Updating the list of bird species covered by Article 1 of the Birds Directive: Update on progress since April 2014 16 October 2014 Ian Burfield and Rob Martin BirdLife International Under a subcontract from THE N2K GROUP European Economic Interest Group

Main changes since April 2014 One list (based on taxonomy, nomenclature and order of HBW-BirdLife Checklist – see later) Differences from 1999 EU list clearly highlighted Treatment by IOC, Clements and now Howard & Moore (Dickinson 2003) checklists also included Separate tabs for: ‘Native’ Category A species (n = 468) ‘Vagrant’ Category A species (n = 307) ‘Pre-1950’ Category B species (n = 13) ‘Introduced’ Category C species (n = 34)

Main changes since April 2014 Seasonal occurrence updated (per MS comments) Migratory status simplified (per MS comments) Synonyms used in Birds Directive added Listing on Birds Directive Annexes I/II/III added Listing on CMS and CITES Appendices I/II added Latest (July 2014) IUCN Red List status added

Issues raised by Hungary (14 Oct 2014) Definition of ‘migratory’ species CMS definition differs slightly from BirdLife/IUCN definition Global and EU migratory status are not always the same What constitutes a ‘significant proportion’? How to assess? Nomadic/irruptive/altitudinal migrants – include or not? Agree that all species listed on CMS Appendices*, ACAP, AEWA, Raptors MoU and AEMLAP** should be listed as migrants (including most of those identified by HU) – but: * CMS lists some taxa under higher orders or families – a complication, as not all members of these are migrants ** AEMLAP annexes originally based on BirdLife codes, some of which have since changed – AEML-SG is aware of this and has indicated it will revise list (pending adoption at COP 11)

Issues raised by Hungary (14 Oct 2014) Definition of ‘vagrant’ species Feedback implies that the ‘working definition’ needs to be revised – suggested rewording below: “Those recorded in an apparently wild state since 1950, but which do not occur regularly and naturally or predictably within the EU, and are therefore not subject to the provisions of Article 4 of the Birds Directive and which do not normally rely on the resources provided in the EU (e.g. for breeding, staging or wintering) to complete their life cycle and maintain their population status.”

Issues raised by Hungary (14 Oct 2014) Category B – distinguishing ‘natives’ from ‘vagrants’ Simple (Great Auk and Canarian Oystercatcher native, others vagrants) – but how useful is this? Category A (‘native’) Phasianus colchicus – disagree, remained extant in BG and GR (?) after 1950, so listed as A, not B Limosa lapponica – agree, will add as breeder Carduelis hornemanni – included in C. flammea Category A (‘vagrant’) Zapornia flavirostra – agree, will remove from list

Issues raised by Hungary (14 Oct 2014) Category B (pre-1950) Pluvianus aegyptius – unclear, ask ES to clarify Larus leucophthalmus – disagree, on Greek list Aquila rapax – disagree, on Italian list Category C (introduced) Coturnix japonica – agree, will remove from list Branta hutchinsii – disagree, established in NL Ploceus cucullatus – agree, unless established in PT Estrilda melpoda – agree, unless established in PT

Incorporating the HBW-BirdLife Checklist

Incorporating the HBW-BirdLife Checklist Advantages: Comprehensive – practical methodology allows all taxa to be evaluated and included. Other checklists are not comprehensive, as for >50% of taxa, nothing published on taxonomy for decades. Consistent – system for assigning species rank (Tobias et al. 2010) allows homogeneous and repeatable decisions. Other checklists rely heavily on published literature, resulting in an inconsistent mix of taxa defined as species based on different concepts (BSC, PSC, etc.), some prioritising genetics, others vocalisations, etc. Transparent – all of the numerous (almost 500) changes presented are explained and justified in detail in the text. Other checklists just tend to adopt decisions made by others, without documenting the evidence, and simply cite a bibliographical reference, at most.

Procedure for assigning species status Based on five classes of taxonomic character: Morphology (biometrics) Acoustics (vocalisations) Plumage and bare parts Ecology and behaviour Geographical relationship Magnitude scored from 1 (minor) to 4 (exceptional) If combined total score ≥ 7, species status is assigned [N.B. Genetics also used extensively, but not possible to assign numeric score to percentage of genetic difference]

Intensive work at 10 museums in Europe + USA >3,700 specimens examined >7,000 measurements taken

Exhaustive research of taxonomic bibliography >9,000 papers on non-passerines consulted >2,000 papers referenced in taxonomic notes

Participation, feedback and new information are encouraged via a dedicated online forum

Volume 2 (Passerines) due in 2016

HBW-BirdLife Checklist already forms basis of IUCN Red List (Non-passerines)

Harmonisation with other MEAs CITES (May 2014) AC27 Doc. 25.1 Paragraph 7 and 13-19 (General Nomenclatural Standard Reference for Birds): “The Working Group recommends to the Animals Committee to postpone this discussion to its 28th Meeting [in 2015] when – in addition to the new edition of the Howard & Moore Checklist for Non-passerines – the new HBW-BirdLife Checklist will be published and available, thus enabling the Animals Committee to thoroughly evaluate which would best serve the needs under CITES.”

Harmonisation with other MEAs CMS (Aug 2014) Draft resolution for adoption at COP 11 (Nov 2014) in relation to the taxonomy and nomenclature of birds listed on the CMS Appendices (Agenda Item 23.1.6): “The 18th Meeting of the Scientific Council (Bonn, 1-3 July 2014) took into account the results of the ad hoc meeting [in Formia, Oct 2013] and recommended the adoption of the Handbook of the Birds of the World/BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World.”