Management Plans for Birds: an EU Assessment Oliviero Spinelli Barbara Calaciura

1. THE N2K GROUP Management Plans for Birds: an EU Assessment Oliviero Spinelli Barbara Calaciura

2. Outline The question at stake – Why is it relevant? Objective of the assessment of the 13 EU Management Plans The survey Expected outcomes Preliminary results Preliminary conclusions Comunità Ambiente

3. The question at stake • 13 EU Management Plans (MPs) produced – 3-year frame - now expired • Are Management Plans an effective tool? What success? • Sufficient added value of MPs to justify hunting of declining species? • Reminder: solidarity between Member States (MS): • Migratory species • Same legal obligations (Birds Directive) • Non-jeopardization of conservation efforts in the distribution area (avoiding contradictory management measures on the flyway) Comunità Ambiente

4. Objectives of the on-going assessment • Objective: • Have adequate measures for huntable species been implemented? • Should MPs be updated , new ones produced, or the approach abandoned? • Aim: assessing the implementation of EU MPs • Have EU MP triggered action at national/sub-national level? • Have the recommended measures been implemented? • Implication of the hunting community? • Assessment does not deal with population response (cf. article 12 report) Comunità Ambiente

5. The Survey • Method: • Questionnaire • Survey sent to Ornis Committee members • Qualitative assessment with scores based on experts' knowledge • Calculation of implementation indicators (Gallo-Orsi, 2001) • Insufficient level of response at the time of the draft analysis: • 17 MS replied - 12 MS evaluated • MS which replied in the meantime: DE, DK, IT, LT, PL, SI • MS which provided integrations: • SE, NL C: complete; P: partial; NR: not received Comunità Ambiente

6. Expectedoutcomes • Part I: • Measures triggered/inspired by MPs? Other measures implemented? • Instruments under which MPs measures are carried out • General opinion on the impact of MPs • Role of the hunting community in the implementation of MPs • Part II: • Achievement of short-term objectives • Part III: • Scoring the implementation level of each measure of the MPs Comunità Ambiente

7. Preliminaryresults: part I (1) • In 76% cases the actions undertaken for the species have not been inspired/triggered by the EU MPs. Conversely, almost all MSs (74%) have carried out a number of measures independently from the MPs, both included in the plans and/or other than those laid down in the plans. Percentage of “Yes” and “No” replies to the question “Have the measures taken for the species at regional/national level been inspired/triggered by the EU MP?” for each MP across the 12 MS Percentage of “Yes” and “No” replies to the question “Have other measures been taken independently from the EU MP?” for each MP across the 12 MS Comunità Ambiente

8. Preliminaryresults: part I (2) • The actions of the plans are mainly integrated in other instruments (65% of the instances): • legislative instruments (covering species and habitat protection, sites designation, hunting, etc.), • rural programmes (different agri-environmental measures), • monitoring schemes, • sectoral plans, • projects (research, monitoring, restoration). • Hunting community did not play any role in almost all plans implementation (87%). Their contribution, mainly at their own initiative, occurs only in the case of huntable species: • collection of data on individuals shot, controlling predators, monitoring and surveys of populations, hunting and habitat management … Comunità Ambiente

9. Preliminaryresults: part I (3) • In 64% of the cases, the contribution of the implemented measures to the conservation status of the species is not known, while it is supposed to have a positive contribution only in 8% of the replies. • The main reasons for MS to account no • contribution are related to: • the small size of the national populations to • observe any impact, • the negative trend of national populations, • suggesting that the actions did not work, • the low level of local implementation of the measures. Comunità Ambiente

10. Preliminaryresults: part II • 10 MPs identify the objectives to be achieved in 3 years. The actions are grouped according the objectives they contribute to achieve. • The short-term objectives are considered: • achieved: all the related measures are implemented (IS>1); • not achieved: all measures are not or very little implemented (IS=1); • partially achieved:some measures are scored >1 and others =1. The plan for Melanittafuscais the only one for which almost all the objectives have been achieved (one objective has been only partially reached). For all the other plans the objectives have been achieved only in part. 69% of all objectives of all the 10 MPs has been partially reached. Comunità Ambiente

11. Preliminaryresults: part III • All EU MPs are implemented or are in the process of implementation. Some plans have not - or only very partially- been implemented (all measures with IS=1) in some countries and some others are not relevant (all measures with IS=0). • The greatest efforts are made to implement the MP for Melanittafusca(AIS=3,0), while the least implemented is the MP for Pluvialisapricaria(AIS=1,88). Note: the number of countries assessed differs from plan to plan. Average Implementation Score (AIS) of the 13 MP. 4 = full implementation; 3 = significant progress; 2 = some progress; 1 = no implementation Comunità Ambiente

12. An example. Alaudaarvensis • NIS: National Implementation Score = average progress with implementation by MS • AIS: Average Implementation Score • API: Action Priority Index = need for further action The measure with some progress is the availability of data on the number of Skylark annually harvested (result 9) Greatest efforts are required in particular to ensure the harvesting is conform with the BD and does not hinder the recovery of the species to Favourable Conservation Status (results 10) Comunità Ambiente

13. Preliminary conclusions (1) • All MSs have contributed to the implementation of the EU MPs undertaking measures in the framework of a wide range of different instruments. …even though… • Rarely measures are triggered by the Plans, while often are taken independently from the Plans. • On the level of implementation: • The implementation level depends mainly on whether the species are considered threatened and in need of actions in addition to the general conservation ones. • Main actions of the MP are principally aimed at MS with important numbers and sites, but often significant progress is made by MS where species do not occur to a significant extent. Comunità Ambiente

14. Preliminaryconclusions(2) • Talking about limiting factors and stakeholders: • Measures are more difficult to apply where negotiations with owners, managers and farmers are needed on conflicting interests. • Lack of sufficient funding is often identified as a factor limiting the implementation. • There might be a loss of interest of stakeholders for the not huntable species. • The hunting community contributes to the actions, usually on its own initiative, where the concerned species is huntable and significantly important for hunters’ interests. Comunità Ambiente

15. Preliminaryconclusions(3) So… Management Plans: potentially a valuable tool for huntable species, also for sustainable hunting. However… still unclear whether they deliver. Current assessment will provide the basis for reviewing this approach. Comunità Ambiente

16. Looking forward to collaborating with you. Thank you for your attention!. Comunità Ambiente