Management Plans for Birds: an EU Assessment

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 CEER How to balance the public’s concerns and critical infrastructure construction Matti Vainio, Deputy HoU DG ENV – C.5, European Commission.
Advertisements

Integrated Projects Spetember 2013 Maja Mikosinska DG Environment European Commission.
1 Framework Programme 7 Guide for Applicants
Animal Welfare EU Strategy Introduction Community Action Plan The Commission's commitment to EU citizens, stakeholders, the EP and.
Managing the Natura 2000 network: state of play, challenges and opportunities.
DETERMINE Working document # 4 'Economic arguments for addressing social determinants of health inequalities' December 2009 Owen Metcalfe & Teresa Lavin.
European Commission, DG Environment, Nature Unit
Expert Group on Natura 2000 Management Meeting of 19 May 2011 Fact Sheet on Member State Natura 2000 Management Planning THE N2K GROUP.
THE NEW REPORTING SYSTEM Photo: Kristina Eriksson Mats Eriksson N2K Group.
Setting conservation objectives for Natura 2000 François Kremer DG ENV.B.3 Expert Group Natura 2000 Management Meeting of 23 November 2011
Business environment in the EU Prepared by Dr. Endre Domonkos (PhD)
Relationship between EUROWATERNET and the Water Framework Directive, and for broader water reporting Steve Nixon ETC/WTR.
9/16/2018 The ACT Government’s commitment to Performance and Accountability – the role of Evaluation Presentation to the Canberra Evaluation Forum Thursday,
Low Hanging Fruits Mora Aronsson ETC-BD/SLU
Low Hanging Fruits Mora Aronsson ETC-BD/SLU
Principles and rationale for SAC/SPA designation and management
Guidance on Natura 2000 and Forests – Scoping Document
Guidance on Natura 2000 and Forests – Scoping Document
EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 Towards implementation & monitoring
Last developments of report formats
WORKSHOP 17th Sept 2008 EUROPEAN COMMISSION
The Natura 2000 Biogeographical Process
EU Biodiversity Strategy in context
Management Plans for Birds: an EU Assessment
EMFF Funding opportunities for the environment
Constance von Briskorn BIO by Deloitte 13-14th October 2014
The ERA.Net instrument Aims and benefits
of EU-level green and blue infrastructure
Workshop with the 8 PAF related Proposals & the Habitats Committee
Results of the Organizational Performance
A new financial instrument
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT - SCOPING 1st meeting of the Sub-Group
The FACE Biodiversity Manifesto
Building Knowledge about ESD Indicators
Animal Welfare EU Strategy
Work on the coherence of data-flows / improving data-quality
Revised Art 12 reporting format
Conservation objectives: The favourable conservation status
Preliminary methodology for the assessment of Member States’ reporting on Programme of Measures (Article 16) WG DIKE Sarine Barsoumian (12/10/2015, Brussels)
The environmental dimension of the EMFF
IMPROVING PUBLIC INFORMATION
Technical guidance in relation to the non-energy extractive industry
EU Marine Strategy DG Environment B.1.
Addressing the challenge of water scarcity and droughts
When and how to best consider the provision of the Habitats directive
2012 Annual Call Steps of the evaluation of proposals, role of the experts TEN-T Experts Briefing, March 2013.
Natura 2000 and river basin management
FINANCING NATURA 2000 Agenda item 2.1 CGBN Co-ordination Group
Overview of Article 6 procedures under the Habitats Directive
Setting conservation objectives for Natura 2000
Management of farmland in Natura 2000 Ideas for a first outline
Streamlining of monitoring and reporting under WFD, Nitrates Directive and EEA's SoE –concept paper DG Environment.
ESTABLISHING CONSERVATION MEASURES FOR NATURA 2000 SITES
PROVISIONS UNDER THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE RELEVANT TO NEEI
Analysis of the notification of compensatory measures
Natura 2000 management group Brussels, 19 May 2011
Update on Progress in Marine SPAs
Meeting of PAP/RAC Focal Points, Split, Croatia, 8-9 May 2019
Guidance on Non-energy extractive industries & Natura 2000
Natural Water Retention Measures
Green infrastructure developments at EEA 2018
New Biogeographic process
Does N2k standard data form cause unequal treatment of energy infrastructure (PCI)? Aleš Kregar, Elektro-Slovenija, d. o. o. Brussels, May 3rd 2013.
What does it mean to have a forest in a Natura 2000 area?
Update on Bird issues: Management Plans (1)
Achieving coexistence with large carnivores in the EU
Leverage effect of PAFs : experience from CAP integration
AAdopted Rural Development Programmes – implications for second RBMPs
Natura 2000 and Forests A new guidance document
Nature Directives Expert Group Meeting Brussels, 22 May 2019
Presentation transcript:

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

Outline The question at stake – Why is the assessment of the implementation of the Management Plans relevant? Objective of the assessment of the 13 EU Management Plans The survey Outcomes Results Conclusions Comunità Ambiente

The question at stake 13 EU Management Plans (MPs) produced – 3-year frame - now expired Are Management Plans an effective tool? Have they achieved any 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

Objectives of the assessment 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 for the hunting community? Assessment does not deal with birds population response (cf. article 12 report) Comunità Ambiente

The Survey Method: Responses: Survey sent to Ornis Committee members Score attribution based on experts' knowledge Calculation of implementation indicators (Gallo-Orsi, 2001) Indicators do not take into account the relative importance of the species’ population in different countries Responses: 25 MS replied – 22 MS evaluated, but not for all Plans (partial replies): MS and number of MS differ from plan to plan The analysis does not cover the whole EU population and/or range of the 13 species C: complete; P: partial; NR: not received Comunità Ambiente

Outcomes Part I: Part II: Part III: 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

Have the actions been triggered by the MP? In 80% of the cases the measures undertaken for the species have not been inspired/triggered by the EU MPs 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 22 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 22 MS Comunità Ambiente

Are the actions integrated in other tools? In 82% of the instances, measures are integrated in other instruments: legislative instruments (species protection, sites designation, hunting, etc.), rural programmes (different agri-environmental measures), monitoring schemes, sectoral plans, projects (research, monitoring, restoration). What has been the hunters’ contribution? Hunting community did not play any role in most plans implementation (79%). They contributed mainly in the case of huntable species and in relation to hunting activities: collection of data on individuals shot, setting hunting seasons and bag limits Comunità Ambiente

Contribution of the MPs to conservation status of the species? Based on experts' opinion but not on a scientific assessment The contribution is not known in 65% of the cases, it is supposed positive only in 7% of the replies and it is reputed null in a larger proportion (28%). The main reasons for MS to account no contribution are related to: the small size of the national populations to observe any impact the persistence of the main threats to the species the negative trend of populations suggesting that the actions did not work the low level of local implementation of the measures Comunità Ambiente

Short-term objectives Total number of objectives Achievement of the short-term objectives? 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 show some progress (IS>1) in all MS not achieved: all measures are not or very little implemented (IS=1) partially achieved: at least 1 measure is implemented (IS>1) in at least 1 MS. Species Short-term objectives Achieved Partially achieved Not Achieved Total number of objectives Limosa limosa 1 2 4 Larus canus 5 Vanellus vanellus Tringa totanus 3 Alauda arvensis Melanitta fusca Numenius arquata Anas acuta Aythya marila 6 Streptopelia turtur Overall 8% 90% 3% 39 Only 3 Plans have objectives achieved across all concerned MS, and only 1 per Plan 90% of all objectives of all the 10 MPs has been partially reached The plan for Melanitta fusca is the one for which all the applicable objectives have been achieved by the greatest number (36%) of concerned MS. Comunità Ambiente

What is the implementation level of the MP? 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). On average the plans show just moderate implementation progress (Average AIS=2,3) The greatest efforts are made to implement the MP for Melanitta fusca (AIS=2,8), while the least implemented is the MP for Vanellus vanellus (AIS=1,87). Note: the number of countries assessed differs from plan to plan. Average Implementation Score (AIS) of the 13 MPs. 4 = full implementation; 3 = significant progress; 2 = some progress; 1 = no implementation Comunità Ambiente

An example. Alauda arvensis (Skylark) NIS: National Implementation Score = average progress with implementation by MS AIS: Average Implementation Score API: Action Priority Index = need for further action The measures with good progress are: the availability of data on the number of Skylark annually harvested (result 9) and ensuring conformity of harvesting with the Birds Directive (result 10). But greater efforts are required to promote an adequate farming management of habitats suitable for the Skylark (results 1-4). - API   essential/critical 4 high priority 3 medium priority 2 low priority 1 Comunità Ambiente

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… A limited number of measures are triggered by the Plans, while they often are taken independently from the Plans, including measures different from the ones recommended by the Plans. Opinions on contribution to population status MSs believing no contribution are more than those reputing a possible positive impact. The implementation of Natura 2000 with the legal protection of the sites would play a key positive role. Comunità Ambiente

Conclusions (2) On the level of implementation: It depends mainly on whether the species are considered 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. In general, policy and legislative protection actions are well implemented, as well as monitoring of the populations sizes. The actions requiring a greater effort in respect to the basic protection, management and research activities, show a lower implementation. Comunità Ambiente

Conclusions (3) Implementation of actions relating to hunting : Better applied for the binding legislative rules (i.e. harvesting seasons), but with some exception. Bags statistics are not available or only very partially in 25% of cases. Assessment of hunting impact and sustainability, are not, or only in a small measure, taken into consideration. Comunità Ambiente

Conclusions (4) 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. There might be a loss of interest of stakeholders for not huntable species. The hunting community usually contributes where the concerned species is huntable and important for hunters’ interests, usually to actions related to hunting and to a lesser extent to species and habitat management. Comunità Ambiente

Conclusions (5) So… Management Plans: potentially a valuable tool for huntable species, - especially for coordinated actions especially with hunters support But… Poor implementation How to improve their delivery? How to benefit more from the opportunity of hunters engagement? Comunità Ambiente

Thank you for your attention! Comunità Ambiente