.11%). The regions where IBAs are least protected areFranche-Comtรฉ (8.14%), Champagne-Ardenne (7.95%),Picardie (5.8%) and Auvergne (0.81%). Limousin, Alsace andBourgogne are the three regions where no SPAs have beenclassified and where IBAs remain largely unprotected, seeTable 3.
The distribution of threatened species in the existing FrenchSPAs is also very diverse, showing that site protection did notfollow any rigorous scientific method. While some specieslike Manx Shearwater Puffinus puffinus, Coryโs ShearwaterCalonectris diomedea or Gannet Morus bassanus areconcentrated in IBAs that are all protected as SPAs (animpressive 90โ100% of the national population), there areseveral threatened species that are mostly present outsideSPAs. Such largely unprotected species include LammergeierGypaetus barbatus (2.5% of the breeding pairs are in SPAs),Short-toed Eagle Circaetus gallicus (10%), Little BustardTetrax tetrax (30โ34%) and Bonelliโs Eagle Hieraaetusfasciatus (13%). The situation has improved recently forCorncrake Crex crex, with more than 71% of its populationnow found in SPAs. Unfortunately, management measuresare not developed enough for protecting Corncrake in SPAs,where habitat destruction and agriculture intensification arestill threatening breeding birds.
Box 2. SPAs in Italy.
The classification of IBAs as SPAs is still lagging behind in Italy, although the country has been condemned by the European Court ofJustice in March 2003 for insufficiently classifying SPAs in number and area according to the Birds Directive. Currently only 36% ofItalian IBA area is classified as SPAs, a small increase compared to the 31% in 2002, when LIPU (BirdLife Italy) published its overlapanalysis commissioned by the Ministry of Environment (Brunner, A. et al. 2002).
The first SPA classification in Italy started in 1988. New classifications were made in particular between 1997 and 2000, but after thatthe trend slowed down significantly. A new boost came with the Courtโs ruling in 2003, prompting several Regions (Veneto, EmiliaRomagna, Campania, Val dโAosta and Toscana) to proceed with a significant number of new classifications. The number of SPAs haskept increasing, reaching the present 532, covering an area of 2,485,677 ha (May 2004), but most sites are small and usually coveronly small portions of the relevant IBAs.
The regions where IBAs are least protected are Molise, Sardegna, Trentino, Basilicata and Calabria with, 3%, 4%, 7% 8% and 9% ofthe IBAs classified as SPAs, respectively. Key IBAs such as the Po Delta and Venice remain largely unprotected even in Regions thathave โcompletedโ their classifications.
The distribution of threatened species on the existing SPAs is far from satisfactory. The well-protected species include SpoonbillPlatalea leucorodia, Ferruginous Duck Aythya nyroca, Mediterranean Gull Larus melanochephalus, Sandwich Tern Sternasandwichensis and Gull-billed Tern Gelochelidon nilotica with about 90โ100% of their national population on SPAs. On the otherhand, the following threatened species are mostly present on unprotected sites: Little Bustard Tetrax tetrax (no population currentlycovered by SPAs), Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii (3% of the breeding pairs in SPAs), Goshawk Accipiter gentilis arrigonii(6%) and Eleonoraโs Falcon Falco eleonorae (36%).
Unfortunately, management measures are totally lacking on most SPAs, and habitat destruction mainly from urbanization, infrastructuredevelopment and agriculture conversion keeps degrading many sites. A shocking example is the Puglia steppic areas (Murgia andGargano foothills) where possibly more than three-quarters of the habitat has been destroyed or severely degraded despite the fact thatthe key sites have long been classified as SPAs.
Table 3. Percentage area of IBAs classified as SPAs in the 22French regions.
IBA area % ofclassified IBA area
Region IBA area (in ha) as SPA in SPAs
Poitou-Charentes 180989,32 106777 59,00Haute Normandie 32646,42 19199,45 58,81
Bretagne 108363,21 55131,325 50,88Provence-Alpes-Cรดte dโAzur 490473,56 235963,72 48,11
Corse 133755,27 56205,094 42,02Pays de la Loire 223442,37 83990,13 37,59
Languedoc-Roussillon 608279,87 200639,75 32,98Basse Normandie 204125,83 64809,93 31,75
Ile de France 87881,59 27281,42 31,04Nord-Pas de Calais 60632,97 13829,3 22,81
Aquitaine 225619,82 32370,28 14,35Centre 311835,68 41916,32 13,44
Lorraine 99720,47 10460,26 10,49Midi-Pyrรฉnรฉes 135136,21 12143,11 8,99
Rhรดne-Alpes 448520,08 37957,75 8,46Franche-Comtรฉ 78905,89 6421,89 8,14
Champagne-Ardenne 446124,13 35486,43 7,95Picardie 161509,35 9371,4 5,80
Auvergne 306905 2491,16 0,81Limousin 112400
Alsace 192890Bourgogne 105300
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Results
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4014
![Page 22: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
15
Box 3. Classification of Special Protection Areas in the Netherlands.
The Netherlands had classified nearly 25% of its total (40,588 km2) territory as Special Protection Area (SPA) under the Birds Directiveby the year 2000. It concerns 79 classified areas with a total area of over one million hectares. Of this total area about three-quartersconcerns extensive marine and freshwater bodies. Of the total land area of the country (33,000 km2) about 7% is covered by SPAs. Theestablishment of this network of protected areas has taken a long time since the adoption of the Directive. The role of BirdLifeInternational (and its predecessor ICBP) and its Dutch Partner organisation Vogelbescherming Nederland has been decisive in thedevelopment of the network, in particular to provide an inventory of Important Bird Areas (IBA) based on sound criteria takingadequately into account the requirements of the Directive. The inventory โIBA89โ (Important Bird Areas in Europe, Grimmett and Jones1989) listed 70 sites with a total area of 797,920 hectares suitable for classification as SPAs in the country. The revised list โIBA94โ(Areas important for birds in the Netherlands, Van den Tempel and Osieck, 1994) prepared jointly with a government agency andcompleted in 1994 includes 87 sites with a total area of over 1 million hectares.
The first five areas (7,680 ha) were classified in 1986. It concerned well-protected sites for which the SPA classification did not lead toany new commitments. During the next four years, four new SPAs were classified including a rather large marine site with extensiveintertidal mudflats in the south-western part of the country. The classified area increased by 45,000 ha. A major step was theclassification of the Wadden Sea (1991), an area of extensive intertidal mudflats and salt marshes (272,000 ha) that is of majorimportance as breeding, resting and wintering area for many waterbirds. The next year three new sites were classified, increasing thenumber to 13 SPAs with a total area of 329,000 ha. The European Commission considered this network highly insufficient and broughtthe case before the European Court of Justice in early 1996. The main argument was that only less than half the sites listed in IBA89inventory, with respect to both the number of sites and their total area, had been classified. According to the Commission, โtheobligation to classify is infringed if a Member State manifestly disregards the number and area of the territories listed in IBA89โ.
The Court judgement (1998) was very clear: โby classifying as SPAs territories whose number and total area are clearly smaller than thenumber and total area of the territories suitable for classification [โฆ] the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligationsโ. IBA89,prepared by ICBP (forerunner of BirdLife International), played a crucial role in this case. It was considered โthe only documentcontaining scientific evidence making it possible to assess whether the defendant State has fulfilled its obligation to classify as SPAs themost suitable territories in number and area for conservation of the protected speciesโ. Meanwhile the number of SPAs had increasedfrom 13 to 30 (373,000 ha), but still considered insufficient. Soon after the Court judgement, the Dutch government decided toimplement it by the classification of the remaining 58 IBAs listed in the IBA94 inventory. After public consultation and an update of theunderlying bird data, 49 new SPAs were finally classified in March 2000. This sudden action has caused a lot of public andparliamentary resistance resulting in more than 1500 applications for administrative and judicial review. Thanks to the robustmethodology of site selection and boundary delimitation substantiated by an extensive set of bird data (1993โ97) these legalproceedings have not affected the classifications significantly. On the contrary, a number of SPAs had to be enlarged in view ofinconsistencies in the delimitation of the sites, see Figure 4.
To which extent offers the Netherlands SPA networkprotection to threatened and vulnerable species of Annex Iand to other migratory birds for which the SPAs have beenclassified? The coverage of colonial and other congregatoryspecies is good to very good. Of species like SpoonbillPlatalea leucorodia, Purple Heron Ardea purpurea, SandwichTern Sterna sandvicensis and Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta,over 80% of their national populations is covered by thenetwork. Even for dispersed breeding species like MarshHarrier Circus aeruginosus, Black Woodpecker Dryocopusmartius, Wood Lark Lullula arborea and Bluethroat Lusciniasvecica the coverage is quite good (30โ50%). The networkcovers all major resting and wintering habitats of migratorywaterbirds extensively, including marine areas, freshwaterbodies and marshland. The only exception is that feedingareas of geese and other waterbirds on agricultural grasslandshave only been covered to a limited extent because inclusionwas not considered necessary in view of their protectionrequirements. The practical protection and management ofthe sites is not yet optimal because the protection regime laiddown in the Habitats Directive (art. 6) has still not beentransposed in Dutch law (expected early 2005). However, amajor effort is now being made to establish an effective andbalanced management and evaluation scheme for all Natura2000 sites by determining conservation objectives,preparation of management plans and setting up of amonitoring scheme aimed at maintenance or restoration ofFavourable Conservation Status for all species and habitatsconcerned. It is a complicated process, because it concernsa large number of sites (79 SPAs and 141 Habitats Directivesites), many stakeholders and the basic principles need tobe in line with the European (monitoring) framework stillbeing discussed.
๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ
๏ฟฝ
๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ
๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ
๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ
๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ
๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ
๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ
๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ
๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ
๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ
๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ
๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ
๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ
๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ
๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ
๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ
๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ
๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ
๏ฟฝ
๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ
๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ
๏ฟฝ
๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ
!๏ฟฝ
"๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ
๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ
"๏ฟฝ#๏ฟฝ$๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ%๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ"๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ๏ฟฝ
Figure 4. Development of SPA classification in theNetherlands in the period 1986โ2000.
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Results
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4015
![Page 23: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
16
Box 4. The Spoonbill success story in the Netherlands.
One of the most typical breeding birds of the Netherlands is the Spoonbill Platalea leucorodia, a largewading bird that breeds in colonies in marshland and lakes and winters south to tropical WesternAfrica. In the European Union, the breeding range of the species is largely confined to theNetherlands, Spain and Hungary. Due to chemical poisoning, the Dutch population collapsed in themid-sixties after which it slowly recovered during the next 20 years.
What has the Birds Directive meant for this species? From the beginning (1979) the species was listedin Annex I of the Directive; at that time the Netherlands held the entire EU breeding populationwhich changed in 1981 with the accession of Greece and in 1986 with the accession of Spain. In1986, the Netherlands classified the first Special Protection Area (SPA) for its breeding Spoonbills, butit didnโt bring the birds much fortune because the colony was disturbed by foxes in 1988 and thebirds never returned again. However, they found new breeding sites (the majority shifted to theWadden Sea area), and the population showed a spectacular recovery: it had doubled by 1990 (541pairs), passed the 1,000 mark seven years later and the 1,500 mark in 2002. With the classification ofthe large breeding colony in the Oostvaardersplassen (1989) as SPA half to two-thirds of theNetherlandsโ Spoonbill population were breeding in SPAs; this percentage increased to nearly 100%with the extension of the network in 2000.
Although the recent population growth cannot be directly attributed to the protection afforded by theBirds Directive, it has certainly supported the recovery of the species in Western Europe (the Spanishpopulation increased during the same period) in particular thanks to improved protection along theAtlantic flyway and the higher interest in its conservation. The increase of the Dutch population hasled to expansion of its European breeding range to France, UK, Germany and Denmark. It is hopedthat many more bird species will follow this example of the Spoonbill in the near future.
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Results
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4016
![Page 24: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
17
Box 5. Increasing heron populations in NW Italy since protection of their colonies.
In North-West Italy heron and egret species find rich wetland habitats for feeding, due to the large areas of rice fields. However, thedensely populated and intensively cultivated planes of the regions Lombaria and Piemonte hold only few adequate nesting sites for heroncolonies (โheronriesโ).
Regular monitoring of heron and egret populations started in the two mentioned regions in 1972, and showed that eight species breed inthe area: Great Bittern Botaurus stellaris, Grey Heron Ardea cinereaโabout 9,000 nests, Purple Heron Ardea purpureaโ500 nests, GreatEgret Ardea albaโ2 nests, Little Egret Egretta garzettaโ8,000 nests, Squacco Heron Ardeola ralloidesโ150 nests, Cattle Egret Bubulcusibisโ230 nests, and Night Heron Nycticorax nycticoraxโ7,000 nests. The rice fields are also used for foraging by passing waders andother waterbirds.
The heronries are typically situated in small marshy woods that have been spared by the ubiquitous land reclamation for agriculture andurbanisation. Therefore, they are mostly located among intensive cultivations and considered vulnerable. An analysis of site availabilityshowed that only few alternative sites exist as potential new nesting places. Indeed, during the 1970s and 1980s, a number of heronriesdisappeared because their site was reclaimed by agriculture.
Site protection initiativesBetween 1972 and 2003, 60โ110 heronries were counted in total, of which several contained more than 1,000 nests (the largest everrecorded held 2,300 nests). Many of these heronries qualify as Important Bird Areas according to the criteria of BirdLife International.
In the mid-1980s, in the light of the adopted Birds Directive and realising that the heronries constitute โnatural hotspotsโ among thedensely inhabited plains of NW Italy, the region of Lombardia set up a network of 15 specific nature reserves for the conservation ofheronries, while the region of Piemonte protected colonies within larger parks. All major heronries have been classified by the regions asSpecial Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive. This was one of the few initiatives directed to conserve the sensitive habitats ofthe lowlands, in a country where most protected areas are located in mountainous regions. It is also a globally unique case of a strategicinitiative for the conservation of heronries in densely inhabited and cultivated landscapes.
At present, 29 heronries are officially protected by the region of Lombardia and 13 by Piemonte. Other 19 colonies are considered more orless secure due to municipal or private protection measures or because of inaccessibility. The remaining 49 heronries however are stillunprotected and may be considered vulnerable.
The specific nature reserves set up for the heronries are usually very small in size, with a core area of 5โ10 ha, surrounded by a buffer zoneof 50โ200 ha where cultivation is permitted. Since most reserves are placed on marshy lands that have not been cultivated for a long time,they interfere only to a small degree with economic activities. Some of these reserves have guided visits.
The management plans of these reserves is based on the premise that wetland habitats should be actively maintained, to keep themsuitable for herons and other aquatic biota, that once thrived over a large part of the plains, and are now dependent on these smallreserves. The implementation of management plans at times has been erratic. For example the Provincia di Pavia, that presently manages13 of these specific nature reserves, provided an effective management during the early 1990s, but did very little afterwards, due to thedecreasing commitment of local politicians.
The success storySince the protection of the heronries began in 1985, the heronand egret populations in NW Italy have considerably increased.Long-term and strong increases can be seen in Figure 5, withpopulation trends shown for three species. Grey Herons showed aspectacular 14-fold increase between 1981 and 2003. PurpleHerons and Little Egret populations have grown about threefold.In addition, the Cattle and Great Egrets started breeding in 1992and in 2000, respectively, as new colonisers in NW Italy. TheSquacco Heron and Night Heron populations have fluctuatedduring the past 30 years, and presently the former is increasing,while the latter is decreasing. The heronries have remained withinthe boundaries of the reserves, since they use the same site almostindefinitely, provided that the habitat remains suitable. Earlyrecords of heronries still occupied in Italy date back to the early20th century, and in one case even to the early 17th century.
Considering the strong increase of six heron species out of seven,it can be stated that this network of protected areas, supported bythe Birds Directive, has been very effective for the conservation ofthe important heron and egret population of NW Italy.
Open questionsHowever, factors other than colony site protection may haveinfluenced population trends. The Grey Heron for exampleincreased in other areas of Europe as well, probably thanks toreduced illegal killing, and to better survival due to mild winters.The species that winter locally or around the Mediterranean, theGrey Heron, the Little and Cattle Egrets, showed a marked andcontinued increase.
On the other hand, species wintering in Africa (Night, Purple, andSquacco Herons) showed variable trends of their breedingpopulations. It is still not completely understood which factorsregulate these populations.
References: Fasola and Alieri (1992a), Fasola and Alieri (1992b), Fasola and Hafner (1997), and Fasola et al. (2000)
Grey Heron
2
14
1972 1978 1984 1990 1996 2002
Purple Heron
1
2
3
2
3
4
6
10
Little Egret
1
Num
ber o
f nes
ts in
NW
Italy
(ind
ex n
umbe
r with
198
1 =
1)
Creation of Nature Reservesat the heronries
Figure 5. Population trends for three species of herons andegrets in NW Italy.
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Results
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4017
![Page 25: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
18
Overall Pan-European Overall Pan-European Overall status atScientific name Common name status in 1994 status in 2004 EU25 in 2004Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler Favourable Unfavourable Unfavourable
Aythya ferina Common Pochard Favourable Unfavourable UnfavourableAythya fuligula Tufted Duck Favourable Unfavourable Unfavourable
Vanellus vanellus Northern Lapwing Favourable Unfavourable UnfavourablePhilomachus pugnax Ruff Favourable Unfavourable Unfavourable
Gallinago gallinago Common Snipe Favourable Unfavourable UnfavourableTringa erythropus Spotted Redshank Favourable Unfavourable Unfavourable
Sturnus vulgaris Common Starling Favourable Unfavourable Unfavourable
Table 6. List of Annex II species whose status has worsened since 1994 on a Pan-Europeanlevel and their Conservation Status at EU25.
HUNTING: ARTICLE 7 OF THE BIRDS DIRECTIVE
Article 7 of the Birds Directive permits Member States to allowhunting of certain species of birds owing to their populationlevel, geographical distribution and reproductive ratethroughout the Community. These are the species listed inAnnex II of the Directive. In this section we report what ouranalyses tell us about:
โข the status of all species listed on Annex II (huntable) at Pan-European and EU level
โข species whose status changed between 1994 and 2004.
โ โ โ โ โ The status of all species listed on Annex II(huntable) at Pan-European and EU level
At the Pan-European level 31 (39%) out of the 80 species listedon Annex II (see chapter Methodology) have UnfavourableConservation Status. At the EU25 level, 36 out of the 79 (46%)have Unfavourable Status (see Table 3 in the chapter SpeciesTables for a detailed list of Annex II species and their status atPan-European and EU25 level).
โ โ โ โ โ Species whose status changed between 1994 and2004
In 1990, on the other hand, only 25 (32%) out of the 79 specieslisted had Unfavourable Status at Pan-European level. Theeight species whose Conservation Status worsened on a Pan-European level are almost all either ducks or waders and arelisted in Table 4. It is worth noting that all those species havealso Unfavourable Conservation Status at EU25 level. On theother hand, there are only two species whose status improvedin the last 10 years and these are Red-crested Pochard Nettarufina and Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica.
Conclusion:The status of Annex II (huntable) species hasworsened. A total of 36 species out of 79 (46%) onAnnex II have Unfavourable Conservation Statusat EU25 level and a total of 31 (39%) out of the 80species listed on Annex II have an UnfavourableStatus on the Pan-European level.
Conclusion:The SPA network in the EU15 is still veryincomplete when compared to IBAs (only 44% ofIBA area is covered by SPA classification). Thereis a strong difference between individual countries(the overlap ranges between 22% and 100%) andbetween regions in terms of SPA classifications.Some of the Annex I species have good SPAcoverage, especially wetland colonial species.
Three case studies (see Boxes 1โ3) stress that SPAclassification accelerated in those countries, whichwere condemned by the European Court of Justicefor insufficient SPA lists, suggesting that recourseto the Court is a necessary measure for MemberStates that are lagging behind.
TRADE OF WILD BIRDS: ARTICLE 6 OF THEBIRDS DIRECTIVE
Article 6 of the Birds Directive prohibits the trade, sale ortransport of birds, but specifically permits Member States toallow trade for the species listed on Annex III of the Directiveprovided they have been legally acquired.
BirdLifeโs results on this issue are incidental which is linkedto the fact that trade of wild birds (as regulated by the BirdsDirective) is not a focus of work for the BirdLife Partnership.As all species that are listed on Annex III are also species listedon Annex II, their Conservation Status is referred to under thesection dealing with article 7.
However, it is worth noting that the Birds Directive seemsto have had a significant impact by eliminating illegal trade ofwild birds across the EU. Having said that there are somecountries where trade of wild birds is still taking place, not inline with the Directive, such as Malta, Greece, and Italy.Although, especially for the latter two countries, illegal tradehas been greatly reduced, the activities of Italian hunters abroadare particularly worrying and relate to the illegal trading ofbirds killed within and outside the EU back to Italy.
Conclusion:The almost complete elimination of illegal trade ofwild birds (i.e. trade not allowed according to theBirds Directive) across the EU is one of the clearsuccesses of the Birds Directive.
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Results
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4018
![Page 26: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
19
MONITORING UNDER ARTICLE 4 OF THEBIRDS DIRECTIVE AND ARTICLE 6 OF THEHABITATS DIRECTIVE
The ultimate measure of the effectiveness of the Birds Directiveeffectiveness is the Conservation Status of species. This is alsoan obligation arising from article 4 of the Birds Directive andarticle 6 of the Habitats Directive. The Conservation Statuscan be derived from information on changes in the abundanceand distribution of species populations across theirgeographical range. This requires data on population changes(monitoring) and on distribution (atlas works). BirdLifeโs Birdsin Europe books use information on population size and trendfor assessing the status of birds at Pan-European scale. Thisdemonstrates that it is possible to assess the effectiveness ofthe Directive, but it is as well crucial to further developmonitoring schemes and improve data quality at national level.The key actions in this respect:
โข Ensure that at least trend data (population indices) areavailable at national level;
โข Data on changes of distribution are available. This wouldrequire co-ordinated atlas work, but it would be worthexploring the use of predictive distribution models that caneffectively complement atlas work at a much lower cost.
โข National data are collected in a systematic manner (as it isdemonstrated by BirdLife International and WetlandsInternational).
BirdLife International has developed an integrated approach tobird monitoring in Europe, which is based on three schemes andcould be easily adopted for monitoring under the Birds Directive:
โข Monitoring of a representative sample of common birds,which may produce state indicators, which can be used tocharacterise the overall sustainability of the major land useforms on birds and broadly indicates the effectiveness of
article 3 of the Directive. For pressures and responsemeasures affecting the wider environment it is probably bestto use indicators being developed under different sectoralindicator processes (see Box 6).
โข Monitoring of key sites relates to article 4(1) and (2) of theBirds Directive and resulting in indicators for theConservation Status of Natura 2000 sites based on theperformance of their qualifying species, regular assessmentof the impacts of threats on individual sites and responsemeasures such as progress in classification and management(a similar framework is being introduced by EuropeanBirdLife Partners to monitor Important Bird Areas).
โข Monitoring of threatened birds is based on assessing theConservation Status of bird species based on information ontheir population size and distribution (such as thispublication), as well as the trends in these. Response indicatorsrelate to the protection status of threatened species, theircoverage by action plans and the progress in the implement-ation of these action plans (Nagy and Crockford 2004).
Box 6. The Pan-European Common Bird Index.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), BirdLife International and the European Bird Census Council have developed abiodiversity indicator based on population trends of wild birds. The methods used are harmonised, proven and statistically robust,combining cutting-edge expertise from the Netherlands and the UK. National trend data, upon which the indicator is based, are subject torigorous checking and validation. Data come from 18 countries and this number is set to rise. The wild bird indicator is timely, relevant,capable of annual update in the future, and suitable for development to meet policy needs. It has all the qualities of an effective headlineindicator, and is by far the most advanced biodiversity indicator currently available. Apart from its relevance to the Birds Directive, it isalso an ideal candidate for being listed as a Biodiversity Structural Indicator to measure progress against the EUโs Lisbon process andSustainable Development Strategy.
The preliminary index (Figure 6) shows that on average, populations of common generalist birds in Europe have remained stable over thelast twenty years, although numbers have fluctuated in response to winter conditions (trend 1980โ2002 = -2%). Common forest specialistshave declined to a small degree (trend 1980โ2002 = -7%). Populations of common farmland specialist, in contrast, have declined sharply,especially in the 1980s, and the downward trend continues ata slower rate (trend 1980โ2002 = -42%). This reflectsdeterioration in the quality of farmland habitats, affecting bothbirds and other elements of biodiversity. There is abundantevidence that declines among farmland birds in Europe havebeen driven by agricultural intensification.
Harmonised Data CollectionโThe Pan-European CommonBird Monitoring SchemeTrend information for the Common Bird Index was derivedfrom annually operated national breeding bird surveysspanning different periods from 18 European countries,obtained through the Pan-European Common Bird MonitoringScheme. This scheme combines national data intomultinational indices. The European Environment Agency(through the European Topic Centre/Nature Protection andBiodiversity) is supporting the development of this indicator inthe framework of its core set of biodiversity indicators. Seewww.ebcc.info, Gregory et al. (in press) and Van Strein et al.(2001).
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Results
40
60
80
100
120
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002Year
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds/European Bird Census Council/BirdLife International
Popu
latio
n in
dex (
1980
=100
)
Generalist Species (22)
Forest Specialists (13)
Farmland Specialists (12)
Figure 6. The Pan-European Common Bird Index.
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4019
![Page 27: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
20
โ โ โ โ โ Birds as indicators for wider biodiversity andenvironmental objectives
The EU Heads of State committed themselves to halting theloss of biodiversity by 2010, in Gothenburg in 2001. To measurethe progress towards these goals and the impacts of EU policies,which may either support or undermine these targets, it isnecessary to measure changes of biodiversity. However,biodiversity is a complex phenomenon and we need simpleindicators, which provide us with information about the maintrends in order to take them into account in political decisionmaking.
Birds are ideal indicators of the trends in overall biodiversitybecause:
โข they usually occupy a high trophic level (thus indicatingenvironmental changes occurring at lower trophic levels),
โข they live in all ecosystems,
โข their taxonomy and identification is well resolved,
โข their conspicuous behaviour allow them to be readilycensused,
โข it is possible to collect large quantities of data in a highlyefficient manner using skilled volunteer enthusiasts,
โข importantly, birds have great public resonance acrossEuropean cultures.
Regular monitoring of bird populations can yield trendinformation for birds. This can then be summarised to producerelatively simple, transparent indicators of ecosystem functionand health, and might act as a model to develop indicators forother taxa. Scientific evidence exists to link changes in birdnumbers to policy and environmental changes, therefore birdsare ideal subject of developing policy relevant indicators.
โ โ โ โ โ Measuring the effectiveness of the SPA networkThe SPA network aims to maintain a coherent network of sitesfor species listed on Annex I and other migratory species notlisted on Annex I. The key issues for assessment are:
โข Coherence of the network.
โข Ecological status of sites.
Coherence of the network concerns two main aspects: (a) theextent the network provides protection to the population of aspecies (securing viable populations) and (b) the extent to whichthe sites form a network along flyways (minimising losses duringannual movements). A key indicator for the coherence of thenetwork in relation to (a) can be the percentage of the speciesโpopulation covered by the site network (SPAs and forcomparison by IBAs). In case of (b) a more functionalassessment is needed to identify key gaps along a flyway.
Ecological status of sites can be assessed in relation to the speciesthey are classified for (qualifying species). The key responseindicator is related to management. In this context the existenceof management plans and the level of their implementationdeserve attention and can be assessed by using a qualitativescoring system. However, the effectiveness of the conservationmeasures can be ultimately assessed through changes in siteconditions. Conditions can be assessed as favourable orunfavourable based on changes in abundance of thequalifying species on the site. It is recognised however thatin some cases abundance cannot be used because numberswithin sites can change due to external factors (e.g. weatherconditions, overall decline of the species). In this case habitatsuitability should be used instead. This approach is morepractical for stopover sites and sites, which are qualified forforest/marshland birds. Percentage of sites with favourableconditions can be an indicator of assessing the effectivenessof the directive in relation to protecting individual elements ofthe SPA network.
โ โ โ โ โ Engaging citizensTens of thousands of citizens are already engaged in monitoringof birds in the European Union and beyond already for decades.Birds are attractive to people and their conservation can mobilise
millions of European citizens. The combined membership ofBirdLife partners exceeds 1.5 million people in Europe.
Experience with the Pan-European Common BirdMonitoring Scheme and the International Waterbird Censusshows that monitoring activities are not so much related to thelevel of economic development in a country rather to the stateof organisational development of bird conservation NGOs,which is, in turn, related to the level of collaboration betweengovernment and non-governmental organisations. Well-developed schemes exist e.g. in the UK, the Netherlands, butalso in the Czech Republic and Hungary.
The key issue in setting up and maintaining monitoringschemes for birds is to reach out to potential volunteers and toprovide them with adequate feedback about the results oftheir work.
This always requires basic capacity to co-ordinaterecruitment of volunteers, co-ordinating the data collectionprocess, as well as analysing and communicating the results.Bird conservation NGOs are in a unique position compared togovernment agencies and scientific institutions in this respectbecause they have their own membership that is alreadycommitted to birds and have basic knowledge of speciesidentification. In many countries, working groups existswhich are specialised on certain group of species and whichcarry out specialised monitoring. The main limitation is in manycases, however, their often limited ability to fund the co-ordination work.
Conclusion:Most of the work on monitoring of species and sitesis currently done by NGOs, like BirdLifeInternational, with only small support bygovernments. This has to change in the future.
Birds are good indicators for biodiversity andbird trends are appropriate indicators to use at highpolitical levels.
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BIRDSDIRECTIVE: JUDGEMENTS ANDINFRINGEMENT PROCEDURES
The judgements of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) relatedto the implementation of the Birds Directive so far have beenessential in clarifying some important aspects of the Directiveand in showing the way for its better implementation in thefuture. According to the Commissionโs 2002 annual report onthe application of Community law, the environment sectorcovered one third of all infringement cases investigated by theCommission in that year. A large number of these cases arerelated to the nature Directives. So far, there have been 33judgements related to the Birds Directive, mostly onshortcomings related to both habitat protection (Articles 3 and4 of the Directive) and species protection (Article 5โ9) issues.Especially large numbers of cases relate to site designation andthe protection system to be applied to SPAs, as well as tohunting and exemptions from the species protectionrequirements. It is important to note that in many casesconflicts between conservation and development objectives havebeen resolved without having to resort to national courts orthe ECJ. These cases illustrate best that the Directive can workeffectively to promote sustainable development taking intoaccount various interests.
Infringement procedures, however, take a long time to reachtheir conclusions, which requires a lot of time investment fromNGOs with limited resources, but also from Commissionservices. The Commission has initiated some new workingmethods to improve the performance of Member States inimplementing Community law, such as preparation ofguidelines and interpretative texts, linking Community fundingto correct implementation of environmental legislation and
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Results
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4020
![Page 28: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
21
Scientific rationales on how to set targets and assess thecoherence of protected area networks remain thin.
3. Predictive modellingRapid, man-influenced climate change is an additionalserious threat to many European species, including birds,who will face severe problems to adapt geographically giventhe highly fragmented habitats of our densely populatedcontinent. A network like Natura 2000 is aimed at sustainingand restoring populations as they adapt to these challenges.Predictive models areโtogether with indicatorsโthe basison which decision-makers act. The high political profile ofthe climate change debate is due partly to researchers beingable to produce predictive models of various plausiblescenarios. We need similar data for the effect on biodiversitytoo. For instance, using data from the EBCC Atlas(Hagemeijer, W. J. M. and Blair, M. J. ed, 1997), Collinghamet al. (publication expected 2005) model the recentgeographical distribution of European breeding birds interms of just three bio-climate variables. They have usedthis model to map the โenvelopeโ in which the climate is likelyto be suitable for each species in the late 21st century, underthe most plausible climate change scenario.
4. Gap analysis and prioritisationConsiderable detailed autecological research has beencarried out on the requirements of many European species,especially on popular and well-studied groups like birds.However, the results are often unpublished, languish inobscure journals, have not been translated, or are otherwisedifficult to access.
5. Habitat management for biodiversityOver the past decade, detailed investigations intofarmland bird declines have successfully pinpointed theneeds of species, the causes of their declines, and how toreverse these with practical measures and changes inpolicy, i.e. agri-environment schemes. Further work on thisis needed now, especially concerning other habitat types.
Conclusion:Although important research has taken place in thelast 25 years, there are important challenges aheadregarding ornithological research priorities that willaid in the monitoring of populations, facilitate theimplementation of the Birds Directive and prioritiseaction.
3.Annex V lists the following subjects:a) National lists of species in danger of extinction or particularly endangered species, taking into account their geographical distribution.b) Listing and ecological description of areas particularly important to migratory species on their migratory routes and as wintering and nesting grounds.c) Listing of data on the population levels of migratory species as shown by ringing.d) Assessing the influence of methods of taking wild birds on population levels.e) Developing or refining ecological methods for preventing the type of damage caused by birds.f) Determining the role of certain species as indicators of pollution.g) Studying the adverse effect of chemical pollution on population levels of bird species.
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Results
โnaming and shamingโ Member States. There are also ideasabout processing some or all of the complaints first at MemberState level, in order to focus the work of the Commission onthe ones that constitute infringements of legislation. Thesemeasures will hopefully aid the better implementation of theDirectives at national level, while at the same time it isimportant that the Commission remains firm on taking legalaction against Member States when it is needed.
Conclusion:A large number of cases have helped interpret theprovisions of the Birds Directive and increased itseffectiveness. Interpretative texts, guidance andโname and shameโ seminars by the Commission canaid the implementation at national level. Recourseto the European Court of Justice always needs tobe a clear option.
RESEARCH: ARTICLE 10 AND ANNEX V OF THEBIRDS DIRECTIVE
Article 10 of the Birds Directive encourages Member States toundertake research and any work required as a basis for theprotection, management and use of the population of allnaturally occurring species in the European Union. Annex Vlists a number of topics which Member States are encouragedto undertake research on3.
As scientific methodology and evidence has advancedconsiderably over the last 25 years, and as new challengesemerged (e.g. climate change), the European Commission andthe European Partnership of BirdLife International see the needof defining new research priorities under the Birds Directive.In BirdLife International identifies the following priorities forfuture research:
1. Sustainable long-term monitoringBirdLife International is among those NGOs that have beensupporting long term monitoring schemes across severalEuropean countries, through its network of staff and skilledvolunteers. The critical importance of long-term monitoringschemes and the need for them to be sustained by modestfinancial support is crucial.
As governments are finally realising the value and cost-effectiveness of such schemes, they should acknowledge thatlong-term monitoring is just as important as cutting-edgeresearch, and thus be prepared to commit the very modestsums required to support it. They should also consider thatone of the best ways to improve public awareness ofโandparticipation inโstopping biodiversity decline is toencourage people to get involved in volunteer schemes.
2. Baselines, targets and network coherenceWhile it is beyond doubt that many species are currently atlevels that are probably below the natural carrying capacitiesof their habitats, we have little idea what these actual currentcarrying capacities are. The progressive shift in Natura 2000objectivesโfrom establishing the network to maintainingitโmeans we need research on how to set the right targetsโat species population level, site level and network level.
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4021
![Page 29: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
22
REPORTING: ARTICLE 12
Article 12 of the Birds Directive requires Member States tosubmit a report on the implementation of the Birds Directivenationally to the European Commission every three years.Other reporting obligations by the Member States include thearticle 9 report on derogations, which should be submittedannually, and reporting on SPA classifications under article4(3). Once every three years the Commission produces its ownreport on the application of the Directive.
In this section, we present BirdLifeโs views and ideas on howthis reporting should be made more useful:
The main problems in the way the composition report ismade by the Commission are:
โข Long delays in reporting due to delays with national reportsfrom the Member States and due to the procedures set outin article 12(2), which require that parts of the reports shouldbe the Member State in question for verification.
โข Focus on administrative procedures (e.g. classification of sites,legal provisions) and no or limited information onenforcement and impacts of these measures.
The latter is especially problematic because the guiding principlebehind the Directive that Member States are bound to achievingthe desired aim of the Directive, i.e. Favourable ConservationStatus of the species. Therefore, it is important that reportingshould go beyond reporting administrative compliance andshould report on enforcement and effectiveness, too.
BirdLife International suggests addressing these problemsthrough the following measures:Imposing more explicit obligation on the Member States toreport on the performance of the species covered by the Directive.This should be based on relative population estimates in everythree years (see monitoring section above). Populations ofhunted or otherwise utilised species should be monitoredannually including information on the level of takings (bagstatistics). Major assessment of the Conservation Status of birdspecies should take place every ten years including the re-assessment of the distribution of the species. Relevant NGOsshould be involved in reporting at both national andinternational level.
Information on SPAs should be up-dated every three yearsand their conservation conditions should be assessed againstpreset conservation targets. The results of this assessment, andthe targets, should be stored in the Natura 2000 database toallow summarising information at the level of the network. Theinformation should include the latest as well as earlier population
estimates for the site, the status assessment with justification,evaluation of human impacts on the site assessed against theconservation needs of the species and the key managementobjectives for the site and the progress in achieving them.
Regarding species conservation, beyond existinginformation, the reports should include data on enforcement oflegal obligations. This can include information on the maincauses and level of bird mortality caused by human-inducedfactors (such as illegal shooting, poisoning, drawing in fish nets,collision with electrical power lines, etc.), the measures takento eliminate them and their effectiveness. In order to obtain amore objective picture about factors causing UnfavourableConservation Status, Member States should report on thefactors causing Unfavourable Conservation Status of eachrelevant species in their country. This report should refer torelevant scientific evidence. BirdLife expects that this wouldstrengthen the scientific basis of the implementation of theDirective and would result in more targeted conservationactions. It would also help to identify knowledge gaps.
Conclusion:The Commission triennial reports on theimplementation of the Birds Directive arrive lateand are not useful tools for stakeholders andMember States.
THE EU SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTSTRATEGY AND THE 2010 TARGET:THE OUTERMOST REGIONS OF THE EU
The Heads of State in the EU adopted the EU SustainableDevelopment Strategy in the Gothenburg European Councilin 2001. The Strategy among other things sets the target ofhalting biodiversity decline by 2010.
BirdLife International believes that the full implementationof the Birds Directive is an important tool for contributingtowards achieving this target. It also promotes its indicator ofcommon birds as an appropriate indicator for measuringprogress towards this target. However, BirdLife Internationalin this section emphasises a clear difficulty regarding theachievement of this target when one considers the Frenchoutermost regions and the clear contradiction between theirrich biodiversity value and the fact that they are not protectedby the nature Directives, while at the same time they receiveStructural Funds for development (see Box 7).
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Results
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4022
![Page 30: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
23
Box 7. Globally threatened birds in the outermost regions of the EU: the case of the Frenchoverseas departments.
The tropical regions of EuropeFrance is the only Member State of the European Union with regions well beyond the limits ofcontinental Europe, four of which are recognised as integral parts of the EU, situated in the tropicalzone (overseas dรฉpartements: French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Rรฉunion Island). The otherregions include the overseas territories, thus not directly associated with the EU, but linked throughtheir political connection to France (Mayotte, French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna,South Territories, St Pierre et Miquelon, Clipperton). In 2007 however, Mayotte is due to become anoverseas dรฉpartement also. Other EU Member States such as the UK have overseas territories as well,however these are not recognized as integral parts of the EU.
France, together with its overseas dรฉpartements and territories, holds nearly 1,500 species of birds(1,265 breeding species) and is ninth on the list of countries in the world with the highest number ofglobally threatened species (Deceuninck, B. and Duncan, A. 2004a) The situation has worsened since2000, when 64 species were considered globally threatened in France and its overseas territories anddรฉpartements, today the number is 71 (Deceuninck, B. and Duncan, A. 2004b).
As shown below the EU Birds Directive and other environmental legislation do not apply in theseterritories, while on the other hand EU structural and agricultural funding instruments are operatingthere with potential damaging pressure on birds and habitats.
Biodiversity value of French overseas dรฉpartmentsFrance and its four current overseas dรฉpartments: French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, RรฉunionIsland, hold together 1,238 bird species (994 breeding species). Of these, the four overseasdรฉpartements alone hold 918 species (719 regular breeders), which shows their outstandingbiodiversity importance.
Threatened Birds of the World (BirdLife International 2000) lists eight bird species in the Frenchoutermost regions of the EU, which are globally threatened (Table 5). Rรฉunion Island holds fiveglobally threatened species of which four are endemic to the island. Martinique has two globallythreatened species, one of which is endemic. Guadeloupe holds one globally threatened species.French Guiana, on the South American continent, is approximately the size of Portugal and holds oneof the last intact and extensive areas of tropical forest. French Guiana holds as many as 700 birdspecies (621 breeding species), mSore than in all the 25 countries of the European Union puttogether, and this is equivalent to the number of species in the entire Western Palaearctic region.
In addition 13 species are Near-threatened under IUCN criteria (Table 6): eight in French Guiana,two in Rรฉunion Island, three in Guadeloupe, and one in Martinique.
Mayotte which will become part of the EU in 2007, holds a further two globally threatened species.See Figure 7 for the distribution of globally threatened and near threatened species in the differentdรฉpartments.
Three out of four of these dรฉpartements are islands (Guadeloupe, Martinique and Rรฉunion Island, plusMayotte in 2007) so limited in area, with fragile environments in the tropical zone.
Of these 21 priority species (8 threatened and 13 Near-threatened), a relatively large proportion havea limited distribution. They are either endemic (6; plus 1 in Mayotte) or show a restricted range (1)world distribution < 50,000 kmยฒ (Stattersfield et al. 1998).
The 12 endemic and 21 restricted range species present today are the remainder of a more diverseavifauna in these French dรฉpartements, as 13 endemic and two restricted range species are no longerpresent; 14 of them are extinct (12 e + 2r) since 17th century.
The EU Nature Directives do not apply in the tropical outermost regions of EuropeThe overseas dรฉpartements of France are recognised as an integral part of the EU and categorised asโoutermost regionsโ. The outermost regions of the EU also include the Canary Islands (Spain),together with the Azores and Madeira (Portugal). The policies of the EU are not applied equally inthese outermost regions. The Spanish and Portuguese outermost regions are fully integrated into theEuropean Union, socially, economically and environmentally, whereas the French outermost regionslack environmental integration at the European level, which means that currently neither the BirdsDirective 79/409/EEC nor the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC apply. The annexes of the two directivesonly cover the flora and fauna of continental Europe and the islands belonging to Spain and Portugal.
However, exceptions are made within the economic rules of the EU for these regions in order toenable them to compete in the European market within which they are integrated. These regionsreceive Structural Funds as all underdeveloped regions of the EU and are classed as Objective 1regions under the 2000โ2006 funding round. Agriculture is also subsidised under the CommonAgricultural Policy (CAP), for the tropical products, such as sugar cane and bananas, which arealready produced in large quantities (with little or no subsidy), in neighbouring ACP (Africa,Caribbean, Pacific) countries.
In the face of the EU commitment to halt biodiversity loss by 2010, as agreed by Heads of State in2001 and reaffirmed in June 2004, it will be interesting to see how the EU will achieve this in theseoutermost regions under European responsibility and yet with no European environmental legislationand under pressure from rapid development fuelled by European Structural and Agricultural funds.
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ results
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4023
![Page 31: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
24
Table 6. List of Near-threatened species at a world levelregularly present in the French overseas dรฉpartements.Status: n: non-breeding; e: endemic species; r: restricted-range species; BirdLife International 2000.
French GuianaOrinoco Goose Neochen jubata
Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis nSolitary Eagle Harpyhaliaetus solitarius
Harpy Eagle Harpia harpyjaBlue-cheeked Amazon Amazona dufresniana
Crested Eagle Morphnus guianensisGreat-billed Seed-finch Oryzoborus maximiliani
Bearded Tachuri Polystictus pectoralis
Rรฉunion Island
Northern Giant-petrel Macronectes halli nMascarene Swiftlet Collocalia francica r
GuadeloupeCaribbean Coot Fulica caribaea nWhite-crowned Pigeon Columba leucocephalaGuadeloupe Woodpecker Melanerpes herminieri e
MartiniqueCaribbean Coot Fulica caribaea n
Mayotte (in 2007)Comoro Olive-pigeon Columba pollenii e
Conclusion:The outermost regions of France have enormousbiodiversity value, more than the whole of theEuropean Union of 25 combined. The biodiversityin these regions is put in danger by economicdevelopment through structural funds andagricultural funds, while at the same time the natureDirectives of the European Union do not apply.
0 2 4 6 8 10
Martinique
Guadeloupe
(Mayotte)
Rรฉunion
French Guiana
Species
Near Threatened
Vulnerable
EndangeredCritically
Figure 7. Distribution of the number of globally threatenedspecies, and near threatened (NT) species in the Frenchoverseas dรฉpartements.
Table 5. List of globally threatened bird species regularlypresent in the current overseas dรฉpartements of France(Guadeloupe, Martinique, Rรฉunion Island), and in Mayotte,and their IUCN threat level (CR: Critical, EN: Endangered,VU: Vulnerable. e: endemic endemic species, n: nonbreeding species); source: BirdLife International 2000.
Rรฉunion IslandMascarene Black Petrel Pseudobulweria aterrima CR eBarauโs Petrel Pterodroma baraui EN eRรฉunion Harrier Circus maillardi EN eRรฉunion Cuckoo-shrike Coracina newtoni EN eMadagascar Pond-heron Ardeola idae EN
Guadeloupe
Forest Thrush Cichlherminia lherminieri VU
Martinique
White-breasted Thrasher Ramphocinclus brachyurus ENMartinique Oriole Icterus bonana VU e
Mayotte (in 2007)
Mayotte Drongo Dicrurus waldenii EN eMadagascar Pond-heron Ardeola idae EN n (also in Rรฉunion)
Madagascar Heron Ardea humbloti EN n
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Results
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4024
![Page 32: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
25
The status of birds in Europe is worsening. When looking at theEuropean Union alone, the overall situation seems more stable.This can be seen as a clear success of the EU Birds Directive.
However, a more detailed assessment shows that many birdspecies are in deep trouble also in the EU. This can be partlydue to the fact that the Birds Directive is not implemented fullyacross the EU, and partly because other EU policies, such asthe Common Agricultural (CAP) and transport policies, runcounter to the objectives of the Directive. There could also befactors operating outside the borders of the European Unionon which currently the EU has no influence. The most positivemessages identified in this review relate to Annex I species, i.e.those species, which are subject of special measures under theDirective. This is in general encouraging for the effectivenessof the Directive.
The LIFE Nature fund has made a significant contributionto the success of the Birds Directive. Its continuation or theestablishment of an equivalent financing instrument, targetedspecifically to nature conservation, is crucial for addressing thechallenges of the future.
Overall this review reinforces the need to fully implementall provisions of the Birds and Habitats Directives across the25 European Union Member States and the need to fullyintegrate the provisions of these Directives in other EU policies,like the CAP, transport, regional development, energy andothers. Finally, it also highlights the importance of takingmeasures for birds outside the EU borders.
POPULATIONS OF ALL BIRDS: ARTICLES 2AND 3 OF THE BIRDS DIRECTIVE
โ โ โ โ โ Population trends in different habitatsThis assessment tends to suggest that measures taken for speciesoccurring in marine and coastal habitats, inland wetlands,Mediterranean forests and montane grasslands in the EU15have benefited these species.
In particular, inland wetlands are a type of habitat that isrelatively well protected by SPA classification so, although itcannot be confirmed, it is possible that these increases are
associated with SPA classification (see also the case study onItalian Herons in the chapter Results, Box 5). It is generallymore difficult to suggest which factor is responsible for thepositive changes in Mediterranean forests and montanegrasslands.
โ โ โ โ โ Farmland birdsThe decline of farmland birds is an issue that deserves attentionat EU level. From new data collected by BirdLife it is clearthat the decline in farmland bird continues.
BirdLife recognises the importance of โGreening the CAPโand is committed to working in order to ensure that CAPsubsidies do not damage biodiversity but act as subsidies forsupporting a healthy environment full of biodiversity.
BirdLife International calls for:
โข Effective integration of the objectives of the Birds andHabitats Directives in the Common Agricultural Policy inorder to address the issue of decline of farmland birds.
SPAS, ANNEX I AND MIGRANTS: ARTICLE 4 OFTHE BIRDS DIRECTIVE
Most of the positive messages in this review are linked to AnnexI species and species with an international Species Action Plan.This reinforces the need to fully implement the provisions ofthe Directive, including completing the classification of the SPAnetwork, and the subsequent management and monitoring ofthose sites.
BirdLife International calls for:
โข All IBAs to be classified as Special Protection Areas (SPAs)in the European Union.
Looking at the Conservation Status of all species at Pan-European and at EU25 level it is clear that there are currently100 species at Pan-European level and 90 on EU25, whichqualify as having Unfavourable Conservation Status but arenot listed on Annex I of the Birds Directive.
โ โ โ โ โ CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4025
![Page 33: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
26
BirdLife International calls for:
โข The list of species with Unfavourable Conservation Statusin this publication to be considered in possible future reviewsof the Annex I list of the Birds Directive.
โ โ โ โ โ Species with a Species Action Plan (SAP)The overall success of species with SAPs reinforces those plansas an appropriate means of planning necessary action forthreatened species. The fact that actions prescribed by theseplans were also specifically financed by the LIFE financialinstrument also contributes to their success.
BirdLife International calls for:
โข Full implementation, including financing, of the SpeciesAction Plans.
โข The updating of the list of priority species for funding underthe LIFE instrument (or equivalent) at EU level, taking intoaccount the results of this review. For example, all SPEC1species including those newly classified should be priorityspecies for funding.
โ โ โ โ โ Long distance migrants decliningThe fact that long distance migrants are declining is alarming,and could be linked to events taking place during their stay ontheir wintering grounds although at this stage of the analysis itwas not possible to determine this. However, it highlights theneed for the EU to look beyond its borders when it comes toprotecting certain species, as actions on EU territory might notbe enough to ensure their Favourable Conservation Status inthe long term.
BirdLife International calls for:
โข The EU to take actions beyond its borders in order toinvestigate and if appropriate, address the declines of long-distance migrants.
TRADE OF WILD BIRDS: ARTICLE 6 OF THEBIRDS DIRECTIVE
BirdLife International calls for:
โข The success of controlling illegal trade of wild birds (i.e.trade not allowed according to the Birds Directive) shouldbe continued and strengthened in order to eliminate alloccurrences across the EU 25.
HUNTING: ARTICLE 7 OF THE BIRDS DIRECTIVE
The increased number of Annex II species with UnfavourableConservation Status is of considerable concern. It now seemsthat consideration should be given to producing plans also forthe new species that have Unfavourable Conservation Status,as well as completing the old. Member States, Commission,hunters and conservationists will have to work together in allcountries to reverse those negative trends otherwise hunting ofthese species will become unsustainable.
BirdLife International calls for:
โข For the completion of the species management plans for allAnnex II species with Unfavourable Conservation Status.
โข Upon Member States, Commission, hunters andconservationists to work together to reverse those trends.
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Conclusions and recommendations
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4026
![Page 34: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
27
4. This includes, for example, the objectives set out in the EU Biodiversity Strategy, and targets set under the 6th Community Environment Action Programme (and reinforced by theEuropean Council at its meetings in Gothenburg, June 2001 and Brussels, March 2003).
MONITORING UNDER ARTICLE 4 OF THEBIRDS DIRECTIVE AND ARTICLE 6 OF THEHABITATS DIRECTIVE
Because of the importance of the Birds Directive for the EUbiodiversity policy, monitoring of bird populations is anessential tool of good governance and the Commission and theMember States should set in place systems which will be ableto provide information to enable judgements concerning:
โข how effectively the nature directives are delivering theiroverall goals;
โข appropriate priorities for actions to improve performanceunder the nature directives; and
โข the extent to which achievements through implementationof the nature directives contribute to broader biodiversityconservation objectives within the EU4.
The preconditions for assessment of SPAs are that adequateinformation is available at community level. This would requirethat:
โข Member States set up or support surveillance and monitoringschemes which assess SPAs against their objectives (e.g.targets and site specific indicators are identified for the speciesthe site is classified for) covering all SPAs.
โข The Natura 2000 database is redesigned to supportmonitoring and periodic assessment of site conditions.
โข Complex data are summarised into simple scores.
BirdLife believes that long-term partnership between nationalbird conservation NGOs and the competent national authoritiesis the best way to engage citizens in monitoring of species andsites.
RESEARCH: ARTICLE 10 AND ANNEX V OF THEBIRDS DIRECTIVE
BirdLife International calls on governments to promote andsupport:
โข Financially long-term monitoring schemes and to encourageIntegrated Population Monitoring Schemes, which cancombine and promote the results of detailed scientific studieswith data from e.g. bird ringing, hunting bags and citizenscience.
โข Research programmes in order to set baselines, targets andinvestigate network coherence. Research could help bymobilising and synthesising the large amounts of existinghistorical data, and then using modelling approaches tocalculate meaningful baselines and set realistic targets, basedon different scenarios. Without such targets, it is oftendifficult for politicians or the public to attach much meaningto the data provided by monitoring schemes.
โข Development of predictive modelling for the effect of issueslike climate change on biodiversity. We need much moresystematically-recorded data, collected synchronously usingstandardised methods, to provide the raw material for testingand verifying models e.g. how can we accommodate the
predicted species redistributions in the existing Natura 2000network. Similarly, models could be applied to supportenvironmental assessment of policy changes including thereform of the Common Agricultural Policy.
โข Gap analysis and prioritisation. Considerable detailedautecological research has been carried out but is oftendifficult to access. It is essential that this existing science isinventoried, reviewed and presented in a non-technical andaccessible way. We need mechanisms to promote effectiveinformation exchange and technology transfer betweenresearchers in different countries, e.g. user-driven databasesof publications on the ecology, declines and recoveries ofparticular species or communities. As well as helping toprevent wastage in terms of repetition, this would also helpto focus new research projects on really policy-relevantissues.
โข Habitat management for biodiversity research into farmlandbird declines have successfully pinpointed the needs ofspecies, the causes of their declines, and how to reverse thesewith practical measures and changes in policy, i.e. agri-environment schemes. This approach should now beextended to other habitat types and ecosystems, bothterrestrial and aquatic. Such research should aim to developan evidence-based approach to biodiversity management.
REPORTING: ARTICLE 12
BirdLife International calls on governments:
โข To use the indicators suggested by BirdLife Internationalfor monitoring common birds, sites and threatened birds intheir regular reports to the European Commission everythree years.
BirdLife International calls on the European Commission:
โข To create a new up-graded Natura 2000 barometer whichwill focus on the โhealthโ of Natura 2000 sites instead oftheir designation.
THE EU SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTSTRATEGY AND THE 2010 TARGET
The outermost regions of France have enormous biodiversityvalue, more than the whole of the European Union of 25combined. The biodiversity in these regions is put in danger byeconomic development through structural funds andagricultural funds, while at the same time the nature Directivesof the European Union do not apply.
BirdLife International calls for:
โข The development of special legislation, with adequatefinancial resources, to protect birds and other wildlife inthe biodiversity rich tropical outermost regions of the EU.
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Conclusions and recommendations
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4027
![Page 35: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
28
โ โ โ โ โ SPECIES TABLESTable 1. List of all bird species occurring regularly in the European Union and their Conservation Status.
EU25 wintering 1970โ1990 1970โ1990 1990โ2000 1990โ2000EU25 breeding population size EU25 breeding EU25 winter EU25 breeding EU25 winter EU25 Cpopulation size (min. individuals, population population population population Threat
Scientific name (pairs, unless stated) unless stated) trend trend trend trend Status
Gavia stellata 3,000โ4,000 51,000 Moderate decline Stable Stable Stable Rare
Gavia arctica 14,000โ17,000 8,300 Moderate decline Stable Moderate increase Stable Depleted Modera
Gavia immer โ 4,200 โ Stable โ Stable Secureโผ
Tachybaptus ruficollis 53,000โ93,000 45,000 Stable Stable Stable Moderate increase Secure
Podiceps cristatus 140,000โ210,000 140,000 Large increase Moderate increase Moderate decline Moderate increase Secure
Podiceps grisegena 14,000โ20,000 1,500 Large increase Stable Stable Moderate increase Secure
Podiceps auritus 3,300โ5,700 1,800 Large decline Stable Large decline Stable Vulnerable
Podiceps nigricollis 9,100โ13,000 43,000 Moderate decline Stable Moderate decline Moderate increase Declining Modera
Fulmarus glacialis 540,000โ540,000 โ Large increase โ Stable โ Secure
Pterodroma madeira 30โ40 โ Stable โ Stable โ Critically Endangered
Pterodroma feae 170โ260 โ Stable โ Stable โ Vulnerable
Bulweria bulwerii 7,000โ9,000 โ Moderate decline โ Stable โ Depleted Modera
Calonectris diomedea 260,000โ280,000 โ Large decline โ Moderate decline โ Vulnerable
Puffinus gravis โ โ โ โ โ โ โ
Puffinus griseus โ โ โ โ โ โ โ
Puffinus puffinus 320,000โ360,000 โ Stable โ Unknown โ Localised โฅ90%
Puffinus mauretanicus 1,700โ2,000 โ Moderate decline โ Large decline โ Critically Endangered A4b,c
Puffinus yelkouan 13,000โ23,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Puffinus assimilis 5,200โ6,900 โ Moderate decline โ Stable โ Depleted Modera
Pelagodroma marina 61,000โ61,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Vulnerable
Hydrobates pelagicus 130,000โ150,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Oceanodroma leucorhoa 37,000โ65,000 โ Stable โ Unknown โ Localised โฅ90%
Oceanodroma castro 3,700โ4,800 โ Moderate decline โ Stable โ Rare
Morus bassanus 270,000โ270,000 โ Large increase โ Large increase โ Secure
Phalacrocorax carbo 150,000โ160,000 260,000 Large increase Large increase Large increase Large increase Secure
Phalacrocorax aristotelis 46,000โ47,000 3,000 Large increase Stable Moderate decline Stable Secure
Phalacrocorax pygmeus 1,400โ1,600 35,000 Stable Large increase Moderate increase Stable Rare
Pelecanus onocrotalus 50โ100 โ Large decline โ Stable โ Rareโผโผ
Pelecanus crispus 500โ550 โ Large increase โ Moderate increase โ Rare
Botaurus stellaris 7,900โ10,000 โ Moderate decline โ Stable โ Depleted Modera
Ixobrychus minutus 9,400โ15,000 โ Large decline โ Stable โ Depleted Large
Nycticorax nycticorax 23,000โ30,000 โ Large increase โ Stable โ Secure
Ardeola ralloides 2,200โ3,000 โ Moderate decline โ Stable โ Rare
Bubulcus ibis 50,000โ140,000 60,000 Large increase Large increase Moderate increase Large increase Secure
Egretta garzetta 39,000โ54,000 โ Large increase โ Moderate increase โ Secure
Casmerodius albus 2,500โ4,000 โ Moderate increase โ Large increase โ Secureโผ
Ardea cinerea 130,000โ160,000 73,000 Large increase Large increase Large increase Large increase Secure
Ardea purpurea 7,800โ9,200 โ Large decline โ Stable โ Depleted Large
Ciconia nigra 4,200โ6,000 โ Large increase โ Stable โ Rare
Ciconia ciconia 100,000โ110,000 โ Large decline โ Large increase โ Depleted Large
Plegadis falcinellus 560โ660 โ Large decline โ Large increase โ Rare
Platalea leucorodia 3,400โ5,700 โ Moderate increase โ Large increase โ Rare
Phoenicopterus roseus 41,000โ42,000 66,000 Large increase Large increase Large increase Large increase Localised โฅ90%
Cygnus olor 68,000โ92,000 220,000 Moderate increase Large increase Large increase Stable Secure
Cygnus columbianus 1โ1 23,000 โ Moderate increase New breeder Large decline Vulnerable
Cygnus cygnus 6,400โ8,000 56,000 Large increase Moderate increase Large increase Large increase Secure
Anser fabalis 2,300โ3,200 380,000 Stable Large increase Stable Stable Secureโผ
Anser brachyrhynchus โ 290,000 โ Large increase โ Large increase Secure
Anser albifrons โ 930,000 โ Large increase โ Stable Secure
Anser erythropus 0โ5 [5โ10*] [140*] Large decline Large decline Large decline Stable Critically Endangered C
Anser anser 65,000โ87,000 350,000 Large increase Large increase Large increase Large increase Secure
Branta leucopsis 5,900โ7,600 370,000 Large increase Large increase Large increase Large increase Secure
Branta bernicla โ 240,000 โ Large increase โ Large decline Vulnerable
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4028
![Page 36: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
29
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Species tables
2004 Global % European % Global2004 IUCN population population
Criteria met in 2004 EU25 Pan-European 2004 Red List in EU25 in EU25 Birds Birds Birds NotesEU25 (IUCN Conservation Conservation SPEC Category & (breeding (breeding Directive Directive Directive (e.g. Annexand others) Status Status Category Criteria unless stated) unless stated) Annex I Annex II Annex III restrictions) Common name
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 4โ9 <5 I โ โ Red-throated Loon
Moderate historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 18โ27 5โ24 I โ โ Arctic Loon
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ <5 winter <5 winter I โ โ Common Loon
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 54โ55 5โ24 โ โ โ Little Grebe
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 47 25โ49 โ โ โ Great Crested Grebe
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 36โ44 5โ24 โ โ โ Red-necked Grebe
A2b; C1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 52 <5 I โ โ Horned Grebe
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 14โ17 <5 โ โ โ Black-necked Grebe
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 12โ19 5โ24 โ โ โ Northern Fulmar
D1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 CR: D1 100 100 I โ โ Zinoโs Petrel
D1; D2 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 NT: D1; D2 100 25โ49 I โ โ Feaโs Petrel
Moderate historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 100 5โ24 I โ โ Bulwerโs Petrel
A4b Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 96โ97 75โ94 I โ โ Coryโs Shearwater
โ Not assessed* Not assessed [n/a] โ โ โ โ โ โ * Passage migrant only Great Shearwater
โ Unfavourable* Unfavourable SPEC 1 NT: A2d,e; A3d,e โ โ โ โ โ * Passage migrant only; Sooty Shearwaterglobally Near Threatened
โฅ90% breed at โค10 sites Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 91โ92 75โ94 โ โ โ Manx Shearwater
A4b,c,e; B2a+b(ii,iii,iv,v) Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 CR: A4b,c,e; B2a+b(ii,iii,iv,v) 100 100 I โ โ Balearic Shearwater
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 75โ94 75โ94 I โ โ Yelkouan Shearwater
Moderate historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 100 5โ24 I โ โ Little Shearwater
D2 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 100 5โ24 I โ โ White-faced Storm-petrel
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 29โ30 25โ49 I โ โ European Storm-petrel
โฅ90% breed at โค10 sites Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 30โ31 5โ24 I โ โ Leachโs Storm-petrel
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 100 25โ49 I โ โ Band-rumped Storm-petrel
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 87โ90 75โ94 โ โ โ Northern Gannet
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 43โ48 25โ49 โ โ โ Great Cormorant
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 58โ61 50โ74 I * โ โ * P. a. desmarestii only European Shag
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 NT: A2c; A3c 4โ5 5โ24 I โ โ Pygmy Cormorant
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 1โ2 <5 I โ โ Great White Pelican
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 VU: A2c; A3c 28โ31 5โ24 I โ โ Dalmatian Pelican
Moderate historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 19โ23 5โ24 I โ โ Great Bittern
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 13โ16 5โ24 I โ โ Little Bittern
โ Favourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 34โ37 5โ24 I โ โ Black-crowned Night- heron
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 11โ12 <5 I โ โ Squacco Heron
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 93 5โ24 โ โ โ Cattle Egret
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 57 5โ24 I โ โ Little Egret
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 17โ23 <5 I โ โ Great Egret
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 55โ62 5โ24 โ โ โ Grey Heron
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 22โ27 5โ24 I โ โ Purple Heron
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 50โ54 25โ49 I โ โ Black Stork
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 50โ56 50โ74 I โ โ White Stork
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 3โ4 <5 I โ โ Glossy Ibis
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 38 5โ24 I โ โ Eurasian Spoonbill
โฅ90% breed at โค10 sites Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 72โ73 5โ24 I โ โ Greater Flamingo
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 77โ79 25โ49 โ II/2 โ Mute Swan
A2b Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3W โ <1 <5 I โ โ Tundra Swan
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECEW โ 38โ40 5โ24 I โ โ Whooper Swan
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECEW โ <5 <5 โ II/1 โ Bean Goose
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 100 winter 100 winter โ II/2 โ Pink-footed Goose
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 75โ94 winter 25โ49 winter I * II/2 III/2 ** * A. a. flavirostris only; Greater White-fronted** A. a. albifrons only Goose
C1; C2a(i); D1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 VU: A2b,c,d; A3b,c,d 2 <5 I โ โ * Reintroduced Lesser White-frontedpopulations Goose
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 46โ54 5โ24 โ II/1 III/2 Greylag Goose
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 14 5โ24 I โ โ Barnacle Goose
A2b Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3W 7 โ 100 winter 25โ49 winter โ II/2 โ Brent Goose
See page 48 for explanations related to this table.
... continued on next page
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4029
![Page 37: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
30
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Species tables
Branta ruficollis โ 2,300 โ Stable โ Stable Localised โฅ90%
Tadorna ferruginea 18โ47 150 Large decline Large increase Stable Stable Critically Endangered
Tadorna tadorna 31,000โ45,000 270,000 Large increase Large increase Stable Moderate decline Secure
Anas penelope 70,000โ120,000 1,600,000 Large increase Moderate increase Stable Stable Secure
Anas strepera 20,000โ28,000 79,000 Moderate increase Moderate increase Moderate increase Large increase Secure
Anas crecca 220,000โ360,000 570,000 Stable Stable Stable Stable Secure
Anas platyrhynchos 1,600,000โ2,800,000 2,900,000 Stable Stable Stable Stable Secure
Anas acuta 16,000โ27,000 97,000 Large decline Large decline Moderate decline Moderate decline Declining Moderat
Anas querquedula 14,000โ23,000 โ Large decline โ Large decline โ Vulnerable
Anas clypeata 30,000โ38,000 140,000 Stable Moderate increase Moderate decline Moderate decline Declining Mode
Marmaronetta angustirostris 30โ210 220 max Large decline Large decline Stable Large increase Endangered
Netta rufina 4,200โ12,000 13,000 Large increase Stable Unknown Moderate increase Secureโผ
Aythya ferina 69,000โ110,000 440,000 Stable Stable Moderate decline Moderate decline Declining Mode
Aythya nyroca 850โ1,600 150 Stable Large decline Moderate decline Stable Vulnerable
Aythya fuligula 180,000โ290,000 970,000 Stable Moderate increase Moderate decline Moderate decline Declining Mode
Aythya marila 1,200โ2,200 100,000 Large decline Stable Large decline Large decline Endangered
Somateria mollissima 490,000โ610,000 880,000 Large increase Large increase Moderate increase Moderate decline Secure
Polysticta stelleri โ 3,100 โ Large increase โ Stable Localised โฅ90%
Clangula hyemalis 2,500โ4,000 2,000,000 Stable Moderate increase Stable Stable Secureโผ
Melanitta nigra 2,700โ5,200 610,000 Stable Stable Stable Stable Secureโผ
Melanitta fusca 25,000โ31,000 110,000 Moderate decline Stable Moderate decline Moderate decline Declining Moderat
Bucephala clangula 280,000โ360,000 270,000 Large increase Moderate increase Moderate increase Stable Secure
Mergellus albellus 1,300โ2,400 11,000 Large increase Moderate decline Stable Stable Rare
Mergus serrator 50,000โ67,000 52,000 Stable Stable Stable Stable Secure
Mergus merganser 37,000โ59,000 140,000 Moderate increase Stable Moderate decline Stable Secure
Oxyura leucocephala 250โ1,000 680 Large increase Stable Large increase Large increase Vulnerable
Pernis apivorus 36,000โ52,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Elanus caeruleus 810โ2,000 โ Large increase โ Stable โ Rare
Milvus migrans 30,000โ44,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Milvus milvus 18,000โ23,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Haliaeetus albicilla 1,500โ1,700 3,500 Large increase Moderate increase Large increase Large increase Rare
Gypaetus barbatus 130โ130 โ Large increase โ Large increase โ Vulnerable
Neophron percnopterus 1,600โ1,800 โ Large decline โ Large decline โ Endangered
Gyps fulvus 18,000โ19,000 โ Large increase โ Large increase โ Secure
Aegypius monachus 1,400โ1,400 โ Large increase โ Large increase โ Rare
Circaetus gallicus 5,400โ7,500 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Circus aeruginosus 29,000โ39,000 โ Moderate increase โ Moderate increase โ Secure
Circus cyaneus 11,000โ18,000 Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Circus pygargus 9,400โ21,000 โ Moderate decline โ Moderate increase โ Secure
Accipiter gentilis 46,000โ70,000 โ Large increase โ Moderate decline โ Secure
Accipiter nisus 150,000โ220,000 โ Large increase โ Stable โ Secure
Accipiter brevipes 1,000โ2,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Rare
Buteo buteo 410,000โ590,000 โ Stable โ Moderate increase โ Secure
Buteo rufinus 210โ330 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secureโผโผ
Buteo lagopus 2,500โ9,000 54,000 Stable Stable Stable Stable Secureโผ
Aquila pomarina 7,000โ10,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Aquila clanga 30โ50 โ Large decline โ Stable โ Endangered
Aquila heliaca 87โ110 โ Large increase โ Large increase โ Rareโผโผ
Aquila adalberti 180โ180 โ Large increase โ Stable โ Endangered
Aquila chrysaetos 4,100โ4,500 Moderate decline โ Stable โ Rare
Hieraaetus pennatus 2,700โ5,800 โ Stable โ Unknown โ Rare
Hieraaetus fasciatus 880โ1,000 โ Large decline โ Large decline โ Endangered
Pandion haliaetus 5,300โ6,300 โ Large increase โ Moderate increase โ Secure
Falco naumanni 18,000โ28,000 โ Large decline โ Stable โ Depleted Large
Falco tinnunculus 240,000โ350,000 โ Moderate decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Modera
Falco vespertinus 890โ1,700 โ Large decline โ Large decline โ Endangered
Falco columbarius 7,600โ10,000 โ Moderate decline โ Stable โ Depleted Modera
Falco subbuteo 27,000โ40,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Falco eleonorae 5,800โ6,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Falco biarmicus 140โ200 โ Large decline โ Moderate decline โ Vulnerable
Falco cherrug 160โ220 โ Large increase โ Large increase โ Vulnerable
Table 1...continued. List of all bird species occurring regularly in the European Union and their Conservation Status.
EU25 wintering 1970โ1990 1970โ1990 1990โ2000 1990โ2000EU25 breeding population size EU25 breeding EU25 winter EU25 breeding EU25 winter EU25 Cpopulation size (min. individuals, population population population population Threat
Scientific name (pairs, unless stated) unless stated) trend trend trend trend Status
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4030
![Page 38: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
31
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Species tables
โฅ90% winter at โค10 sites Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1W VU: B2a+b(iii) 5โ24 winter 5โ24 winter I โ โ Red-breasted Goose
D1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ <1 <5 I โ โ Ruddy Shelduck
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 69โ74 5โ24 โ โ โ Common Shelduck
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECEW โ 23โ33 5โ24 โ II/1 III/2 Eurasian Wigeon
โ Favourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 29โ33 <5 โ II/1 โ Gadwall
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 24โ30 5โ24 โ II/1 III/2 Eurasian Teal
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 48โ55 5โ24 โ II/1 III/1 Mallard
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 5โ8 <5 โ II/1 III/2 Northern Pintail
A2b Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 4 <5 โ II/1 โ Garganey
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 18 <5 โ II/1 III/2 Northern Shoveler
D1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 VU: A2c,d; A3c,d 8โ21 <5 I โ โ Marbled Teal
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 16โ20 5โ24 โ II/2 โ Red-crested Pochard
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 25โ33 5โ24 โ II/1 III/2 Common Pochard
C1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 NT: A2c,d; A3c,d 7โ9 <5 I โ โ Ferruginous Duck
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 25โ33 5โ24 โ II/1 III/2 Tufted Duck
A2b; C1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3W โ 1 <5 โ II/2 III/2 Greater Scaup
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 51โ58 25โ49 โ II/2 III/2 Common Eider
โฅ90% winter at โค10 sites Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3W โ 25โ49 winter <5 winter I โ โ Stellerโs Eider
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ <1 <5 โ II/2 โ Long-tailed Duck
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 3โ4 <5 โ II/2 III/2 Black Scoter
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 29โ31 <5 โ II/2 โ White-winged Scoter
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 57โ61 25โ49 โ II/2 โ Common Goldeneye
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 25โ29 <5 I โ โ Smew
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 56โ68 25โ49 โ II/2 โ Red-breasted Merganser
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 79โ80 5โ24 โ II/2 โ Common Merganser
A3e; D1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 EN: A2b,c,d,e 45โ71 5โ24 I โ โ White-headed Duck
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 33 25โ49 I โ โ European Honey-buzzard
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 100 <5 I โ โ Black-winged Kite
โ Favourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 44โ47 5โ24 I โ โ Black Kite
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 92โ95 75โ94 I โ โ Red Kite
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 NT: C2a(i) 26โ30 25โ49 I โ โ White-tailed Eagle
D1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 13โ21 5โ24 I โ โ Lammergeier
A4b Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 32โ46 5โ24 I โ โ Egyptian Vulture
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 90โ95 25โ49 I โ โ Eurasian Griffon
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 NT: C1 74โ78 25โ49 I โ โ Cinereous Vulture
โ Favourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 58โ64 25โ49 I โ โ Short-toed Snake-eagle
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 28โ31 5โ24 I โ โ Western Marsh-harrier
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 31โ34 <5 I โ โ Northern Harrier
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 27โ32 5โ24 I โ โ Montaguโs Harrier
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 29โ33 5โ24 I * โ โ * A. g. arrigonii only Northern Goshawk
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 44โ49 5โ24 I * โ โ * A. n. granti only Eurasian Sparrowhawk
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 26โ31 5โ24 I โ โ Levant Sparrowhawk
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 49โ58 5โ24 โ โ โ Common Buzzard
โ Favourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 2 <5 I โ โ Long-legged Buzzard
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 7โ11 <5 โ โ โ Rough-legged Hawk
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 50โ53 25โ49 I โ โ Lesser Spotted Eagle
D1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 VU: C1 4โ5 <5 I โ โ Greater Spotted Eagle
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 VU: C1 8โ10 5โ24 I โ โ Imperial Eagle
C1; C2a(i) Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 EN: C1; C2a(i) 100 100 I โ โ Spanish Imperial Eagle
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 41โ49 5โ24 I โ โ Golden Eagle
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 61โ65 5โ24 I โ โ Booted Eagle
C1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 91โ96 5โ24 I โ โ Bonelliโs Eagle
โ Favourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 57โ70 <5 I โ โ Osprey
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 VU: A2b,c,e; A3b,c,e 67โ72 25โ49 I โ โ Lesser Kestrel
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 70โ73 5โ24 โ โ โ Common Kestrel
C1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 3โ4 <5 I โ โ Red-footed Falcon
Moderate historical decline Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 20โ25 <5 I โ โ Merlin
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 33โ38 5โ24 โ โ โ Eurasian Hobby
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 97โ98 75โ94 I โ โ Eleonoraโs Falcon
C1; D1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 22โ29 <5 I โ โ Lanner Falcon
D1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 EN: A2b,c,d; A3b,c,d 41โ44 <5 I โ โ Saker Falcon
2004 Global % European % Global2004 IUCN population population
Criteria met in 2004 EU25 Pan-European 2004 Red List in EU25 in EU25 Birds Birds Birds NotesEU25 (IUCN Conservation Conservation SPEC Category & (breeding (breeding Directive Directive Directive (e.g. Annexand others) Status Status Category Criteria unless stated) unless stated) Annex I Annex II Annex III restrictions) Common name
... continued on next page
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4031
![Page 39: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
32
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Species tables
Falco rusticolus 110โ170 โ Stable โ Stable โ Rareโผโผ
Falco peregrinus 7,400โ8,800 โ Moderate increase โ Moderate increase โ Secure
Falco pelegrinoides 75โ75 โ Stable โ Large increase โ Secureโผโผโผ
Bonasa bonasia 470,000โ760,000 โ Moderate decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Modera
Lagopus lagopus 310,000โ680,000 โ Large decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Modera
Lagopus mutus 70,000โ130,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Tetrao tetrix 550,000โ820,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Tetrao urogallus 300,000โ430,000 โ Moderate decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Modera
Alectoris chukar 110,000โ210,000 โ Large decline โ Stable โ Depleted Large
Alectoris graeca 20,000โ37,000 โ Large decline โ Stable โ Depleted Large
Alectoris rufa 2,000,000โ4,500,000 โ Large decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Modera
Alectoris barbara 7,500โ20,000 โ Large decline โ Unknown โ Depleted Large
Francolinus francolinus 2,000โ5,000 โ Large decline โ Moderate increase โ Rare
Perdix perdix 720,000โ1,700,000 โ Large decline โ Large decline โ Vulnerable
Coturnix coturnix 640,000โ1,300,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Phasianus colchicus 2,900,000โ3,900,000 โ Moderate increase โ Unknown โ Secure
Turnix sylvatica 0โ1 โ Large decline โ Unknown โ Critically Endangered
Rallus aquaticus 71,000โ200,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Porzana porzana 8,400โ16,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Porzana parva 17,000โ30,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Porzana pusilla 11โ110 โ Stable โ Unknown โ Rareโผโผโผ
Crex crex 110,000โ160,000 โ Large decline โ Large increase โ Depleted Large
Gallinula chloropus 690,000โ1,300,000 270,000 Stable Stable Stable Stable Secure
Porphyrio porphyrio 6,900โ7,400 โ Large increase โ Large increase โ Localised โฅ90%
Fulica atra 590,000โ1,100,000 1,500,000 Moderate increase Moderate increase Moderate decline Stable Secure
Fulica cristata 80โ80 30 max Stable Stable Moderate decline Moderate decline Critically Endangered
Grus grus 46,000โ61,000 97,000 Moderate decline Stable Moderate increase Large increase Depleted Modera
Tetrax tetrax 110,000โ280,000 ind โ Large decline โ Large decline โ Vulnerable
Chlamydotis undulata 530โ530 ind โ Stable โ Unknown โ Vulnerable
Otis tarda 25,000โ26,000 ind โ Large decline โ Stable โ Vulnerable
Haematopus ostralegus 240,000โ350,000 840,000 Large increase Moderate increase Moderate decline Moderate decline Secure
Himantopus himantopus 20,000โ30,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Recurvirostra avosetta 30,000โ36,000 41,000 Large increase Moderate decline Stable Moderate increase Secure
Burhinus oedicnemus 39,000โ60,000 โ Large decline โ Large decline โ Vulnerable
Cursorius cursor 100โ600 โ Large decline โ Unknown โ Endangered
Glareola pratincola 5,500โ7,000 โ Moderate decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Modera
Glareola nordmanni 0โ1 โ Unknown โ Stable โ Critically Endangered
Charadrius dubius 40,000โ61,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Charadrius hiaticula 33,000โ51,000 62,000 Stable Stable Stable Stable Secure
Charadrius alexandrinus 11,000โ18,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Eudromias morinellus 4,000โ13,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Vulnerable
Pluvialis apricaria 130,000โ240,000 820,000 Moderate decline Stable Stable Moderate increase Depleted Modera
Pluvialis squatarola โ 120,000 โ Large increase โ Moderate increase Secure
Vanellus spinosus 40โ110 โ Large decline โ Stable โ Rareโผโผ
Vanellus vanellus 830,000โ1,300,000 2,800,000 Large decline Stable Large decline Large increase Vulnerable
Calidris canutus โ 470,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline Declining Mode
Table 1...continued. List of all bird species occurring regularly in the European Union and their Conservation Status.
EU25 wintering 1970โ1990 1970โ1990 1990โ2000 1990โ2000EU25 breeding population size EU25 breeding EU25 winter EU25 breeding EU25 winter EU25 Cpopulation size (min. individuals, population population population population Threat
Scientific name (pairs, unless stated) unless stated) trend trend trend trend Status
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4032
![Page 40: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
33
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Species tables
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 7โ8 <5 I โ โ Gyrfalcon
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 35โ62 <5 I โ โ Peregrine Falcon
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ >95 <5 โ โ โ Barbary Falcon
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 19โ25 5โ24 I II/2 โ Hazel Grouse
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 15โ21 <5 โ II/1 * II/2 ** III/1 *** * L. l. scoticus + Willow PtarmiganL. l. hibernicus
only;** L. l. lagopus
only;*** L. l. lagopus,
scoticus+ hibernicus
only
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 9โ16 <5 I * II/1 III/2 * L. m. pyrenaicus + Rock PtarmiganL. m. helveticus
only
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 22โ26 5โ24 I * II/2 ** III/2 *** * T. t. tetrix Black Grouseonly;
** all others;*** T. t. britannicus
only
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 39โ43 5โ24 I II/2 III/2 Western Capercaillie
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 11โ17 <5 โ II/2 โ Chukar
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 47โ50 25โ49 I * II/1** * A. g. saxatilis + Rock PartridgeA. g. whitakeri
only; ** all others
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 100 100 โ II/1 III/1 Red-legged Partridge
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 100 <5 I II/2 III/1 Barbary Partridge
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 28โ33 <5 โ II/2 โ Black Francolin
A2b Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 45โ55 5โ24 I * II/1 ** III/1 * P .p. italica + Grey PartridgeP. p. hispaniensisonly; ** all others
โ Favourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 23โ28 5โ24 โ II/2 โ Common Quail
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 83โ85 5โ24 โ II/1 III/1 Common Pheasant
D1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 100 <5 I โ โ Small Buttonquail
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 51โ56 5โ24 โ II/2 โ Water Rail
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 6โ7 5โ24 I โ โ Spotted Crake
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 21โ28 5โ24 I โ โ Little Crake
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 1โ3 <5 I โ โ Baillonโs Crake
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 NT: A3c 8 5โ24 I โ โ Corncrake
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 76โ77 5โ24 โ II/2 โ Common Moorhen
โฅ90% breed at โค10 sites Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 21โ53 5โ24 I โ โ Purple Swamphen
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 45โ48 25โ49 โ II/1 III/2 Common Coot
C2a(ii); C2b Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 100 <5 I โ โ Red-knobbed Coot
Moderate historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 55โ62 25โ49 I โ โ Common Crane
A2b Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 NT: A2c,d; A3c,d 92โ93 75โ94 I โ โ Little Bustard
D1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 VU: A2b,c,d; A3b,c,d >95 <5 I โ โ Houbara Bustard
A2b Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 VU: A3c 72โ81 25โ49 I โ โ Great Bustard
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 78โ80 25โ49 โ II/2 โ Eurasian Oystercatcher
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 47โ54 5โ24 I โ โ Black-winged Stilt
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 63โ79 25โ49 I โ โ Pied Avocet
A2b Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 77โ85 25โ49 I โ โ Eurasian Thick-knee
D1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ >95 <5 I โ โ Cream-coloured Courser
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 39โ55 5โ24 I โ โ Collared Pratincole
D1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 DD <1 <5 โ โ โ Black-winged Pratincole
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 25โ36 5โ24 โ โ โ Little Ringed Plover
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 23โ28 25โ49 โ โ โ Common Ringed Plover
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 50โ51 5โ24 I โ โ Kentish Plover
C1 Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 31โ36 5โ24 I โ โ Eurasian Dotterel
Moderate historical decline Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 28โ32 25โ49 I II/2 III/2 Eurasian Golden-plover
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 100 winter 5โ24 winter โ II/2 โ Grey Plover
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 4โ7 <5 I โ โ Spur-winged Lapwing
A2b Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 46โ49 25โ49 โ II/2 โ Northern Lapwing
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3W โ 100 winter 25โ49 winter โ II/2 โ Red Knot
2004 Global % European % Global2004 IUCN population population
Criteria met in 2004 EU25 Pan-European 2004 Red List in EU25 in EU25 Birds Birds Birds NotesEU25 (IUCN Conservation Conservation SPEC Category & (breeding (breeding Directive Directive Directive (e.g. Annexand others) Status Status Category Criteria unless stated) unless stated) Annex I Annex II Annex III restrictions) Common name
... continued on next page
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4033
![Page 41: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
34
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Species tables
Calidris alba โ 47,000 โ Stable โ Large increase Secure
Calidris minuta 0โ5 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secureโผโผโผโผ
Calidris temminckii 6,500โ8,500 โ Large decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Modera
Calidris ferruginea โ โ โ โ โ โ โ
Calidris maritima 1,000โ3,000 22,000 Stable Stable Stable Stable Secureโผ
Calidris alpina 49,000โ85,000 1,300,000 Stable Large decline Moderate decline Moderate decline Declining Moderat
Limicola falcinellus 8,000โ20,000 โ Large decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Philomachus pugnax 51,000โ71,000 โ Large decline โ Large decline โ Vulnerable
Lymnocryptes minimus 12,000โ19,000 11,000 Stable Moderate decline Stable Stable Depleted Modera
Gallinago gallinago 300,000โ450,000 290,000 Moderate decline Stable Moderate decline Large increase Declining Moderat
Gallinago media 2,200โ4,200 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Vulnerable
Scolopax rusticola 460,000โ1,500,000 440,000 Stable Large decline Stable Unknown Depleted Modera
Limosa limosa 60,000โ69,000 60,000 Large decline Stable Large decline Moderate decline Vulnerable
Limosa lapponica 110โ350 120,000 Stable Stable Moderate decline Moderate decline Endangered
Numenius phaeopus 40,000โ61,000 โ Moderate increase โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Numenius tenuirostris โ โ โ โ โ โ โ
Numenius arquata 160,000โ220,000 410,000 Stable Moderate decline Moderate decline Stable Declining Moderat
Tringa erythropus 15,000โ26,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Tringa totanus 100,000โ140,000 170,000 Large decline Stable Moderate decline Stable Declining Moderat
Tringa stagnatilis 13โ40 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secureโผโผโผโผ
Tringa nebularia 46,000โ67,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Tringa ochropus 110,000โ170,000 โ Large increase โ Moderate increase โ Secure
Tringa glareola 250,000โ400,000 โ Large decline โ Stable โ Depleted Large
Xenus cinereus 15โ30 โ Moderate increase โ Moderate decline โ Secureโผโผโผโผ
Actitis hypoleucos 230,000โ430,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Arenaria interpres 6,200โ8,800 77,000 Stable Stable Moderate decline Moderate decline Declining Mode
Phalaropus lobatus 20,000โ45,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Phalaropus fulicarius โ โ โ โ โ โ โ
Stercorarius pomarinus โ โ โ โ โ โ โ
Stercorarius parasiticus 3,100โ3,300 โ Large increase โ Moderate decline โ Secureโผ
Stercorarius longicaudus 600โ7,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secureโผ
Catharacta skua 9,600โ9,600 โ Large increase โ Large increase โ Secure
Larus melanocephalus 7,500โ8,600 โ Stable โ Large increase โ Secure
Larus minutus 12,000โ25,000 โ Large increase โ Large increase โ Secure
Xema sabini โ โ โ โ โ โ โ
Larus ridibundus 990,000โ1,300,000 โ Large increase โ Moderate decline โ Secure
Larus genei 5,500โ5,700 โ Large increase โ Large increase โ Localised โฅ90%
Larus audouinii 18,000โ19,000 โ Large increase โ Large increase โ Localised โฅ90%
Larus canus 270,000โ420,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Larus fuscus 240,000โ260,000 โ Large increase โ Large increase โ Secure
Larus argentatus 500,000โ590,000 โ Large increase โ Stable โ Secure
Larus cachinnans 220,000โ410,000 โ Large increase โ Large increase โ Secure
Larus glaucoides โ โ โ Unknown โ Unknown Secure
Larus hyperboreus โ โ โ Unknown โ Unknown Secure
Larus marinus 41,000โ51,000 โ Moderate increase โ Moderate increase โ Secure
Rissa tridactyla 430,000โ430,000 โ Large increase โ Moderate decline โ Secure
Sterna nilotica 3,800โ4,500 โ Large decline โ Stable โ Rare
Sterna caspia 1,500โ1,800 โ Large decline โ Stable โ Rare
Sterna bengalensis 2โ3 โ โ โ New breeder โ Secureโผโผโผโผ
Sterna sandvicensis 55,000โ57,000 โ Moderate increase โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Sterna dougallii 1,800โ1,900 โ Large decline โ Stable โ Rare
Sterna hirundo 140,000โ190,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Sterna paradisaea 160,000โ200,000 โ Large increase โ Moderate decline โ Secure
Sterna albifrons 17,000โ23,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Chlidonias hybrida 7,900โ18,000 โ Large decline โ Stable โ Depleted Large
Chlidonias niger 13,000โ19,000 โ Moderate decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Chlidonias leucopterus 170โ6,900 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secureโผโผ
Uria aalge 1,100,000โ1,100,000 โ Large increase โ Large increase โ Secure
Alca torda 160,000โ160,000 โ Large increase โ Large increase โ Secure
Cepphus grylle 47,000โ71,000 โ Moderate increase โ Moderate increase โ Secure
Table 1...continued. List of all bird species occurring regularly in the European Union and their Conservation Status.
EU25 wintering 1970โ1990 1970โ1990 1990โ2000 1990โ2000EU25 breeding population size EU25 breeding EU25 winter EU25 breeding EU25 winter EU25 Cpopulation size (min. individuals, population population population population Threat
Scientific name (pairs, unless stated) unless stated) trend trend trend trend Status
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4034
![Page 42: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
35
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Species tables
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 100 winter 5โ24 winter โ โ โ Sanderling
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ <1 <5 โ โ โ Little Stint
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 2โ8 5โ24 โ โ โ Temminckโs Stint
โ Not assessed* Not assessed [n/a] โ โ โ โ โ โ Curlew Sandpiper
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 4 <5 โ โ โ Purple Sandpiper
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 15โ16 <5 I * โ โ * C. a. schinzii only Dunlin
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 87โ91 25โ49 โ โ โ Broad-billed Sandpiper
A2b Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 14โ26 5โ24 I II/2 โ Ruff
Moderate historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 27โ67 5โ24 โ II/1 III/2 Jack Snipe
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 24โ32 5โ24 โ II/1 III/2 Common Snipe
C1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 NT: A2c,d; A3c,d 2โ4 <5 I โ โ Great Snipe
Moderate historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 23โ26 5โ24 โ II/1 III/2 Eurasian Woodcock
A2b Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 49โ61 25โ49 โ II/2 โ Black-tailed Godwit
C1 Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 5โ8 <5 I II/2 โ Bar-tailed Godwit
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 17โ25 5โ24 โ II/2 โ Whimbrel
โ Unfavourable* Unfavourable SPEC 1 CR: C2a(ii); D1 โ โ I โ โ Slender-billed Curlew
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 61โ73 25โ49 โ II/2 โ Eurasian Curlew
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 62โ79 25โ49 โ II/2 โ Spotted Redshank
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 23โ36 5โ24 โ II/2 โ Common Redshank
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ <1 <5 โ โ โ Marsh Sandpiper
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 42โ61 5โ24 โ II/2 โ Common Greenshank
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 21โ33 5โ24 โ โ โ Green Sandpiper
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 33โ71 5โ24 I โ โ Wood Sandpiper
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ <1 <5 I โ โ Terek Sandpiper
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 27โ32 25โ49 โ โ โ Common Sandpiper
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 11โ18 <5 โ โ โ Ruddy Turnstone
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 20โ24 <5 I โ โ Red-necked Phalarope
โ Not assessed* Favourable Non-SPEC โ โ โ โ โ โ Grey Phalarope
โ Not assessed* Favourable Non-SPEC โ โ โ โ โ โ Pomarine Jaeger
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 2โ8 <5 โ โ โ Parasitic Jaeger
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 5โ9 <5 โ โ โ Long-tailed Jaeger
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 60 50โ74 โ โ โ Great Skua
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 3โ6 <5 I โ โ Mediterranean Gull
โ Favourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 43โ50 5โ24 I โ โ Little Gull
โ Not assessed* Favourable Non-SPEC โ โ โ โ โ โ Sabineโs Gull
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 59โ66 25โ49 โ II/2 โ Common Black-headed Gull
โฅ90% breed at โค10 sites Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 10โ15 5โ24 I โ โ Slender-billed Gull
โฅ90% breed at โค10 sites Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 NT: A3c 100 >95 I โ โ Audouinโs Gull
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 28โ46 25โ49 โ II/2 โ Mew Gull
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 74โ80 50โ74 โ II/2 โ Lesser Black-backed Gull
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 42โ66 25โ49 โ II/2 โ Herring Gull
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 71 25โ49 โ II/2 โ Yellow-legged Gull
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 5โ24 winter 5โ24 winter โ โ โ Iceland Gull
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 5โ24 winter 5โ24 winter โ โ โ Glaucous Gull
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 28โ37 5โ24 โ II/2 โ Great Black-backed Gull
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 14โ20 5โ24 โ โ โ Black-legged Kittiwake
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 20โ32 5โ24 I โ โ Gull-billed Tern
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 19โ32 <5 I โ โ Caspian Tern
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 100 <5 โ โ โ Lesser Crested-tern
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 44โ67 25โ49 I โ โ Sandwich Tern
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 100 5โ24 I โ โ Roseate Tern
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 33โ52 5โ24 I โ โ Common Tern
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 22โ32 5โ24 I โ โ Arctic Tern
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 42โ49 5โ24 I โ โ Little Tern
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 19โ21 5โ24 I โ โ Whiskered Tern
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 11โ16 5โ24 I โ โ Black Tern
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 0โ3 <5 โ โ โ White-winged Tern
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 41โ55 5โ24 I * โ โ * U. a. ibericus only Common Murre
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 21โ37 5โ24 โ โ โ Razorbill
โ Favourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 24โ36 25โ49 โ โ โ Black Guillemot
2004 Global % European % Global2004 IUCN population population
Criteria met in 2004 EU25 Pan-European 2004 Red List in EU25 in EU25 Birds Birds Birds NotesEU25 (IUCN Conservation Conservation SPEC Category & (breeding (breeding Directive Directive Directive (e.g. Annexand others) Status Status Category Criteria unless stated) unless stated) Annex I Annex II Annex III restrictions) Common name
... continued on next page
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4035
![Page 43: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
36
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Species tables
Alle alle โ 90,000 โ Unknown โ Unknown Secure
Fratercula arctica 640,000โ640,000 โ Large increase โ Large increase โ Secure
Pterocles orientalis 2,900โ11,000 โ Large decline โ Moderate decline โ Vulnerable
Pterocles alchata 10,000โ20,000 โ Large decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Columba livia 4,200,000โ6,300,000 โ Moderate increase โ Unknown โ Secure
Columba oenas 480,000โ640,000 โ Large increase โ Moderate increase โ Secure
Columba palumbus 7,500,000โ13,000,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Columba trocaz 4,100โ17,000 ind โ Stable โ Stable โ Rare
Columba bollii 2,500โ10,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Rare
Columba junoniae 1,000โ2,500 โ Stable โ Unknown โ Endangered
Streptopelia decaocto 2,100,000โ4,600,000 โ Moderate decline โ Moderate increase โ Secure
Streptopelia turtur 1,600,000โ2,600,000 โ Large decline โ Large decline โ Vulnerable
Clamator glandarius 56,000โ71,000 โ Large increase โ Unknown โ Secure
Cuculus canorus 850,000โ1,900,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Tyto alba 100,000โ210,000 โ Moderate decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Otus scops 56,000โ110,000 โ Large decline โ Unknown โ Depleted Large
Bubo bubo 9,100โ20,000 โ Large increase โ Stable โ Secure
Nyctea scandiaca 0โ22 โ Stable โ Stable โ Rareโผโผโผ
Surnia ulula 2,200โ8,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secureโผ
Glaucidium passerinum 28,000โ44,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Athene noctua 160,000โ430,000 โ Large decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Strix aluco 320,000โ680,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Strix uralensis 9,300โ14,000 โ Moderate increase โ Moderate increase โ Secure
Strix nebulosa 550โ2,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secureโผ
Asio otus 95,000โ220,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Asio flammeus 5,200โ19,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Aegolius funereus 22,000โ61,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Caprimulgus europaeus 190,000โ400,000 โ Large decline โ Unknown โ Depleted Large
Caprimulgus ruficollis 21,000โ110,000 โ Stable โ Unknown โ Secure
Tachymarptis melba 13,000โ35,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Apus unicolor 2,500โ10,000 โ Stable โ Unknown โ Rare
Apus apus 3,000,000โ7,300,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Apus pallidus 35,000โ140,000 โ Moderate increase โ Unknown โ Secure
Apus caffer 100โ160 โ Large increase โ Large increase โ Secureโผโผโผ
Apus affinis 1โ1 โ โ โ New breeder โ Secureโผโผโผโผ
Alcedo atthis 39,000โ91,000 โ Large decline โ Stable โ Depleted Large
Ceryle rudis 1โ1 โ โ โ New breeder โ Secureโผโผโผโผ
Merops apiaster 140,000โ340,000 โ Large decline โ Unknown โ Depleted Large
Coracias garrulus 4,800โ9,400 โ Large decline โ Moderate decline โ Vulnerable
Upupa epops 590,000โ980,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Jynx torquilla 170,000โ330,000 โ Large decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Picus canus 35,000โ62,000 โ Moderate decline โ Stable โ Depleted Modera
Picus viridis 430,000โ1,000,000 โ Moderate decline โ Stable โ Depleted Modera
Dryocopus martius 130,000โ260,000 โ Moderate increase โ Stable โ Secure
Dendrocopos major 2,500,000โ5,600,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Dendrocopos syriacus 30,000โ64,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Dendrocopos medius 78,000โ210,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Dendrocopos leucotos 7,700โ13,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Dendrocopos minor 130,000โ360,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Picoides tridactylus 26,000โ40,000 โ Large decline โ Stable โ Depleted Large
Chersophilus duponti 13,000โ15,000 โ Large decline โ Stable โ Depleted Large
Melanocorypha calandra 1,000,000โ3,400,000 โ Large decline โ Unknown โ Depleted Large
Calandrella brachydactyla 2,200,000โ2,700,000 โ Large decline โ Large decline โ Vulnerable
Calandrella rufescens 240,000โ280,000 โ Large decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Table 1...continued. List of all bird species occurring regularly in the European Union and their Conservation Status.
EU25 wintering 1970โ1990 1970โ1990 1990โ2000 1990โ2000EU25 breeding population size EU25 breeding EU25 winter EU25 breeding EU25 winter EU25 Cpopulation size (min. individuals, population population population population Threat
Scientific name (pairs, unless stated) unless stated) trend trend trend trend Status
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4036
![Page 44: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
37
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Species tables
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 5โ24 winter 5โ24 winter โ โ โ Dovekie
โ Favourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 9โ11 5โ24 โ โ โ Atlantic Puffin
C1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 10โ18 <5 I โ โ Black-bellied Sandgrouse
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ >95 5โ24 I โ โ Pin-tailed Sandgrouse
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 42โ45 5โ24 โ II/1 โ Rock Pigeon
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 88โ92 50โ74 โ II/2 โ Stock Pigeon
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 76โ83 25โ49 I * II/1 ** III/1 * C. p. azorica only; Common Wood-pigeon** all others
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 NT: B1a+b(i,ii,iii,iv,v); 100 100 I โ โ Madeira Laurel Pigeon B2a+b(i,ii,iii,iv,v)
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 NT: C2a(i) 100 100 I โ โ Dark-tailed Laurel Pigeon
B1a+b(iii) Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 EN: B1a+b(iii) 100 100 I โ โ White-tailed Laurel Pigeon
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 42โ45 5โ24 โ II/2 โ Eurasian Collared-dove
A2b Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 36โ46 5โ24 โ II/2 โ European Turtle-dove
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 92โ97 5โ24 โ โ โ Great Spotted Cuckoo
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 20โ22 5โ24 โ โ โ Common Cuckoo
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 91โ95 5โ24 โ โ โ Barn Owl
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 25โ27 5โ24 โ โ โ Common Scops-owl
โ Favourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 48โ53 5โ24 I โ โ Eurasian Eagle-owl
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ <1 <5 I โ โ Snowy Owl
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 21โ24 <5 I โ โ Northern Hawk Owl
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 40โ60 5โ24 I โ โ Eurasian Pygmy-owl
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 29โ33 5โ24 โ โ โ Little Owl
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 67โ68 25โ49 โ โ โ Tawny Owl
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 10โ18 <5 I โ โ Ural Owl
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 26โ30 5โ24 I โ โ Great Grey Owl
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 25โ27 5โ24 โ โ โ Long-eared Owl
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 9โ11 <5 I โ โ Short-eared Owl
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 17โ20 <5 I โ โ Boreal Owl
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 40 25โ49 I โ โ Eurasian Nightjar
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 100 25โ49 โ โ โ Red-necked Nightjar
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 9โ11 <5 โ โ โ Alpine Swift
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 100 100 โ โ โ Plain Swift
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 43 5โ24 โ โ โ Common Swift
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 88โ90 25โ49 โ โ โ Pallid Swift
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 100 <5 I โ โ White-rumped Swift
โ Favourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ <1 <5 โ โ โ Little Swift
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 49โ57 5โ24 I โ โ Common Kingfisher
โ Favourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 1 <5 โ โ โ Pied Kingfisher
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 29โ34 5โ24 โ โ โ European Bee-eater
C1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 9 5โ24 I โ โ European Roller
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 58โ66 5โ24 โ โ โ Eurasian Hoopoe
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 25โ29 5โ24 โ โ โ Eurasian Wryneck
Moderate historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 19 <5 I โ โ Grey-faced Woodpecker
Moderate historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 73โ77 50โ74 โ โ โ Eurasian Green Woodpecker
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 18โ19 5โ24 I โ โ Black Woodpecker
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 21โ31 5โ24 I * โ โ * D. m. canariensis + Great SpottedD. m. thanneri only Woodpecker
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 6 <5 I โ โ Syrian Woodpecker
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 56โ68 50โ74 I โ โ Middle Spotted Woodpecker
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 2โ4 <5 I โ โ White-backed Woodpecker
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 29โ33 5โ24 โ โ โ Lesser Spotted Woodpecker
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 4โ7 <5 I โ โ Three-toed Woodpecker
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 100 25โ49 I โ โ Dupontโs Lark
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 10โ14 <5 I โ โ Calandra Lark
A2b Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 19โ30 5โ24 I โ โ Greater Short-toed Lark
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 7โ15 <5 โ โ โ Lesser Short-toed Lark
2004 Global % European % Global2004 IUCN population population
Criteria met in 2004 EU25 Pan-European 2004 Red List in EU25 in EU25 Birds Birds Birds NotesEU25 (IUCN Conservation Conservation SPEC Category & (breeding (breeding Directive Directive Directive (e.g. Annexand others) Status Status Category Criteria unless stated) unless stated) Annex I Annex II Annex III restrictions) Common name
... continued on next page
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4037
![Page 45: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
38
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Species tables
Galerida cristata 930,000โ2,100,000 โ Large decline โ Unknown โ Depleted Large
Galerida theklae 1,500,000โ2,100,000 โ Large decline โ Unknown โ Depleted Large
Lullula arborea 860,000โ2,400,000 โ Large decline โ Unknown โ Depleted Large
Alauda arvensis 17,000,000โ32,000,000 โ Large decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Eremophila alpestris 650โ1,100 โ Large decline โ Moderate decline โ Vulnerable
Riparia riparia 890,000โ2,200,000 โ Moderate decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Hirundo rupestris 45,000โ200,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Hirundo rustica 7,900,000โ17,000,000 โ Moderate decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Hirundo daurica 43,000โ260,000 โ Large increase โ Stable โ Secure
Delichon urbica 5,700,000โ13,000,000 - Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Anthus campestris 460,000โ820,000 โ Large decline โ Unknown โ Depleted Large
Anthus berthelotii 20,000โ100,000 โ Stable โ Unknown โ Secure
Anthus trivialis 8,200,000โ16,000,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Anthus pratensis 4,300,000โ7,000,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Anthus cervinus 800โ3,900 โ Stable โ Large decline โ Endangered
Anthus spinoletta 130,000โ320,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Anthus petrosus 61,000โ83,000 โ Unknown โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Motacilla flava 1,200,000โ2,300,000 โ Moderate decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Motacilla citreola 86โ210 โ Stable โ Moderate increase โ Secureโผโผโผ
Motacilla cinerea 230,000โ580,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Motacilla alba 4,100,000โ7,900,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Bombycilla garrulus 31,000โ200,000 โ Stable โ Large increase โ Secure
Cinclus cinclus 53,000โ170,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Troglodytes troglodytes 18,000,000โ31,000,000 โ Stable โ Moderate increase โ Secure
Prunella modularis 9,100,000โ20,000,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Prunella collaris 44,000โ90,000 โ Stable โ Unknown โ Secure
Erythropygia galactotes 9,900โ22,000 โ Stable โ Large decline โ Vulnerable
Erithacus rubecula 25,000,000โ53,000,000 โ Stable โ Moderate increase โ Secure
Luscinia luscinia 390,000โ860,000 โ Moderate increase โ Stable โ Secure
Luscinia megarhynchos 1,900,000โ6,000,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Luscinia svecica 280,000โ530,000 โ Moderate increase โ Stable โ Secure
Tarsiger cyanurus 50โ500 โ Large decline โ Large increase โ Secureโผโผโผ
Irania gutturalis 0โ5 โ โ โ New breeder โ Secureโผโผโผโผ
Phoenicurus ochruros 2,600,000โ5,900,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Phoenicurus phoenicurus 1,400,000โ2,400,000 โ Large decline โ Stable โ Depleted Large
Saxicola rubetra 1,500,000โ2,600,000 โ Moderate decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Saxicola dacotiae 1,300โ1,300 โ Stable โ Stable โ Endangered B
Saxicola torquata 1,400,000โ3,500,000 โ Large decline โ Large increase โ Secure
Oenanthe isabellina 50โ200 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secureโผโผโผ
Oenanthe oenanthe 870,000โ1,700,000 โ Moderate decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Oenanthe cypriaca 90,000โ180,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Oenanthe hispanica 570,000โ800,000 โ Large decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Oenanthe leucura 4,100โ16,000 โ Large decline โ Unknown โ Rare
Monticola saxatilis 28,000โ61,000 โ Moderate decline โ Stable โ Depleted Modera
Monticola solitarius 36,000โ91,000 โ Large decline โ Stable โ Depleted Large
Turdus torquatus 98,000โ190,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Turdus merula 31,000,000โ62,000,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Turdus pilaris 2,400,000โ4,800,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Turdus philomelos 9,200,000โ18,000,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Turdus iliacus 2,400,000โ4,300,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Turdus viscivorus 1,500,000โ3,400,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Cettia cetti 340,000โ1,100,000 โ Large increase โ Stable โ Secure
Cisticola juncidis 230,000โ1,100,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Locustella naevia 310,000โ670,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Locustella fluviatilis 200,000โ370,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Locustella luscinioides 42,000โ100,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Acrocephalus melanopogon 13,000โ27,000 โ Moderate increase โ Stable โ Secure
Acrocephalus paludicola 3,300โ3,800 โ Large decline โ Large decline โ Vulnerable
Table 1...continued. List of all bird species occurring regularly in the European Union and their Conservation Status.
EU25 wintering 1970โ1990 1970โ1990 1990โ2000 1990โ2000EU25 breeding population size EU25 breeding EU25 winter EU25 breeding EU25 winter EU25 Cpopulation size (min. individuals, population population population population Threat
Scientific name (pairs, unless stated) unless stated) trend trend trend trend Status
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4038
![Page 46: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
39
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Species tables
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 26โ28 5โ24 โ โ โ Crested Lark
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 100 25โ49 I โ โ Thekla Lark
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 66โ73 25โ49 I โ โ Wood Lark
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 40โ43 5โ24 โ II/2 โ Eurasian Skylark
C1 Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ <1 <5 โ โ โ Horned Lark
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 16โ23 <5 โ โ โ Sand Martin
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 38โ54 5โ24 โ โ โ Eurasian Crag-martin
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 47โ49 5โ24 โ โ โ Barn Swallow
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 43โ60 5โ24 โ โ โ Redโrumped Swallow
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 54โ58 5โ24 โ โ โ Northern House Martin
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 43โ46 5โ24 I โ โ Tawny Pipit
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 100 100 โ โ โ Berthelotโs Pipit
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 30โ38 5โ24 โ โ โ Tree Pipit
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 44โ61 25โ49 โ โ โ Meadow Pipit
A2b; C1 Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ <1 <5 โ โ โ Red-throated Pipit
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 16โ20 <5 โ โ โ Water Pipit
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 29โ55 25โ49 โ โ โ Rock Pipit
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 15โ16 5โ24 โ โ โ Yellow Wagtail
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ <1 <5 โ โ โ Citrine Wagtail
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 31โ36 5โ24 โ โ โ Grey Wagtail
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 30โ32 5โ24 โ โ โ White Wagtail
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 24โ29 5โ24 โ โ โ Bohemian Waxwing
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 31โ52 5โ24 โ โ โ White-throated Dipper
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 78 5โ24 I * โ โ * T. t. fridariensis only Winter Wren
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 76โ77 50โ74 โ โ โ Hedge Accentor
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 44โ50 5โ24 โ โ โ Alpine Accentor
A2b Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 23โ31 5โ24 โ โ โ Rufous-tailed Scrub-robin
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 58โ64 25โ49 โ โ โ European Robin
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 11โ12 5โ24 โ โ โ Thrush Nightingale
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 45โ50 25โ49 โ โ โ Common Nightingale
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 6โ7 <5 I โ โ Bluethroat
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 1โ2 <5 โ โ โ Orange-flanked Bush-robin
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ <1 <5 โ โ โ White-throated Robin
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 65โ67 5โ24 โ โ โ Black Redstart
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 15โ21 5โ24 โ โ โ Common Redstart
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 26โ28 5โ24 โ โ โ Whinchat
B1a+b(ii,iii,iv,v) Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 EN: B1a+b(ii,iii,iv,v); C2a(ii) 100 100 I โ โ Fuerteventura Chat
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 70โ76 5โ24 โ โ โ Common Stonechat
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ <1 <5 โ โ โ Isabelline Wheatear
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 13โ19 5โ24 โ โ โ Northern Wheatear
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 100 100 I โ โ Cyprus Wheatear
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 24โ41 5โ24 โ โ โ Black-eared Wheatear
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 100 25โ49 I โ โ Black Wheatear
Moderate historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 19โ28 5โ24 โ โ โ Rufous-tailed Rock- thrush
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 30โ35 5โ24 โ โ โ Blue Rock-thrush
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 28โ32 25โ49 โ โ โ Ring Ouzel
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 76โ78 25โ49 โ II/2 โ Eurasian Blackbird
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECEW โ 17โ20 5โ24 โ II/2 โ Fieldfare
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 46โ50 25โ49 โ II/2 โ Song Thrush
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECEW โ 15โ20 5โ24 โ II/2 โ Redwing
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 46โ50 25โ49 โ II/2 โ Mistle Thrush
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 57โ69 5โ24 โ โ โ Cettiโs Warbler
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 100 <5 โ โ โ Zitting Cisticola
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 30โ37 5โ24 โ โ โ Common Grasshopper- warbler
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 8โ11 5โ24 โ โ โ Eurasian River Warbler
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 8โ13 5โ24 โ โ โ Saviโs Warbler
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 9 <5 I โ โ Moustached Warbler
A2b; C1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 VU: A2c; A3c 19โ28 5โ24 I โ โ Aquatic Warbler
2004 Global % European % Global2004 IUCN population population
Criteria met in 2004 EU25 Pan-European 2004 Red List in EU25 in EU25 Birds Birds Birds NotesEU25 (IUCN Conservation Conservation SPEC Category & (breeding (breeding Directive Directive Directive (e.g. Annexand others) Status Status Category Criteria unless stated) unless stated) Annex I Annex II Annex III restrictions) Common name
... continued on next page
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4039
![Page 47: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
40
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Species tables
Acrocephalus schoenobaenus 1,400,000โ2,500,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Acrocephalus dumetorum 10,000โ18,000 โ Large increase โ Stable โ Secure
Acrocephalus palustris 1,400,000โ2,500,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Acrocephalus scirpaceus 1,300,000โ2,400,000 โ Moderate increase โ Stable โ Secure
Acrocephalus arundinaceus 240,000โ460,000 โ Moderate decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Hippolais pallida 93,000โ290,000 โ Large decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Hippolais caligata 0โ30 โ โ โ New breeder โ Secureโผโผโผโผ
Hippolais olivetorum 3,000โ5,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Rare
Hippolais icterina 700,000โ1,500,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Hippolais polyglotta 1,000,000โ3,000,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Sylvia sarda 29,000โ75,000 โ Moderate increase โ Unknown โ Secure
Sylvia undata 1,900,000โ3,700,000 โ Large decline โ Unknown โ Depleted Large
Sylvia conspicillata 180,000โ440,000 โ Stable โ Unknown โ Secure
Sylvia cantillans 1,400,000โ3,100,000 โ Stable โ Unknown โ Secure
Sylvia melanocephala 2,300,000โ5,600,000 โ Moderate increase โ Stable โ Secure
Sylvia melanothorax 70,000โ140,000 โ Large increase โ Stable โ Secure
Sylvia rueppelli 3,000โ10,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Rare
Sylvia hortensis 110,000โ290,000 โ Large decline โ Unknown โ Depleted Large
Sylvia nisoria 82,000โ180,000 โ Moderate increase โ Stable โ Secure
Sylvia curruca 1,400,000โ2,800,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Sylvia communis 5,600,000โ10,000,000 โ Moderate decline โ Moderate increase โ Secure
Sylvia borin 6,100,000โ13,000,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Sylvia atricapilla 15,000,000โ33,000,000 โ Moderate increase โ Stable โ Secure
Phylloscopus trochiloides 6,100โ20,000 โ Large increase โ Moderate increase โ Secure
Phylloscopus borealis 2,000โ5,100 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secureโผ
Phylloscopus bonelli 1,300,000โ3,400,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Phylloscopus sibilatrix 3,700,000โ6,400,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Phylloscopus collybita 13,000,000โ31,000,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Phylloscopus brehmii 360,000โ530,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Phylloscopus canariensis 20,000โ100,000 โ Unknown โ Unknown โ Secure
Phylloscopus trochilus 27,000,000โ49,000,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Regulus regulus 7,500,000โ15,000,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Regulus teneriffae 10,000โ20,000 โ Stable โ Unknown โ Secure
Regulus ignicapilla 2,500,000โ5,400,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Muscicapa striata 3,900,000โ7,400,000 โ Large decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Ficedula parva 120,000โ220,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Ficedula semitorquata 1,000โ3,000 โ Large decline โ Moderate decline โ Vulnerable
Ficedula albicollis 150,000โ360,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Ficedula hypoleuca 2,400,000โ5,000,000 โ Large increase โ Moderate decline โ Secure
Panurus biarmicus 30,000โ70,000 โ Moderate increase โ Stable โ Secure
Aegithalos caudatus 2,200,000โ6,200,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Parus palustris 1,400,000โ3,200,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Parus lugubris 10,000โ30,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Parus montanus 2,000,000โ4,300,000 โ Stable โ Large decline โ Vulnerable
Parus cinctus 55,000โ160,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Parus cristatus 2,700,000โ6,100,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Parus ater 7,400,000โ19,000,000 โ Large increase โ Stable โ Secure
Parus caeruleus 15,000,000โ35,000,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Parus major 23,000,000โ53,000,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Sitta krueperi 50โ200 โ Stable โ Stable โ Endangered
Sitta whiteheadi 1,500โ4,500 โ Stable โ Stable โ Rare
Sitta europaea 4,100,000โ9,100,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Sitta neumayer 10,000โ30,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Tichodroma muraria 16,000โ40,000 โ Stable โ Unknown โ Secure
Certhia familiaris 2,100,000โ4,100,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Certhia brachydactyla 2,400,000โ8,900,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Remiz pendulinus 67,000โ140,000 โ Large increase โ Stable โ Secure
Oriolus oriolus 720,000โ1,600,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Lanius collurio 1,500,000โ2,700,000 โ Large decline โ Stable โ Depleted Large
Lanius minor 6,500โ10,000 โ Large decline โ Large decline โ Vulnerable
Table 1...continued. List of all bird species occurring regularly in the European Union and their Conservation Status.
EU25 wintering 1970โ1990 1970โ1990 1990โ2000 1990โ2000EU25 breeding population size EU25 breeding EU25 winter EU25 breeding EU25 winter EU25 Cpopulation size (min. individuals, population population population population Threat
Scientific name (pairs, unless stated) unless stated) trend trend trend trend Status
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4040
![Page 48: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
41
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Species tables
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 32โ34 5โ24 โ โ โ Sedge Warbler
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ <1 <5 โ โ โ Blythโs Reed-warbler
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 37โ44 25โ49 โ โ โ Marsh Warbler
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 48 25โ49 โ โ โ Common Reed-warbler
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 16 5โ24 โ โ โ Great Reed-warbler
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 3โ4 <5 โ โ โ Olivaceous Warbler
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ <1 <5 โ โ โ Booted Warbler
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 22โ27 5โ24 I โ โ Olive-tree Warbler
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 20โ21 5โ24 โ โ โ Icterine Warbler
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 100 >95 โ โ โ Melodious Warbler
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 100 100 I โ โ Marmoraโs Warbler
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 100 >95 I โ โ Dartford Warbler
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 100 25โ49 โ โ โ Spectacled Warbler
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ >95 75โ94 โ โ โ Subalpine Warbler
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 69โ74 25โ49 โ โ โ Sardinian Warbler
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 100 100 I โ โ Cyprus Warbler
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 2 <5 I โ โ Rueppellโs Warbler
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 60โ65 5โ24 โ โ โ Orphean Warbler
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 18 5โ24 I โ โ Barred Warbler
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 29โ36 5โ24 โ โ โ Lesser Whitethroat
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 40 25โ49 โ โ โ Common Whitethroat
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 36โ42 25โ49 โ โ โ Garden Warbler
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 60โ67 25โ49 โ โ โ Blackcap
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ <1 <5 โ โ โ Greenish Warbler
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ <1 <5 โ โ โ Arctic Warbler
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 93โ97 50โ74 โ โ โ Bonelliโs Warbler
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 26โ29 5โ24 โ โ โ Wood Warbler
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 43โ52 5โ24 โ โ โ Common Chiffchaff
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 100 100 โ โ โ Iberian Chiffchaff
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 100 100 โ โ โ Canary Islands Chiffchaff
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 48โ49 5โ24 โ โ โ Willow Warbler
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 39โ43 25โ49 โ โ โ Goldcrest
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 100 100 โ โ โ Canary Islands Kinglet
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 76โ81 50โ74 โ โ โ Firecrest
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 28โ34 5โ24 โ โ โ Spotted Flycatcher
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 4โ5 <5 I โ โ Red-breasted Flycatcher
C1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 6โ7 <5 I โ โ Semicollared Flycatcher
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 11โ15 5โ24 I โ โ Collared Flycatcher
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 20โ25 5โ24 โ โ โ European Pied Flycatcher
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 13โ15 5โ24 โ โ โ Bearded Parrotbill
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 44โ52 5โ24 โ โ โ Long-tailed Tit
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 47โ53 5โ24 โ โ โ Marsh Tit
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 2 5โ24 โ โ โ Sombre Tit
A2b Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 8โ10 <5 โ โ โ Willow Tit
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 6โ9 <5 โ โ โ Siberian Tit
โ Favourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 44โ51 25โ49 โ โ โ Crested Tit
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 62โ66 5โ24 I * โ โ * P. a. cypriotes only Coal Tit
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 75โ80 25โ49 โ โ โ Blue Tit
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 50โ58 5โ24 โ โ โ Great Tit
D1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ <1 <5 I โ โ Krueperโs Nuthatch
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 100 100 I โ โ Corsican Nuthatch
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 48โ55 5โ24 โ โ โ Wood Nuthatch
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ <1 <5 โ โ โ Western Rock-nuthatch
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 40โ42 5โ24 โ โ โ Wallcreeper
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 37 5โ24 โ โ โ Eurasian Tree-creeper
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 89โ92 50โ74 I * โ โ * C. b. dorotheae only Short-toed Tree-creeper
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 32โ33 5โ24 โ โ โ Eurasian Penduline-tit
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 21โ23 5โ24 โ โ โ Eurasian Golden-oriole
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 21โ24 5โ24 I โ โ Red-backed Shrike
A2b Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 1 <5 I โ โ Lesser Grey Shrike
2004 Global % European % Global2004 IUCN population population
Criteria met in 2004 EU25 Pan-European 2004 Red List in EU25 in EU25 Birds Birds Birds NotesEU25 (IUCN Conservation Conservation SPEC Category & (breeding (breeding Directive Directive Directive (e.g. Annexand others) Status Status Category Criteria unless stated) unless stated) Annex I Annex II Annex III restrictions) Common name
... continued on next page
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4041
![Page 49: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
42
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Species tables
Lanius excubitor 240,000โ360,000 โ Large decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Lanius senator 430,000โ1,000,000 โ Large decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Lanius nubicus 4,500โ12,000 โ Large decline โ Stable โ Rare
Garrulus glandarius 2,800,000โ6,400,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Perisoreus infaustus 80,000โ160,000 โ Moderate decline โ Stable โ Depleted Modera
Cyanopica cyanus 260,000โ460,000 โ Stable โ Unknown โ Secure
Pica pica 3,000,000โ7,800,000 โ Large increase โ Moderate decline โ Secure
Nucifraga caryocatactes 73,000โ180,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Pyrrhocorax graculus 43,000โ97,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax 15,000โ28,000 โ Large decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Corvus monedula 2,200,000โ3,900,000 โ Moderate increase โ Stable โ Secure
Corvus frugilegus 2,100,000โ3,400,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Corvus corone 3,800,000โ8,300,000 โ Moderate increase โ Stable โ Secure
Corvus corax 140,000โ230,000 โ Moderate increase โ Large increase โ Secure
Sturnus vulgaris 11,000,000โ27,000,000 โ Moderate decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Sturnus unicolor 2,100,000โ3,100,000 โ Large increase โ Stable โ Secure
Sturnus roseus 0โ1,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secureโผโผโผโผ
Passer domesticus 32,000,000โ69,000,000 โ Moderate decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Passer hispaniolensis 670,000โ1,600,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Passer moabiticus 0โ2 โ Stable โ Unknown โ Secureโผโผโผโผ
Passer montanus 8,900,000โ17,000,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Petronia petronia 860,000โ1,400,000 โ Stable โ Unknown โ Secure
Montifringilla nivalis 13,000โ31,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Fringilla coelebs 58,000,000โ110,000,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Fringilla teydea 1,000โ2,500 โ Stable โ Stable โ Rare
Fringilla montifringilla 1,500,000โ4,500,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Serinus serinus 7,100,000โ17,000,000 โ Moderate increase โ Stable โ Secure
Serinus canaria 20,000โ100,000 โ Stable โ Unknown โ Secure
Serinus citrinella 240,000โ290,000 โ Large increase โ Unknown โ Secure
Serinus corsicana 19,000โ85,000 โ Unknown โ Stable โ Secure
Carduelis chloris 8,600,000โ22,000,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Carduelis carduelis 5,700,000โ17,000,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Carduelis spinus 2,100,000โ4,700,000 โ Stable โ Moderate increase โ Secure
Carduelis cannabina 5,000,000โ13,000,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Carduelis flavirostris 7,900โ18,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Carduelis flammea 560,000โ1,800,000 โ Moderate increase โ Moderate decline โ Secure
Carduelis hornemanni 2,000โ10,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secureโผ
Loxia leucoptera 1,500โ25,000 โ Stable โ Large increase โ Secureโผ
Loxia curvirostra 500,000โ1,800,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Loxia scotica 300โ1,300 โ Stable โ Unknown โ Data Deficient
Loxia pytyopsittacus 22,000โ160,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Bucanetes githagineus 10,000โ20,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Carpodacus erythrinus 390,000โ660,000 โ Large increase โ Stable โ Secure
Pinicola enucleator 8,000โ35,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Pyrrhula pyrrhula 2,100,000โ4,400,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Pyrrhula murina 240โ240 ind โ Unknown โ Stable โ Endangered
Coccothraustes coccothraustes 880,000โ1,900,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Calcarius lapponicus 120,000โ450,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Plectrophenax nivalis 22,000โ54,000 โ Large decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Emberiza citrinella 10,000,000โ20,000,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Emberiza cirlus 1,400,000โ3,900,000 โ Stable โ Moderate increase โ Secure
Emberiza cia 930,000โ2,700,000 โ Large decline โ Unknown โ Depleted Large
Emberiza cineracea 120โ310 โ Stable โ Stable โ Rareโผโผ
Emberiza hortulana 430,000โ700,000 โ Large decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Emberiza caesia 13,000โ44,000 โ Stable โ Stable โ Secure
Emberiza rustica 130,000โ300,000 โ Large decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Emberiza pusilla 1,000โ5,200 โ Large increase โ Moderate decline โ Secureโผ
Emberiza aureola 0โ10 โ Large decline โ Large decline โ Critically Endangered A2b
Emberiza schoeniclus 1,800,000โ3,700,000 โ Moderate decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Emberiza melanocephala 40,000โ140,000 โ Large decline โ Moderate decline โ Declining Moderat
Miliaria calandra 2,500,000โ7,900,000 โ Stable โ Moderate decline โ Declining Mode
Table 1...continued. List of all bird species occurring regularly in the European Union and their Conservation Status.
EU25 wintering 1970โ1990 1970โ1990 1990โ2000 1990โ2000EU25 breeding population size EU25 breeding EU25 winter EU25 breeding EU25 winter EU25 Cpopulation size (min. individuals, population population population population Threat
Scientific name (pairs, unless stated) unless stated) trend trend trend trend Status
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4042
![Page 50: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
43
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Species tables
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 90โ96 5โ24 โ โ โ Great Grey Shrike
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 83โ90 50โ74 โ โ โ Woodchat Shrike
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 12โ13 5โ24 I โ โ Masked Shrike
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 47โ49 5โ24 โ II/2 โ Eurasian Jay
Moderate historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 23โ24 5โ24 โ โ โ Siberian Jay
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 100 5โ24 โ โ โ Azure-winged Magpie
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 40โ41 5โ24 โ II/2 โ Black-billed Magpie
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 18โ21 5โ24 โ โ โ Spotted Nutcracker
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 31โ33 5โ24 โ โ โ Yellow-billed Chough
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 25โ35 5โ24 I โ โ Red-billed Chough
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 26โ42 5โ24 โ II/2 โ Eurasian Jackdaw
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 19โ21 5โ24 โ II/2 โ Rook
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 49โ54 5โ24 โ II/2 โ Carrion Crow
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 24โ31 5โ24 โ โ โ Common Raven
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 48 5โ24 โ II/2 โ Common Starling
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 100 50โ74 โ โ โ Spotless Starling
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ <1 <5 โ โ โ Rosy Starling
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 51โ53 5โ24 โ โ โ House Sparrow
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 24โ26 5โ24 โ โ โ Spanish Sparrow
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ <1 <5 โ โ โ Dead Sea Sparrow
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 34โ35 5โ24 โ โ โ Eurasian Tree Sparrow
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 37โ51 <5 โ โ โ Rock Sparrow
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 2โ3 <5 โ โ โ White-winged Snowfinch
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 45โ46 25โ49 I * โ โ * F. c. ombriosa only Chaffinch
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 NT: B1a+b(ii,iii,v); 100 100 I โ โ Blue ChaffinchB2a+b(ii,iii,v); C2a(ii)
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 12โ20 5โ24 โ โ โ Brambling
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 85โ86 50โ74 โ โ โ European Serin
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 100 100 โ โ โ Island Canary
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 91โ96 75โ94 โ โ โ Citril Finch
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 100 100 โ โ โ Corsican Finch
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 61โ69 25โ49 โ โ โ European Greenfinch
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 48โ59 5โ24 โ โ โ European Goldfinch
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 21โ26 5โ24 โ โ โ Eurasian Siskin
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 46โ50 25โ49 โ โ โ Eurasian Linnet
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 2โ5 <5 โ โ โ Twite
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 6โ9 <5 โ โ โ Common Redpoll
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 2โ6 <5 โ โ โ Hoary Redpoll
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ <1 <5 โ โ โ Two-barred Crossbill
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 9โ14 <5 โ โ โ Red Crossbill
โ Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 DD 100 100 I โ โ Scottish Crossbill
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 8โ15 5โ24 โ โ โ Parrot Crossbill
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 91โ95 <5 I โ โ Trumpeter Finch
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 11โ13 <5 โ โ โ Common Rosefinch
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 7โ12 <5 โ โ โ Pine Grosbeak
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 29โ31 5โ24 โ โ โ Eurasian Bullfinch
D1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 EN: D1 100 100 I โ โ Azores Bullfinch
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 37โ45 5โ24 โ โ โ Hawfinch
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 2โ4 <5 โ โ โ Lapland Longspur
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 3 <5 โ โ โ Snow Bunting
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 56โ65 25โ49 โ โ โ Yellowhammer
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 70โ75 50โ74 โ โ โ Cirl Bunting
Large historical decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 3 โ 66โ72 5โ24 โ โ โ Rock Bunting
<5,000 pairs Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 NT: D1 4โ5 <5 I โ โ Cinereous Bunting
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 4โ8 5โ24 I โ โ Ortolan Bunting
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPECE โ 9โ19 5โ24 I โ โ Cretzschmarโs Bunting
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 2โ3 <5 โ โ โ Rustic Bunting
โ Favourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ <1 <5 โ โ โ Little Bunting
d A2b; C1; C2a(i); D1 Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 1 NT: A2d; A3d <1 <5 โ โ โ Yellow-breasted Bunting
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Favourable Non-SPEC โ 38โ42 5โ24 โ โ โ Reed Bunting
Moderate continuing decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 1โ2 <5 โ โ โ Black-headed Bunting
Moderate recent decline Unfavourable Unfavourable SPEC 2 โ 32โ36 5โ24 โ โ โโ Corn Bunting
2004 Global % European % Global2004 IUCN population population
Criteria met in 2004 EU25 Pan-European 2004 Red List in EU25 in EU25 Birds Birds Birds NotesEU25 (IUCN Conservation Conservation SPEC Category & (breeding (breeding Directive Directive Directive (e.g. Annexand others) Status Status Category Criteria unless stated) unless stated) Annex I Annex II Annex III restrictions) Common name
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4043
![Page 51: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
44
... continued on next page
Table 2. List of all species of Annex I of the Birds Directive and their Conservation Status.
Overall 2004 Pan-European Overall 2004 EU25Scientific name Common name Conservation Status Conservation StatusGavia stellata Red-throated Loon Unfavourable Unfavourable
Gavia arctica Arctic Loon Unfavourable UnfavourableGavia immer Common Loon Favourable Favourable
Podiceps auritus Horned Grebe Unfavourable UnfavourablePterodroma madeira Zinoโs Petrel Unfavourable Unfavourable
Pterodroma feae Feaโs Petrel Unfavourable UnfavourableBulweria bulwerii Bulwerโs Petrel Unfavourable Unfavourable
Calonectris diomedea Coryโs Shearwater Unfavourable UnfavourablePuffinus mauretanicus Balearic Shearwater Unfavourable Unfavourable
Puffinus yelkouan Yelkouan Shearwater Favourable FavourablePuffinus assimilis Little Shearwater Unfavourable Unfavourable
Pelagodroma marina White-faced Storm-petrel Unfavourable UnfavourableHydrobates pelagicus European Storm-petrel Favourable Favourable
Oceanodroma leucorhoa Leachโs Storm-petrel Unfavourable UnfavourableOceanodroma castro Band-rumped Storm-petrel Unfavourable Unfavourable
Phalacrocorax pygmeus Pygmy Cormorant Unfavourable UnfavourablePelecanus onocrotalus Great White Pelican Unfavourable Unfavourable
Pelecanus crispus Dalmatian Pelican Unfavourable UnfavourableBotaurus stellaris Great Bittern Unfavourable Unfavourable
Ixobrychus minutus Little Bittern Unfavourable UnfavourableNycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night-heron Unfavourable Favourable
Ardeola ralloides Squacco Heron Unfavourable UnfavourableEgretta garzetta Little Egret Favourable Favourable
Casmerodius albus Great Egret Favourable FavourableArdea purpurea Purple Heron Unfavourable Unfavourable
Ciconia nigra Black Stork Unfavourable UnfavourableCiconia ciconia White Stork Unfavourable Unfavourable
Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis Unfavourable UnfavourablePlatalea leucorodia Eurasian Spoonbill Unfavourable Unfavourable
Phoenicopterus roseus Greater Flamingo Unfavourable UnfavourableCygnus columbianus Tundra Swan Unfavourable Unfavourable
Cygnus cygnus Whooper Swan Favourable FavourableAnser erythropus Lesser White-fronted Goose Unfavourable Unfavourable
Branta leucopsis Barnacle Goose Favourable FavourableBranta ruficollis Red-breasted Goose Unfavourable Unfavourable
Tadorna ferruginea Ruddy Shelduck Unfavourable UnfavourableMarmaronetta angustirostris Marbled Teal Unfavourable Unfavourable
Aythya nyroca Ferruginous Duck Unfavourable UnfavourablePolysticta stelleri Stellerโs Eider Unfavourable Unfavourable
Mergellus albellus Smew Unfavourable UnfavourableOxyura leucocephala White-headed Duck Unfavourable Unfavourable
Pernis apivorus European Honey-buzzard Favourable FavourableElanus caeruleus Black-winged Kite Unfavourable Unfavourable
Milvus migrans Black Kite Unfavourable FavourableMilvus milvus Red Kite Unfavourable Unfavourable
Haliaeetus albicilla White-tailed Eagle Unfavourable UnfavourableGypaetus barbatus Lammergeier Unfavourable Unfavourable
Neophron percnopterus Egyptian Vulture Unfavourable UnfavourableGyps fulvus Eurasian Griffon Favourable Favourable
Aegypius monachus Cinereous Vulture Unfavourable UnfavourableCircaetus gallicus Short-toed Snake-eagle Unfavourable Favourable
Circus aeruginosus Western Marsh-harrier Favourable FavourableCircus cyaneus Northern Harrier Unfavourable Unfavourable
Circus macrourus Pallid Harrier Unfavourable Not in EUCircus pygargus Montaguโs Harrier Favourable Favourable
Accipiter brevipes Levant Sparrowhawk Unfavourable UnfavourableButeo rufinus Long-legged Buzzard Unfavourable Favourable
Aquila pomarina Lesser Spotted Eagle Unfavourable UnfavourableAquila clanga Greater Spotted Eagle Unfavourable Unfavourable
Aquila heliaca Imperial Eagle Unfavourable UnfavourableAquila adalberti Spanish Imperial Eagle Unfavourable Unfavourable
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Species tables
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4044
![Page 52: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
45
Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle Unfavourable UnfavourableHieraaetus pennatus Booted Eagle Unfavourable Unfavourable
Hieraaetus fasciatus Bonelliโs Eagle Unfavourable UnfavourablePandion haliaetus Osprey Unfavourable Favourable
Falco naumanni Lesser Kestrel Unfavourable UnfavourableFalco vespertinus Red-footed Falcon Unfavourable Unfavourable
Falco columbarius Merlin Favourable UnfavourableFalco eleonorae Eleonoraโs Falcon Unfavourable Unfavourable
Falco biarmicus Lanner Falcon Unfavourable UnfavourableFalco cherrug Saker Falcon Unfavourable Unfavourable
Falco rusticolus Gyrfalcon Unfavourable UnfavourableFalco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon Favourable Favourable
Bonasa bonasia Hazel Grouse Favourable UnfavourableTetrao tetrix Black Grouse Unfavourable Unfavourable
Tetrao urogallus Western Capercaillie Favourable UnfavourableAlectoris graeca Rock Partridge Unfavourable Unfavourable
Alectoris barbara Barbary Partridge Unfavourable UnfavourableTurnix sylvatica Small Buttonquail Unfavourable Unfavourable
Porzana porzana Spotted Crake Favourable FavourablePorzana parva Little Crake Favourable Favourable
Porzana pusilla Baillonโs Crake Unfavourable UnfavourableCrex crex Corncrake Unfavourable Unfavourable
Porphyrio porphyrio Purple Swamphen Unfavourable UnfavourableFulica cristata Red-knobbed Coot Unfavourable Unfavourable
Grus grus Common Crane Unfavourable UnfavourableTetrax tetrax Little Bustard Unfavourable Unfavourable
Chlamydotis undulata Houbara Bustard Unfavourable UnfavourableOtis tarda Great Bustard Unfavourable Unfavourable
Himantopus himantopus Black-winged Stilt Favourable FavourableRecurvirostra avosetta Pied Avocet Favourable Favourable
Burhinus oedicnemus Eurasian Thick-knee Unfavourable UnfavourableCursorius cursor Cream-coloured Courser Unfavourable Unfavourable
Glareola pratincola Collared Pratincole Unfavourable UnfavourableCharadrius alexandrinus Kentish Plover Unfavourable Unfavourable
Eudromias morinellus Eurasian Dotterel Favourable UnfavourablePluvialis apricaria Eurasian Golden-plover Favourable Unfavourable
Vanellus spinosus Spur-winged Lapwing Unfavourable UnfavourablePhilomachus pugnax Ruff Unfavourable Unfavourable
Gallinago media Great Snipe Unfavourable UnfavourableLimosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit Favourable Unfavourable
Numenius tenuirostris Slender-billed Curlew Unfavourable UnfavourableTringa glareola Wood Sandpiper Unfavourable Unfavourable
Xenus cinereus Terek Sandpiper Favourable FavourablePhalaropus lobatus Red-necked Phalarope Favourable Favourable
Larus melanocephalus Mediterranean Gull Favourable FavourableLarus minutus Little Gull Unfavourable Favourable
Larus genei Slender-billed Gull Unfavourable UnfavourableLarus audouinii Audouinโs Gull Unfavourable Unfavourable
Sterna nilotica Gull-billed Tern Unfavourable UnfavourableSterna caspia Caspian Tern Unfavourable Unfavourable
Sterna sandvicensis Sandwich Tern Unfavourable UnfavourableSterna dougallii Roseate Tern Unfavourable Unfavourable
Sterna hirundo Common Tern Favourable FavourableSterna paradisaea Arctic Tern Favourable Favourable
Sterna albifrons Little Tern Unfavourable UnfavourableChlidonias hybrida Whiskered Tern Unfavourable Unfavourable
Chlidonias niger Black Tern Unfavourable UnfavourablePterocles orientalis Black-bellied Sandgrouse Unfavourable Unfavourable
Pterocles alchata Pin-tailed Sandgrouse Unfavourable UnfavourableColumba trocaz Madeira Laurel Pigeon Unfavourable Unfavourable
Columba bollii Dark-tailed Laurel Pigeon Unfavourable Unfavourable
Table 2 ...continued. List of all species of Annex I of the Birds Directive and their Conservation Status.
Overall 2004 Pan-European Overall 2004 EU25Scientific name Common name Conservation Status Conservation Status
... continued on next page
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Species tables
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4045
![Page 53: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
46
Columba junoniae White-tailed Laurel Pigeon Unfavourable Unfavourable
Bubo bubo Eurasian Eagle-owl Unfavourable FavourableNyctea scandiaca Snowy Owl Unfavourable Unfavourable
Surnia ulula Northern Hawk Owl Favourable FavourableGlaucidium passerinum Eurasian Pygmy-owl Favourable Favourable
Strix uralensis Ural Owl Favourable FavourableStrix nebulosa Great Grey Owl Favourable Favourable
Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl Unfavourable UnfavourableAegolius funereus Boreal Owl Favourable Favourable
Caprimulgus europaeus Eurasian Nightjar Unfavourable UnfavourableApus caffer White-rumped Swift Favourable Favourable
Alcedo atthis Common Kingfisher Unfavourable UnfavourableCoracias garrulus European Roller Unfavourable Unfavourable
Picus canus Grey-faced Woodpecker Unfavourable UnfavourableDryocopus martius Black Woodpecker Favourable Favourable
Dendrocopos syriacus Syrian Woodpecker Favourable FavourableDendrocopos medius Middle Spotted Woodpecker Favourable Favourable
Dendrocopos leucotos White-backed Woodpecker Favourable FavourablePicoides tridactylus Three-toed Woodpecker Unfavourable Unfavourable
Chersophilus duponti Dupontโs Lark Unfavourable UnfavourableMelanocorypha calandra Calandra Lark Unfavourable Unfavourable
Calandrella brachydactyla Greater Short-toed Lark Unfavourable UnfavourableGalerida theklae Thekla Lark Unfavourable Unfavourable
Lullula arborea Wood Lark Unfavourable UnfavourableAnthus campestris Tawny Pipit Unfavourable Unfavourable
Luscinia svecica Bluethroat Favourable FavourableSaxicola dacotiae Fuerteventura Chat Unfavourable Unfavourable
Oenanthe pleschanka Pied Wheatear Favourable Not in EUOenanthe cypriaca Cyprus Wheatear Favourable Favourable
Oenanthe leucura Black Wheatear Unfavourable UnfavourableAcrocephalus melanopogon Moustached Warbler Favourable Favourable
Acrocephalus paludicola Aquatic Warbler Unfavourable UnfavourableHippolais olivetorum Olive-tree Warbler Favourable Unfavourable
Sylvia sarda Marmoraโs Warbler Favourable FavourableSylvia undata Dartford Warbler Unfavourable Unfavourable
Sylvia melanothorax Cyprus Warbler Favourable FavourableSylvia rueppelli Rueppellโs Warbler Favourable Unfavourable
Sylvia nisoria Barred Warbler Favourable FavourableFicedula parva Red-breasted Flycatcher Favourable Favourable
Ficedula semitorquata Semicollared Flycatcher Unfavourable UnfavourableFicedula albicollis Collared Flycatcher Favourable Favourable
Sitta krueperi Krueperโs Nuthatch Unfavourable UnfavourableSitta whiteheadi Corsican Nuthatch Unfavourable Unfavourable
Lanius collurio Red-backed Shrike Unfavourable UnfavourableLanius minor Lesser Grey Shrike Unfavourable Unfavourable
Lanius nubicus Masked Shrike Unfavourable UnfavourablePyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax Red-billed Chough Unfavourable Unfavourable
Fringilla teydea Blue Chaffinch Unfavourable UnfavourableLoxia scotica Scottish Crossbill Unfavourable Unfavourable
Bucanetes githagineus Trumpeter Finch Favourable FavourablePyrrhula murina Azores Bullfinch Unfavourable Unfavourable
Emberiza cineracea Cinereous Bunting Unfavourable UnfavourableEmberiza hortulana Ortolan Bunting Unfavourable Unfavourable
Emberiza caesia Cretzschmarโs Bunting Favourable Favourable
Table 2 ...continued. List of all species of Annex I of the Birds Directive and their Conservation Status.
Overall 2004 Pan-European Overall 2004 EU25Scientific name Common name Conservation Status Conservation Status
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Species tables
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4046
![Page 54: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
47
Overall 2004 Pan-European Overall 2004 EU25Scientific name Common name Conservation Status Conservation StatusCygnus olor Mute Swan Favourable Favourable
Anser fabalis Bean Goose Favourable FavourableAnser brachyrhynchus Pink-footed Goose Favourable Favourable
Anser albifrons Greater White-fronted Goose Favourable FavourableAnser anser Greylag Goose Favourable Favourable
Branta canadensis Canada Goose Favourable Not in EUBranta bernicla Brent Goose Unfavourable Unfavourable
Anas penelope Eurasian Wigeon Favourable FavourableAnas strepera Gadwall Unfavourable Favourable
Anas crecca Eurasian Teal Favourable FavourableAnas platyrhynchos Mallard Favourable Favourable
Anas acuta Northern Pintail Unfavourable UnfavourableAnas querquedula Garganey Unfavourable Unfavourable
Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler Unfavourable UnfavourableNetta rufina Red-crested Pochard Favourable Favourable
Aythya ferina Common Pochard Unfavourable UnfavourableAythya fuligula Tufted Duck Unfavourable Unfavourable
Aythya marila Greater Scaup Unfavourable UnfavourableSomateria mollissima Common Eider Favourable Favourable
Clangula hyemalis Long-tailed Duck Favourable FavourableMelanitta nigra Black Scoter Favourable Favourable
Melanitta fusca White-winged Scoter Unfavourable UnfavourableBucephala clangula Common Goldeneye Favourable Favourable
Mergus serrator Red-breasted Merganser Favourable FavourableMergus merganser Common Merganser Favourable Favourable
Bonasa bonasia Hazel Grouse Favourable UnfavourableLagopus lagopus Willow Ptarmigan Favourable Unfavourable
Lagopus mutus Rock Ptarmigan Favourable UnfavourableTetrao tetrix Black Grouse Unfavourable Unfavourable
Tetrao urogallus Western Capercaillie Favourable UnfavourableAlectoris chukar Chukar Unfavourable Unfavourable
Alectoris graeca Rock Partridge Unfavourable UnfavourableAlectoris rufa Red-legged Partridge Unfavourable Unfavourable
Alectoris barbara Barbary Partridge Unfavourable UnfavourableFrancolinus francolinus Black Francolin Unfavourable Unfavourable
Perdix perdix Grey Partridge Unfavourable UnfavourableCoturnix coturnix Common Quail Unfavourable Favourable
Phasianus colchicus Common Pheasant Favourable FavourableRallus aquaticus Water Rail Favourable Favourable
Gallinula chloropus Common Moorhen Favourable FavourableFulica atra Common Coot Favourable Favourable
Haematopus ostralegus Eurasian Oystercatcher Favourable FavourablePluvialis apricaria Eurasian Golden-plover Favourable Unfavourable
Pluvialis squatarola Grey Plover Favourable FavourableVanellus vanellus Northern Lapwing Unfavourable Unfavourable
Calidris canutus Red Knot Unfavourable UnfavourablePhilomachus pugnax Ruff Unfavourable Unfavourable
Lymnocryptes minimus Jack Snipe Unfavourable UnfavourableGallinago gallinago Common Snipe Unfavourable Unfavourable
Scolopax rusticola Eurasian Woodcock Unfavourable UnfavourableLimosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit Unfavourable Unfavourable
Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit Favourable UnfavourableNumenius phaeopus Whimbrel Favourable Unfavourable
Numenius arquata Eurasian Curlew Unfavourable UnfavourableTringa erythropus Spotted Redshank Unfavourable Unfavourable
Tringa totanus Common Redshank Unfavourable UnfavourableTringa nebularia Common Greenshank Favourable Favourable
Larus ridibundus Common Black-headed Gull Favourable FavourableLarus canus Mew Gull Unfavourable Unfavourable
Larus fuscus Lesser Black-backed Gull Favourable FavourableLarus argentatus Herring Gull Favourable Favourable
Table 3. List of all species of Annex II of the Birds Directive and their Conservation Status.
... continued on next page
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Species tables
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4047
![Page 55: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
48
Larus cachinnans Yellow-legged Gull Favourable FavourableLarus marinus Great Black-backed Gull Favourable Favourable
Columba livia Rock Pigeon Favourable FavourableColumba oenas Stock Pigeon Favourable Favourable
Columba palumbus Common Wood-pigeon Favourable FavourableStreptopelia decaocto Eurasian Collared-dove Favourable Favourable
Streptopelia turtur European Turtle-dove Unfavourable UnfavourableAlauda arvensis Eurasian Skylark Unfavourable Unfavourable
Turdus merula Eurasian Blackbird Favourable FavourableTurdus pilaris Fieldfare Favourable Favourable
Turdus philomelos Song Thrush Favourable FavourableTurdus iliacus Redwing Favourable Favourable
Turdus viscivorus Mistle Thrush Favourable FavourableGarrulus glandarius Eurasian Jay Favourable Favourable
Pica pica Black-billed Magpie Favourable FavourableCorvus monedula Eurasian Jackdaw Favourable Favourable
Corvus frugilegus Rook Favourable FavourableCorvus corone Carrion Crow Favourable Favourable
Sturnus vulgaris Common Starling Unfavourable Unfavourable
Table 3 ...continued. List of all species of Annex II of the Birds Directive and their Conservation Status.
Overall 2004 Pan-European Overall 2004 EU25Scientific name Common name Conservation Status Conservation Status
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ Species tables
Explanations related to Table 1:Breeding and wintering population sizesRounded to two significant figures in most cases.ind โ Breeding population figure refers to individualsmax โ Wintering population figure refers to uppermost estimate
Historical and recent population trendsHistorical (1970โ1990) declines are defined as per Tucker and Heath(1994) and outlined in the chapter Methodology, section DataAnalysis:
โข Large decline โ population declined by โฅ20% in โฅ66% of thepopulation or by โฅ50% in โฅ25% of the population (where total sizeof declining populations exceeded that of increasing populations);
โข Moderate decline โ population declined by โฅ20% in 33โ65% of thepopulation or by โฅ50% in 12โ24% of the population (where totalsize of declining populations exceeded that of increasingpopulations).
โข Large and moderate historical increases were calculated similarly.All species classified as neither increasing nor declining wereclassified as stable.
The methods used to calculate recent (1990โ2000) breeding andwinter trends are outlined in the chapter Methodology, section DataAnalysis.
EU25 Threat StatusThreat status categories are defined in the chapter Methodology,section Conservation Status Assessment. The โผ symbol indicates that theEU25 threat status has been downgraded from a higher categorybecause the European population is marginal to a large non-Europeanpopulation, and is therefore not considered to be at risk from theeffects of small population size. The number of โผ symbols indicates thenumber of steps by which the speciesโs status has been downgraded.
Criteria metSee IUCN (2001) for full details of IUCN Red List Criteria. Non-IUCNcriteria are defined in the chapter Methodology, Box 3.
SPEC categories
โข SPEC 1 โ Species of global conservation concern, i.e. classified asglobally threatened, Near Threatened or Data Deficient (BirdLifeInternational 2004a; IUCN 2004).
โข SPEC 2 โ Concentrated in Europe and with an UnfavourableConservation Status.
โข SPEC 3 โ Not concentrated in Europe but with an UnfavourableConservation Status.
โข Non-SPECE โ Concentrated in Europe but with a FavourableConservation Status.
โข Non-SPEC โ Not concentrated in Europe and with a FavourableConservation Status.
โข W indicates that the category relates to the winter population.
Global IUCN Red List Category and CriteriaCategories and criteria per BirdLife International (2004a) and IUCN(2004): CR โ Critically Endangered; EN โ Endangered;VU โ Vulnerable; NT โ Near Threatened. See IUCN (2001) for fulldetails of criteria.
% European/global population in EU25winter โ Percentage refers to speciesโs wintering population
Birds DirectiveThe list of species incorporates all amendments to the Annexes of theCouncil Directive (79/409/EEC) up until May 2004. Four species listedon the Annexes do not appear herein: Branta canadensis (Annex II/1;feral population only within EU25); Circus macrourus (Annex I; doesnot occur regularly within EU25); Meleagris gallopavo (Annex II/2;feral population only within EU25); Oenanthe pleschanka (Annex I;does not occur regularly within EU25).
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4048
![Page 56: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
49
BirdLife International publications:BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (1998) IBA Review and the EU Birds
Directive. (unpublished report).BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2000) Threatened birds of the world.
Barcelona and Cambridge, UK: Lynx Editions and BirdLifeInternational.
BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2001) Important Bird Areas andpotential Ramsar Sites in Europe. Wageningen, TheNetherlands: BirdLife International.
BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2004a) Birds in Europe: populationestimates, trends and conservation status. Wageningen, TheNetherlands: BirdLife International. (BirdLife ConservationSeries No. 12).
BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL (2004b) Threatened birds of the world2004. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International (CD-ROM;www.birdlife.org).
BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL/EUROPEAN BIRD CENSUS COUNCIL
(2000): European bird populations: estimates and trends.Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International (BirdLifeConservation Series No. 10).
GALLO-ORSI, U. (2001) Saving Europeโs most threatened birds:progress in implementing European Species Action Plans.Wageningen, The Netherlands: BirdLife International.
GRIMMETT, R. F. A. AND JONES, T. A., eds. (1989) ImportantBird Areas in Europe. Cambridge, UK: InternationalCouncil for Bird Preservation (ICBP TechnicalPublication No. 9).
HEATH, M. F. AND EVANS, M. I., eds. (2000) Important BirdAreas in Europe: Priority sites for conservation. 2 vols.Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International (BirdLifeConservation Series No. 8).
NAGY, S. AND CROCKFORD, N. (2004) Review of implementationof species action plans for threatened birds within theframework of the Birds Directive. Wageningen, TheNetherlands: BirdLife International (Research report to theEuropean Commission, DG Environment).
STATTERSFIELD, A. J., CROSBY, M. J., LONG, A. J. AND WEGE,D. C. (1998) Endemic Bird Areas of the World โ Prioritiesfor Biodiversity Conservation. Cambridge, UK: BirdLifeInternational (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 7).
TUCKER, G. M. AND HEATH, M. F. (1994) Birds in Europe: theirconservation status. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International(BirdLife Conservation Series No. 3).
TUCKER, G. M. AND EVANS, M. I. (1997) Habitats for birds inEurope: a conservation strategy for the wider environment.Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International (BirdLifeConservation Series No. 6).
Other references:BORG, J. J. AND SULTANA, J. (2004) Important Bird Areas of EU
importance in Malta. Taโ Xbiex, Malta: BirdLife Malta.BOลพIร, L. (2003) Important Bird Areas (IBA) in Slovenia 2:
Proposed Special Protected Areas (SPA) in Slovenia.Ljubljana, Slovenia: DOPPS โ BirdLife Slovenia.
BRUNNER A., CELADA, C., ROSSI, P. AND GUSTIN, M. (2002)Sviluppo di un sistema nazionale delle ZPS sulla base delleIBA (Important Bird Areas). Rome, Italy: MinisterodellโAmbiente, Servizio Conservazione Natura / LIPU.
COLLINGHAM, Y. C., WILLIS, S. G., GREEN, R. E. AND HUNTLEY,B. (publication expected 2005): A climatic atlas of Europeanbreeding birds.
DECEUNINCK, B. AND DUNCAN, A. (2004a) France et Collectivitรฉsterritoriales dโoutre-mer in BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL LesOiseaux mondialement menacรฉs โ actions prioritaires deconservation. Cambridge, UK โ Rochefort, France: BirdLifeInternational /LPO.
DECEUNINCK, B. AND DUNCAN, A. (2004b) Worldwideendangered birds in France and overseas dรฉpartements andterritories [in French]. Rev. Ecol. (Terre Vie) 59: 355.
DONALD, P. F., GREEN, R. E. AND HEATH, M. F. (2001)Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europeโsfarmland bird populations. Proc.R.Soc.Lond. B 268: 25โ29.
DONALD, P. F., PISANO, G., RAYMENT, M. D. AND PAIN, D. J.(2002) The Common Agricultural Policy, EU enlargementand the conservation of Europeโs farmland birds.Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 89: 167โ182.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2001) European Union action plans foreight priority birds species. Luxembourg: Office for OfficialPublications of the European Communities.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2004) Guidance document on huntingunder the Birds Directive. Brussels, Belgium: Commissionof the European Communities. (DOC/ORN. 04/02, http://e u r o p a . e u . i n t / c o m m / e n v i r o n m e n t / n a t u r e /nature_conservation/focus_wild_birds/sustainable_hunting/pdf/hunting_en.pdf).
FASOLA, M. AND ALIERI, R. (1992a) Conservation of heronrysites in North Italian agricultural landscapes. BiologicalConservation 62: 219โ228.
FASOLA, M. AND ALIERI, R. (1992b) Nest site characteristics inrelation to Body Size in Herons in Italy. Colonial Waterbirds15: 185โ191.
FASOLA, M. AND HAFNER, H. (1997) Long-term monitoring andconservation of herons in France and Italy. ColonialWaterbirds 20: 298โ305.
FASOLA, M., HAFNER, H., PROSPER, P., VAN DER KOOIJ, H. AND
SCHOGOLEV I.V. (2000) Population changes in Europeanherons in relation to African climate. Ostrich 71: 52โ55.
GILISSEN, N., HAANSTRA, L., DELANY, S., BOERE, G. AND
HAGEMEIJER, W. (2002) Numbers and distribution of winteringwaterbirds in the Western Palearctic and Southwest Asia in1997, 1998 and 1999. Results from the InternationalWaterbird Census. Wageningen, The Netherlands: WetlandsInternational (Wetlands International Global Series No. 11).
GREGORY, R. D., NOBLE, D. G., ROBINSON, J. A., STROUD, D.A., CAMPBELL, L. H., REHFISCH, M.M., CRANSWICK, P. A.,WILKINSON, N. I., CRICK, H. Q. P. AND GREEN, E. E. (2002)The state of the UKโs birds 2001. Sandy, UK: RSPB, BTO,WWT and JNCC.
GREGORY, R. D., VAN STRIEN, A. J., VORISEK, P., GMELIG
MEYLING, A. W., NOBLE, D. G., FOPPEN, R. P. B. AND
GIBBONS, D. W. (in press) Developing indicators for Europeanbirds. London. UK: Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B.
HAGEMEIJER, W. J. M. AND BIBBY, C. J. ed (2000) The status ofbirds in Europe and the impact of the EU Birds Directive.Pp.18โ43 in THE DANISH NATIONAL FOREST AND NATURE
AGENCY 20 years with the EC Birds Directive: Proceedingsfrom a conference on the Councils Directive on theConservation of Wild Birds at Elsinore, Denmark, 18โ19November 1999.
HAGEMEIJER, W. J. M. AND BLAIR, M. J. ed (1997) The EBCCAtlas of European Breeding Birds: Their Distribution andAbundance. London, UK: T. and A. D. Poyser.
HEREDIA, B., ROSE, L. AND PAINTER, M. (1996) Globallythreatened birds in Europe : Action plans, ed. Strasbourg,France: Council of Europe Publishing.
HORA, J., MARHOUL, P. AND URBAN, T. (2002) Natura 2000 vรeskรฉ Republice: Nรกvrh Ptaรจรญch Oblastรญ (Natura 2000 in theCzech Republic: Special Protection Areas). Prague CzechRepublic: Czech Ornithological Society.
IEZEKIEL, S., MAKRIS, C. AND ANTONIOU, A. (2004) ImportantBird Areas of European Union importance in Cyprus. Nicosia,Cyprus: BirdLife Cyprus.
โ โ โ โ โ REFERENCES
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4049
![Page 57: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
50
IUCN (2001) IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version3.1. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN SpeciesSurvival Commission.
IUCN (2003) Guidelines for application of IUCN Red ListCriteria at regional levels: Version 3.0. Gland, Switzerlandand Cambridge, UK: IUCN Species Survival Commission.
IUCN (2004) The 2004 IUCN Red List of threatened species.(www.redlist.org).
KUUS, A. AND KALAMEES, A. (2003) Important Bird Areas ofEuropean Union importance in Estonia. Tartu, Estonia:Estonian Ornithological Society.
LARSSON, T., PAGH JENSEN, F. AND MรTAIS, M. ed (2000): SpecialProtection Areas โ 20 years on. Pp. 44โ54 in The DanishNational Forest and Nature Agency, 20 years with the ECBirds Directive: Proceedings from a conference on theCouncils Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds atElsinore, Denmark, 18โ19 November 1999.
LITTELL, R. C., MILLIKEN, G. A., STROUP, W. W. AND
WOLFINGER, R. D. (1996) SASยฎ System for Mixed Models.Cary, N.C, USA: SAS Institute Inc.
LOVรSZI, P. ed. (2002) Proposed Special Protection Areas inHungary. Budapest, Hungary: Hungarian Ornithologicaland Nature Conservation Society.
MILJร- OG ENERGIMINISTERIET, SKOV- OG NATURSTYRELSEN
(1999) Birds of Danish SPAs โ trends in occurrence.Copenhagen, Denmark.
OSIECK, E. R. AND MรRZER BRUYNS, M. F. (1981) ImportantBird Areas in the European Community. Cambridge, UK:International Council for Bird Preservation (Final report ofthe ICBP EC working group).
RAฤINSKIS, E. (2004) Important Bird Areas of European Unionimportance in Latvia. Riga, Latvia: Latvian OrnithologicalSociety.
RAUDONIKIS, L. (2004) Important Bird Areas of the EuropeanUnion importance in Lithuania. Vilnius, Lithuania:Lithuanian Ornithological Society.
ROCAMORA, G. AND YEATMAN-BERTHELOT, D. (1999) Oiseauxmenacรฉs et ร surveiller en France. Listes rouges et recherche
de prioritรฉs. Populations. Tendances. Menaces. Conservation.Paris, France: Sociรฉtรฉ dโEtudes Ornithologiques de France/Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux.
RYBANIฤ, R., ล UTIAKOVA, T. AND BENKO, ล . eds. (2004)Important Bird Areas of European Union importance inSlovakia. Bratislava, Slovakia: Society for the Protectionof Birds in Slovakia.
SCOTT, D. A. AND ROSE, P. M. (1996) Atlas of AnatidaePopulations in Africa and Western Eurasia. Wageningen, TheNetherlands: Wetlands International (WetlandsInternational Publication No. 41).
SNOW, D. W. AND PERRINS, C. M. (1998) The birds of the WesternPalearctic: concise edition. Vols. 1โ2. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford, UK.
STROUD, D. A., DAVIDSON, N. C., WEST, R., SCOTT, D. A.,HAANSTRA, L., THORUP, O., GANTER, B. AND DELANY, S.(compilers on behalf of the International Wader StudyGroup) (2004) Status of migratory wader populations inAfrica and Western Eurasia in the 1990s. InternationalWader Studies 15: 1โ259.
THE DANISH NATIONAL FOREST AND NATURE AGENCY ed (2000)20 years with the EC Birds Directive: Proceedings from aconference on the Councils Directive on the Conservation ofWild Birds at Elsinore, Denmark, 18โ19 November 1999.
THORUP, O. (compiler) (in press) Breeding waders in Europe: ayear 2000 assessment. International Wader Studies 14.
VAN DEN TEMPEL, R. AND OSIECK, E. R. (1994) Areas importantfor birds in the Netherlands. Zeist, Netherlands:Vogelbescherming Nederland.
VAN STRIEN, A. J., PANNEKOEK, J. AND GIBBONS, D. W. (2001):Indexing European bird population trends using results ofnational monitoring schemes: a trial of a new method. BirdStudy 48: 200โ213.
WETLANDS INTERNATIONAL (2002) Waterbird PopulationEstimates โ Third Edition. Wageningen, The Netherlands:Wetlands International (Wetlands International GlobalSeries No. 12).
Birds in the European Union: a status assessment โ References
Birds in the EU_ status.p65 25/10/2004, 16:4050
![Page 58: Birds in the European Union - a status assessment (PDF, 1.3 MB)](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022070222/613d2265736caf36b759b8c1/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
BirdLife in the European UnionThe BirdLife International Partnership works in all Member States of the European Union and beyond
w w w. b i r d l i f e . o r g
BIRDS IN THE EUROPEAN UNIONa status assessment
BIRDS IN THE EUROPEAN UNIONa status assessment
BIRDS IN THE EUROPEAN UNIONa status assessment
This report has been produced with the support of:
For further information please contact:BirdLife International European Community Office (ECO), Rue de la Loi 81a, box 4, B-1040 Brussels, Belgium
Tel. +32 2 280 08 30 Fax +32 2 230 38 02 Email [email protected]
Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality
European Commission Vogelbescherming NederlandThe BirdLife Partner in the Netherlands
BIR
DS IN
TH
E EUR
OP
EAN
UN
ION
a sta
tus a
ssessm
en
tB
irdLife International