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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. Thank you for your attention!
Comunità Ambiente