birds issue - european...

The NATURA 2000 Newsletteris produced by the LIFE and

Nature Conservation Units ofthe Environment Directorate

General (DG ENV) of theEuropean Commission.

This newsletter is producedtwice a year and is availablein English, French, German,

Spanish and Italian.

CONTENTSTHE SPA NETWORK:Safeguarding Europe’s

most valuable bird areaspages 2–5

SPECIES ACTIONPLANS:

European action plansfor the EU’s mostthreatened birds

pages 6–9

SPA BAROMETER: as of 15 October 2004

pages 10–11

WORKING INPARTNERSHIP:

The Birds Directive:working in partnership

pages 12–15

LIFE FOR BIRDS: Breathing LIFE into bird

conservationpages 16–18

BIODIVERSITY:Birds in the wider

biodiversity contextpages 19–20

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus. Photo: Andy Hay

2000naturaEUROPEAN COMMISSION DG ENV NATURE NEWSLETTER Issue 18 • October 2004

The approval of the Birds Directive in1979 marked the first significantcommitment of the European Communityto nature conservation. This was aresponse to the recognition that effectivebird conservation especially for migratoryspecies, requires internationalcollaboration and common standardsacross countries. The 25th anniversary ofthe directive is an occasion not only tocelebrate positive achievements but alsoto highlight remaining gaps inimplementation which need to beaddressed and to consider the futurechallenges for bird conservation in anenlarged European Union.

There is much to celebrate. Targetedconservation actions within theframework of the directive, includingmany projects supported by the EU LIFENature programme, have improvedsignificantly the status of many ofEurope’s most threatened bird species.The protection of vital habitats, inparticular wetlands, has been promotedby the creation of an impressive networkof Special Protection Areas (SPAs). Theimplementation of this directive has also

contributed to the debate on the needfor wider measures for the conservationand sustainable use of biodiversity.

The picture is however not allpositive. A number of Member Stateshave yet to complete implementation,particularly in the designation of SPAs.More widely the latest statistics compiledby BirdLife International on bird trendsin Europe show that there are continuingserious declines of formerly commonspecies, especially farmland birds. Theclear challenge for the future is to findways to halt and reverse these worryingtrends. Recognising this, the EU Headsof State and Government set themselvesthe objective at the Göteburg Summit of2001 of halting the decline ofbiodiversity by 2010.

Commitment and support is requiredacross European society to achieve this.Europe’s citizens recognise birds as apowerful symbol for our natural heritageand expect us to succeed in this task.

Nicholas HanleyHead of Natur e and Biodiversity Unit

DG Environment, European Commission

25 YEARS OF THE BIRDS DIRECTIVE

ISSN 1026-6151

2 NATURA 2000 18 • OCTOBER 2004

Safeguarding Europe’s most valuable bird areas

For a quarter of a century, the BirdsDirective has set the standard for birdconservation across the Communityof then 9, now 25, Member States. Itwas also the first piece of legislationto create a coherent network ofspecial protection areas for birds inthe EU. To mark its 25th anniversary,the European Environment Agency’sTopic Centre for Nature andBiodiversity recently completed adetailed review of the SPA network.This provides a valuable insight intothe nature of the network and theextent to which it has achieved itsobjectives.

Obligations under the BirdsDirectiveArticle 4 of the Birds Directiverequires Member States to classifythe most suitable territories, innumber and surface area, for 194species (listed in Annex I)considered to be threatened withinthe EU. It imposes similar measureson the habitats of migratory birdspecies not listed in Annex I,particularly regarding wetlands ofinternational importance.

In the early stages ofimplementation, the term ‘most

suitable areas’ raised manyquestions as no specific criteriawere given in the Directive to helpidentify these.

To facilitate this task, expertsfrom the Member States, EuropeanCommission and BirdLife gatheredin the early 1980s to work out a setof criteria for identifying sites ofgreat importance for conservingbirds in the EU.

Out of this was born theImportant Bird Areas Inventory(most recently updated in 2000)which is used by the Commission,in the absence of any similarnational reviews, to assess ifMember States have classified all themost suitable territories as SPAs. (anapproach which has since beenendorsed by four Court of Justicerulings).

Evolution of the networkProgress in classifying sites wasinitially very slow. By 1986, a mere309 sites had been designated but,as Member States duties becameclearer, so the process began totake on momentum. By 1991, thenumber of SPAs had doubled to667. Nevertheless, this was still wellbelow expectations, and it is nowevident that significant progress wasonly really made in the last eightyears (actually, the coverage interms of surface area has increasedby 62% just in the last five years).

These late developments areprobably due to a combination offactors:➤ By 1989 there had been a

substantial increase in ourknowledge of birds in the EUand an improved reference list of

THE SPA NETWORK

Mating cranes, and (inset) at the nest, Finland. Photos: Jorma Lutha

SPAs classification over time in surface area (km²)

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

1986 1991 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

NB: the graph is basedon availability ofdatabases fromMember States; actualdesignation years maybe different –databases provided oneor two years later.

NATURA 2000 18 • OCTOBER 2004 3

Important Bird Areas (IBAs)upon which to base the selectionof sites;

➤ In 1992, the adoption of theHabitats Directive gave renewedpolitical impetus to thedesignation of key sites tosafeguard Europe’s mostvulnerable wildlife and habitatsby introducing a new allencompassing Natura 2000network, which would integrateall existing and future SPAs;

➤ Successive enlargements of theEU meant that the Birds Directivewas being implemented over anincreasingly large area (in factthe EU has more than doubled insize since the adoption of theBirds Directive). It also broughtin a number of biologically richcountries who would be able tomake a substantial contributionto bird conservation in Europe;

➤ By the mid 1990s, theCommission had begun to takeMember States to court for theirfailure to classify the mostsuitable areas under the BirdsDirective.

Monetary issues also played animportant role. For the first time in1992; significant financial resourceswere made available, through a funddedicated to conservation (LIFE-Nature) to carry out practicalconservation work within SPAs. Fiveyears later, the Commission startedto use the threat of withholding EUregional and rural developmentfunding from Member States whofailed to adequately implement EUnature conservation policy.

The nature of the networkToday, the whole SPA network ismade up of over 3,600 sitescovering an area of land and watergreater than 280,000 km² (about thesize of the United Kingdom!). Theindividual sites range from 1 ha toover 500,000 ha, with the majoritybeing around 100–10,000 ha (73%).This variation in size may reflect thetypes of habitats involved, such astundra and steppes which are moreextensive in nature, or it may resultfrom a more holistic approach,adopted by some countries, toincluding wider elements of thelandscape in the designation of theirsites.

The network does indeed covera wide range of different habitats.Not surprisingly wetlands featureprominently but others are also wellrepresented such as forests, heathsand extensive grasslands…evenmarine areas. Regularly cultivatedagricultural land, on the other hand,only represents some 8% of theareas within the Network.

This diversity is indicative of thefact that many SPAs are importantfor a whole range of species andhabitats. Over half of them havebeen designated, in total or in part,as sites under the Habitats Directiveas well.

Is the network complete?The scale of the SPA network is nowimpressive, but is it complete? Thisis a difficult question to answer asthe Birds Directive does not setquantifiable objectives, nor does itprovide any detailed ornithologicalcriteria to enable comparisons to be

made between the requirements ofArticle 4 and the SPAs designatedby the Member States.

Comparison between MemberStates is further complicated by thevery heterogeneous distribution andabundance of bird species acrossthe EU. As a result, some MemberStates have a heavier burden thanothers in implementing the BirdsDirective. Nevertheless, there arealready some clear signs emergingfrom the present list of sites (see theSPA Barometer pages 10–11)

The first is that, despite recentprogress, there is still a deficit formost Member States. Only Belgium,Denmark and the Netherlands canbe considered to have largelycompleted their SPA classification.The Network for France, on theother hand, is the mostdisappointing, covering only 2% ofthe country, and cannot be justifiedon biological grounds.

So far, four Member States havebeen condemned for insufficientdesignation of SPAs. TheNetherlands which was the first tohave such a ruling has since put inplace a substantial network.However, Italy, Finland and France,who have each received similarrulings, have yet to fully comply.

The relatively poor performanceof some of these older MemberStates has not set a good examplefor the ten newcomers.Nevertheless, there are encouragingsigns that the new Member States

A (14%)

B (5%)

C (5%)

D (7%)

E (13%)

F (16%)

G (25%)

H (4%)

I (8%)J (3%)

A Marine habitatsB Coastal habitatsC Inland surface water habitatsD Mire, bogs and fen habitatsE Grassland and tall forb habitatsF Heathland, scrub and tundra habitatsG Woodland and forest habitats and other

wooded landH Inland unvegetated and sparsely vegetated

habitatsI Regularly or recent cultivated agriculture,

horticultural and domestic habitatsJ Constructed, industrial and other artificial

habitats

Merlin chicks. Photo: Jorma Luhta


THE SPA NETWORKcontinued


recognise the importance of SPAdesignation, many have alreadyproposed, or are in advancedstages of proposing, sites for theNetwork. Slovakia and Slovenia, forinstance, designated between a fifthand a quarter of their territory asSPAs within six months of joiningthe EU.

A species perspectiveAn alternative approach to assessingthe completeness of the network ona country-by-country basis is to lookat it from the perspective of thedifferent species in Annex I. Again,the issue is complex as differentspecies vary according to the extentto which they aggregate at sites.This is reflected in the site selectioncriteria which tend to focus on areaswhere concentrations of birds canbe readily identified, such as inwetlands.

Indeed, for many wetland birds,site protection is the most importantmechanism to ensure theirconservation. This is reflected in theSPA network. The Bittern, forinstance, is largely restricted toreedbeds in the EU and has arelatively high level of siteprotection – up to 80% of its EU 15breeding population is included inSPAs.

In this respect, the SPA networkis widely recognised to have madea major contribution towards theconservation of wetlands within the

EU. Had the alarming trends of theearly 1980s been allowed tocontinue unabated, it is quite likelythat many of the key sites wouldhave been destroyed or damagedby now, were it not for the BirdsDirective. This is reflected also inthe conservation status of manywetland birds. Again, in the early1980s, their populations were inserious decline, but now, thanks tothe SPA designation process, mostappear to have stabilised and someare even showing signs of a slightrecovery.

The role of the SPA network inthe international arena is also clear.It has been the key tool in the EU’sdelivery of the Ramsar Conventionand has contributed significantlytowards international flywayconservation objectives such asthose of the African-EurasianWaterbird Agreement (AEWA).

When it comes to species thatare endemic or very restricted in theEU distribution, the network canagain be considered to be largelycomplete. This is the case, forinstance, for the main breedingareas of the globally threatenedspecies of the Macaronesian region:Fea’s Petrel, Zino’s Petrel, and theMadeira Laurel Pigeon as well as forspecies like the Bearded Vulturewhose breeding population isrestricted to a relatively smallnumber of sites. For the latter, all ofthe EU breeding population is nowwithin SPAs.

The situation for threatenedfarmland birds is however not so

clear. The range of farmland birds inAnnex I of the Birds Directive isnow so restricted that site protectionhas become an increasinglyimportant mechanism for ensuringtheir survival, yet, despite this,progress in designating SPAs forthese species has been ratherpiecemeal. The Little Bustard, forinstance, has only 30% of the EUpopulation currently included in theSPAs.

There may be a number ofreasons for this: the first is no doubtrelated to the notable lack ofdesignation of agricultural areas(only 8% of SPA network), thesecond may be a result ofdifficulties in integrating speciesconservation needs into currentfarming practices, despite thepotential for using adapted agri-environment schemes for thispurpose. These problems are all themore worrying now that the EU hasbeen enlarged. Many of the newMember States have still relativelyhealthy farmland bird populationsyet these too could decline veryrapidly if the above issues are notaddressed early on.

The implementation of the SPAnetwork in the marine environmentis also not very advanced. Whilst13% of the habitats in the SPAnetwork are marine, this isessentially due to the inclusion of afew very large sites in Denmark andthe Netherlands, such as theWadden sea. SPA designation forseabirds tends to focus on theirbreeding colonies, (e.g. 100% of the

Bearded Vulture, Gypaetus barbatusPercentage of population in the SPA's

EUR AT ES FR GR IT

% o

f pop

ulat

ion

* noted in 6 sites in IT (without quantitative data of population)** noted in 1 site in AT / no reference data

0

20

40

60

80

100

****

1999 2004

Photo: EGS-Österreich, N. Roth-Callies


EU population of the Roseate Ternis within SPAs) but protection is notextended to any significant degreeto their marine feeding habitats.

This has prompted theCommission to set up a marineexpert working group to look at theapplication of Natura 2000 (andSPAs) into the marine environment,including offshore areas, and to helpdevelop guidelines on this issue.

Future challengesIn conclusion therefore, the SPANetwork, though not fully complete,has already shown its merits interms of safeguarding species listedin annex I of the Birds Directive andmigratory species. This is borne outby BirdLife’s recent survey of thestate of birds in the EU. Accordingto their results, 26% of species (i.e.46 species) listed in annex I arenow in a favourable conservationstate at EU level compared to 18%(32 species) ten years ago. Theimpact is all the more significantwhen one considers that the overallsituation for wild birds in Europecontinues to decline.

So what are the futurechallenges? Today, we have arelatively good understanding of thespecies habitat requirements andsites that need protecting (except inthe marine areas) but efforts are stillrequired to complete the network.This is true not only for the ten new

Member States who have recentlyjoined the EU but also for some ofthe older Member States, especiallyFrance. Where progress is notmade, the Commission may have toresort to further legal action againstthose countries who fail todesignate sufficient SPAs.

Greater attention will also needto be paid to the subsequentmanagement of the SPAs. Thisbrings into focus the need foreffective management planning forSPAs. Having developed over 200plans for SPAs in consultation withdifferent stakeholder groups, theLIFE-Nature fund can provide awealth of practical real-lifeexamples of how this can beachieved successfully.

Moreover, with the recentadvances in GIS and spatial

information, it should becomepossible to link SPA conservationneeds with other land useinformation to determine potentialthreats or damaging activities fromdevelopment projects and facilitatepositive management activities.One of the challenges will be toput this into place, particularlynow that the new RuralDevelopment Policy mentions, forthe first time, the need for crosscompliance with the Habitats andBirds Directives.

So whilst there been goodprogress so far, there is still plentyto do to turn the SPA network intoa coherent well functioningnetwork which offers a safe havenfor vulnerable bird species bothwithin the EU and beyond itsfrontiers.

Little Bustard, Tetrax tetraxPercentage of population in the SPA's

0

20

40

60

80

100

EU15 ES FR IT PT

% o

f pop

ulat

ion

* IT - not mentioned as breeding

*

1999 2004

Photo: M. Bolton, ImagDOP

Photo: Louis-Marie Préau/LPO

Roseate Tern, Sterna dougalliiPercentage of population in the SPA's

0

20

40

60

80

100

EU15 BE ES FR IE PT UK

*

* noted in 1site in BE / no reference data** ES not mentioned as breeding*** the population has expanded significantly beyond SPAs

since implementing the species action plan

**

1999 2004

% o

f pop

ulat

ion

***


In 1993, the European Commissionco-financed BirdLife’s initiative todevelop European Action plans for23 globally threatened bird specieslisted in Annex I of the BirdsDirective. Ten years on, it is time totake stock: have the action plansbeen implemented? Have theyhelped improve the conservationstatus of the species concerned? Isthere a need to update them? Theseare some of the questions analysedin a new Birdlife reportcommissioned by DG Environment.

As nearly half of the bird speciesin Europe are now with anunfavourable conservation status,the need for focused conservationactions has never been clearer. It isthe best way to ensure that limitedresources are used where they aremost needed and avoids activitiesbeing dissipated or piecemeal.

European Action Plans providean ideal framework in which todevelop such a coordinatedstrategy. They help establishinternational priorities forconservation action over much of aspecies natural range and, crucially,build a consensus on objectivesand targets amongst thoseorganisations, experts and

SPECIES ACTION PLANS

European action plans for the EU’smost threatened birds

authorities who are in a position toinfluence the outcome.

The process also facilitates anexchange of experience betweencountries, encourages the develop-ment of best practices and drawspublic attention to the conservationneeds of individual species.

BackgroundWith this in mind, Birdlife set out, in1993, to develop European SpeciesAction plans for 23 of the mostthreatened birds listed in the BirdsDirective. Having received co-financing from the EU’s LIFE-Natureinstrument, up-to-date informationwas collected on the species froman extensive network of experts(over 370) across Europe and writtenup as draft action plans. These werethen widely circulated for commentsand subsequently discussed at aseries of workshops involving,amongst others, public authoritiesfrom different Member States whowould be largely responsible fortheir implementation.

By 1996, all 23 final action planshad been approved by the OrnisCommittee (set up under the BirdsDirective and representing allMember State authorities).

A review of progressten years onIt is now a decade since starting theaction planning process. To markthe occasion, DG Environmentcommissioned BirdLife to reviewtheir state of implementation in the25 countries of the EU. The aim isto determine how successfully theseplans have been delivered indifferent Member States, especiallyas regards priority actions, and toidentify any major gaps, includingthose relating to the completion ofthe SPA network.

For this purpose, BirdLifedeveloped a simple scoring systemto measure the level of progress inimplementing the plans for each ofthe species in question. Scores wereallocated from 0–4:0: action was not needed1: little or no work done (0–10%)2: some worked started but not

significant yet (11–50%)3: significant progress but target

not reached (51–75%)4: action fully implemented.

This made it possible to assessthe ‘distance to target’ in terms ofoverall progress on implementingthe recommended actions and their

Radio-tracking Imperial Eagle over the Carpathian mountains, Hungary.Photos: Andras Kovács (eagle) and Ivan Demeter, MME-BirdLife Hungary LIFE project


effectiveness in meeting the short,medium or long term biologicaltargets set.

Have the action plans beenimplemented?On the whole, the results are veryencouraging. BirdLife’s reportconcludes that significant progresshas been made in implementing 18of the 23 Action plans (with Scoresof 2 but less than 3).

For a further three species, theimplementation has been substantial(scores of over 3). These includetwo of the most threatened speciesin Europe, the Zino’s Petrel and theSlender-billed Curlew, as well asthe Dalmatian Pelican. It isinteresting to note that these speciesall had the advantage of havingdifferent organisations ‘champion’

Targets StatusScore met Population status change

Zino’s Petrel Pterodroma madeira 3.31 Long Population has doubled – new colony found

Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus 3.05 Long EU population has increased by 20%

Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca 2.39 Long Increased in strongholds – Hungary and Slovakia– but now extinct in Cyprus and Greece

Pygmy Cormorant Phalacrocorax pygmeus 2.44 Long Stable population, expanding in range

Cinereous Vulture Aegypius monachus 2.80 Long Stable and increasing

Audouin’s Gull Larus audouinii 2.01 Long Increasing and expanding

White-headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala 1.87 Med Massive population increase in SpainEradication of ruddy duck still a problem across EU

although a successful trial was done in the UK

Spanish Imperial Eagle Aquila adalberti 2.19 Med Population has increased and expanded to Portugal

Madeira Laurel Pigeon Columba trocaz 2.94 Med Population slightly increased

Corncrake Crex crex 2.14 Med Variable trends, generally upwards but smallpopulations continue to decline

Dark-tailed Laurel Pigeon Columba bollii 2.38 Short Slight increase assumed, but poor data quality

Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni 1.84 Short Overall stable, slight increase in some countries

Red-breasted Goose Branta ruficollis 2.47 Med EU contribution to species conservation limited as occurs only marginally in EU

Fea’s Petrel Pterodroma feae 2.27 Short Population maintained

Blue Chaffinch Fringilla teydea 2.51 Short Stable

Great Bustard Otis tarda 2.55 None Population size is generally stable but rangeis shrinking

Slender-billed Curlew Numenius tenuirostris 3.21 None Declined – breeds outside EU

Azores Bullfinch Pyrrhula murina 2.00 None Decreasing

Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus 2.82 None Continued decline, probably affected by problemsoutside EU – main staging wintering quarters are

in Russia and Kazakhstan

Marbled Teal Marmaronetta angustirostris 2.75 None Overall negative trend

Aquatic Warbler Acrocephalus paludicola 2.39 None General decline except in Hungary little progressPoland has 77% of pop but so far in implementing

the plan nationally

White-tailed Laurel Pigeon Columba junoniae 2.38 Not known ?Houbara Bustard Chlamydotis undulata 2.04 Not known ?

their cause which helped to providea focus for taking the action plansforward.

Progress has been limited inonly two cases: the White-headedDuck and the Lesser Kestrel. In thecase of the former, the mainbreeding and wintering countrieshave made good progress on theimplementation of the actions(leading to a tenfold increase inpopulation in Spain!), but theeradication of the introducedRuddy Duck has not been givenenough attention in the EU to date,except in the UK where asuccessful trial was undertaken. Inthe case of the Lesser Kestrel, theshort-term objective of maintainingall known colonies at 1994 levelswas achieved but the populationhas yet to expand in range.

Zino’s Petrel chick discovered on theisland of Madeira. Photo: Filipe Viveiros


Behind the averageimplementation scores, however,lies a rather more uneven state ofprogress within the differentMember States. The UK, althoughconcerned with relatively few ofthese species, has achieved thehighest level of implementationindicating the benefits of the UKBiodiversity Action Plan process. Itis followed by a number of othercountries where the species are thesubject of targeted actions, such asthe Netherlands, Hungary, Portugal,Austria, France and Sweden.

Spain has the highest number ofaction plans (12) but, according tothe BirdLife report, the level ofimplementation is very varied.Some regions have carried outsignificant conservation work,whilst others have been less

effective, bringing down the overallnational score. Lowerimplementation scores are alsonoticeable in some new MemberStates such as Poland and Slovenia.Improvements will be needed inthese countries too in the future.

Are targets being met?In addition to the prioritised set ofactions, every European action planalso set short, medium and longterm goals for the conservation ofthe species. These were devised asrealistic and measurable targetswhich could be achieved within aspecified time frame (1–3 yrs, 4–5yrs and 6–10 yrs). The reviewanalysed whether these targets havebeen met and, if so, whether theyhave had an impact on the speciesoverall conservation state.

Here, too, the results aregenerally positive. According toBirdlife’s findings, long and mediumterm targets have been achieved for11 of the species and short termgoals have been met for a furtherfour. In all cases the populations ofthe species in question has, eitherincreased, for instance forAudouin’s Gull or CinereousVulture, or at least remained stableover most of its range.

The reasons behind these trendsare explored fully in the review ofeach action plan but already anumber of general concerns areemerging. The first relates to theextent to which the key breeding,staging and wintering sites areprotected as SPAs. It is interesting tonote that 75% of the Europeanbreeding populations for the 12species with improved conservationstatus are within protected SPAs.

The other limiting factors allappear to be strongly linked to thedegree of management within theprotected sites and the level ofsuccess in integrating the speciesrequirements into other policiessuch as agriculture, forestry andwater management. For farmlandspecies, such as the Great Bustardand Corncrake, such policyintegration is vital, yet it remainsone of the weakest areas within theaction plans in terms ofimplementation.

Finally, the review alsoconcludes that the conservationstatus of six species hasunfortunately continued to declineover the last ten years. The reasonsfor this vary according to thespecies in question. In the case ofthe Slender-billed Curlew, forinstance, the European action planhas been fully implemented but thishas not been enough to prevent thedemise of the population migratingthrough the EU. This is mostprobably due to the fact that itsconservation is highly dependenton what happens to the speciesoutside the EU. The same goes forthe Lesser White-fronted Goosewhose main staging and winteringquarters are in Russia andKazakhstan.

In the case of the AquaticWarbler, the situation is somewhatdifferent. The low level of

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

Aus

tria

Belg

ium

Cyp

rus

Cze

ch R

epub

licD

enm

ark

Esto

nia

Finl

and

Fran

ceG

erm

any

Gre

ece

Hun

gary

Irel

and

Ital

y

Latv

iaLi

thua

nia

Luxe

mbo

urg

Mal

ta

Net

herl

ands

Pola

nd

Port

ugal

Slov

akia

Slov

enia

Spai

n

Swed

en UK

Ave

rage

NIS

012345678910111213

No.

of s

peci

es

Average NIS No. of species

Birdlife report: Average National Implementation Score by Member States.

SPECIES ACTION PLANS continued

Juvenile and adult Cinereous Vultures on nest in Mallorca, LIFE project.Photo: Joan Mayol


implementation of the action planis essentially due to the fact thatlittle has been achieved so far inPoland, yet this country hosts 77%of the total European population.With its recent accession to the EUit is expected that many of theimportant sites will now beprotected as SPAs and renewedefforts will be made to address thespecies’ complex managementissues, which are again dependentupon other land uses such asagriculture and watermanagement.

The EU’s role: sustainedsupport through LIFEThe report also concludes that thedecision to accord priority to thefunding of projects focusing on theactions recommended in theEuropean Action plans has playeda very significant role in theimplementation of these plans andthe subsequent recovery of thespecies. All 23 species have beentargeted to a greater or lesserextent by almost half of the LIFE-Nature projects (ca 300) fundedsince 1992. LIFE contributionshave also gone up from 10 milliona year in the early 1990s to over40 million a year at present.

LIFE-Nature has, in particular,been the main driving force in theconservation of island endemics inSpain and Portugal and has playeda strategic role in the conservationof many other species such as theSpanish Imperial Eagle, CinereousVulture, Audouin’s Gull andDalmatian Pelican (see article15–17).

Not only have these projectsconsiderably advanced theunderstanding of the conservationneeds of the species and helped todevelop best practices, but theyhave also provided an all importantsource of funding for initial heavyinvestment costs aimed to secure akey site, pump prime longer-termmanagement actions and stimulatelocal support for the conservation ofthe species.

ConclusionsThe overall verdict of this newreview is clearly a positive one.Significant efforts have been madeto implement the European ActionPlans for the majority of the speciesin the ten years since they were firstadopted, aided considerably bytargeted funding through the LIFEinstrument. This has resulted in amarked improvement of theconservation status of at least 12species, which is all the morenoticeable when one considers thatthe overall trend for Europe’s birdspecies remains alarminglynegative.

It also clearly demonstrates theadvantages of having a coordinatedstrategy for individual threatenedspecies and a focused fundingmechanism to help put these inplace. Recognising this, theCommission has since funded theelaboration of a further 24European Species Action plans forthreatened species under the BirdsDirective. These too receive priorityattention for LIFE funding.

This does not however mean theprocess is over. There is still a

considerable amount of work to bedone if these initial successes are tobe maintained and built upon. Thefirst step will be to update theaction plans and, where necessary,to set new conservation goals andtargets for the species. The secondwill be to adapt the prioritised listof recommended actions in functionof the review results (e.g. greaterSPA designation) and new threats(climate change).

Certain Member States will alsoneed to step up their activities inimplementing the Action plans ontheir territory. The development ofmore detailed national action plansseems to be a particularly effectiveway of taking this process forwardand should be explored further.

Finally, greater efforts will needto be made to integrate the speciesconservation requirements intoother land use activities. In thisrespect, particular attention shouldbe paid to finding ways ofdeveloping funding mechanismsthrough the new RuralDevelopment Programmes in orderto secure the long-termmanagement of certain species’ keyhabitats. There are a handful ofgood examples of how agri-environmental measures have beenused in the past but, according toBirdLife’s findings, these have, onthe whole been poorly targeted andpursued only generic objectives.Now with the new fundingmechanisms in place, furtheropportunities are emerging, thechallenge will be to find ways ofaccessing these for the benefit ofEurope’s most threatened birds.


Great Bustard, Villafafila. Photo: Junta de Castilla y León


Nota Bene:• The SPA Bar ometer is based on the information of f ic ially transmitted by Member States.• The % surface ar ea r elates only to the ter r estrial ar ea that has been designated; which is the overall SPA

area minus the total marine ar ea.• Some Member States have designated substantial portions of their marine waters (e.g. Deutschland, Nederland).• The global assessment of national lists may be revised, upwards or downwards, following mor e complete

scientific analysis of the data.• The ten new Member States had a duty to classify SPAs from the date of their Accession on 1 May 2004.

Six countries have transmitted their national lists. An evaluation of their completeness is underway.

notably insufficient

incomplete

largely complete

TBE To be evaluated

SPA BAROMETER (as of 15/10/04)

Number Total area Terrestrial Number of MarineMember State of sites (km2) area (%) marine sites area (km2) Progress Member State

BELGIË/BELGIQUE 229 2,964 9.7 0 0 BELGIË/BELGIQUE

CESKÁ REPUBLIKA 0 0 0 — — TBE CESKÁ REPUBLIKA

DANMARK 112 12,246 5.9 58 9,710 DANMARK

DEUTSCHLAND 497 32,080 6.4 17 9,171 DEUTSCHLAND

EESTI 66 12,368 12.3 26 6,811 TBE EESTI

ELLAS 151 13,703 10.1 4 405 ELLAS

ESPAÑA 442 81,719 16.1 20 574 ESPAÑA

FRANCE 153 12,415 1.9 50 2,110 FRANCE

IRELAND 131 2,815 2.9 66 810 IRELAND

ITALIA 503 24,865 8.1 13 396 ITALIA

KYPROS 0 0 0 0 0 TBE KYPROS

LATVIJA 97 6,751 9.7 4 520 TBE LATVIJA

LIETUVA 39 3,570 5.5 4 ? TBE LIETUVA

LUXEMBOURG 12 139 5.4 — — LUXEMBOURG

MAGYARORSZÁG 0 0 0 — — TBE MAGYARORSZÁG

MALTA 0 0 0 0 0 TBE MALTA

NEDERLAND 77 10,109 12.5 7 4,913 NEDERLAND

ÖSTERREICH 94 9,275 11.1 — — ÖSTERREICH

POLSKA 72 33,156 7.3 6 10,201 TBE POLSKA

PORTUGAL 50 9,956 10.1 10 622 PORTUGAL

SLOVENIJA 26 4,618 22.8 1 2.6 TBE SLOVENIJA

SLOVENSKO 38 12,365 25.2 — — TBE SLOVENSKO

SUOMI 452 28,373 6.8 65 5,511 SUOMI

SVERIGE 509 28,648 6.2 107 3,017 SVERIGE

UNITED KINGDOM 252 14,511 5.8 2 377 UNITED KINGDOM

EU 4,002 356,646 460 55,151 EU


Pink-f

ooted

Goose Anser brachyrhynchus Oie à bec court

BELGIË/BELGIQUEAmbassador of the polders

Les ambassadeurs des polders

Partridge Perdix perdix Perdrix grise

CESKÁ REPUBLIKAIndicator of healthy farmingLe baromètre de l’agriculture

Light

-bell

iedBr

ent Goose Branta bernicla hrota Bernache cravant à ventre

clair

DANMARKLiving with the tidesVivre selon les marées

WhiteStork Ciconia ciconia Cigogne blanche

DEUTSCHLANDWho’s bringing the babies?

Qui apporte les bébés?

Lammergeier Gypaetus barbatus Gypaète barbu

ELLASRuler of the mountains

La montagne est son royaume

��

��

��

��

ESPAÑAImperial view from the tallest trees

Vue impériale du haut des cimes

Little

Bustard Tetrax tetrax Outarde canepetièreFRANCE

Sexy males and choosy femalesMâles sexy et femelles difficiles

Corncrake Crex crex Râle de genêts

LATVIJACracky voice from the long grass

Une voix rauque dans les hautes herbes

Great Snipe Gallinago media Bécassine double

LIETUVAThe hidden drummer

Le tambour caché

Gree

nlan

dW

hite-

fronte

d Goose Anser albifrons flavirostris Oie rieuse duGroenland

IRELANDWary goose from the bog

L’oie prudente des tourbières

Cypr

usWarb

ler Sylvia melanothorax Fauvette de Chypre

KYPROSToo shy to travel

Trop timide pour voyager

Black Stork Ciconia nigra Cigogne noire

LUXEMBOURGA large bird in a small countryUn grand oiseau d’un petit pays

Cory’

s Sh

earwater Calonectris diomedea Puffin cendréMALTA

Who is uttering these wailing cries?Cris et gémissements

Spoo

nbill Platalea leucorodia Spatule blanche

NEDERLANDSpooning through the mud

L’art de trouver sa nourriture dans la vase

Aqua

ticWarb

lerAcrocephalus paludicola Phragmite aquatique

POLSKACasanova of the sunset

Le Casanova du soleil couchant

Bluethroat Luscinia svecica Gorge-bleue

ÖSTERREICHA thousand voices from one blue throat

Les mille et une voix d’une gorge-bleue

Steller

’s Eider Polysticta stelleri Eider de Steller

EESTIHardy diver of the cold seas

L’audacieux plongeur des mers froides

Eleon

ora’sFalcon Falco eleonorae Faucon d’Eléonore

ITALIAAgile wings of Mediterranean coasts

Haute voltige au large des côtes méditerranéennes

Saker Falco cherrug Faucon sacré

MAGYARORSZÁGNoble falcon of the steppesLe noble faucon des steppes

Madeir

anPetrel Oceanodroma castro Pétrel de Castro

PORTUGALMade for life on the high seasTaillé pour la vie en haute mer

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Aigle royal

SLOVENSKOKing of the highlandsLe roi des ‘highlands’

Red-

backe

d Shrike Lanius collurio Pie-grièche écorcheur

SLOVENIJAMasked bushranger

Le ranger masqué

Bittern Botaurus stellaris Butor étoilé

UNITED KINGDOMBooming from the reedbedsRugissement dans les roseaux

25 years, 25 birds, 25 countries

Crane Grus grus Grue cendrée

SVERIGEThe dancing birds

Les oiseaux danseurs

Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus Cygne chanteur

SUOMISymbol of light, beauty and purity

Symbole de lumière, de beauté et de pureté

Photos: BELGIË/BELGIQUE © Eckhart Kuijken; CESKÁREPUBLIKA © Josef Hlasek; DANMARK © Preben Clause;DEUTSCHLAND © Kai-Michael Thomsen; EESTI © Tiit Hunt;ELLAS © F. Marquez; ESPAÑA © Fernando de Antonio;FRANCE © Louis-Marie Préau – LPO; IRELAND © Alyn Walsh;ITALIA © M. Ravasini; KYPROS © Louis Kourtellarides;LATVIJA © Aivars Petrins; LIETUVA © Vytautas Knyva;LUXEMBOURG © G. Jadoul; MAGYARORSZÁG © Zsolt Kalotás;MALTA © Joe Sultana; NEDERLAND © Paul van Gaalen;ÖSTERREICH © BirdLife Österreich; POLSKA © AlexanderKozulin; PORTUGAL © Mark Bolton; SLOVENIJA © Dare Fekonja;SLOVENSKO © lauriecampbell.com ; SUOMI © Jari Peltomäki;SVERIGE © Sture Traneving; UNITED KINGDOM © BBOWT


The overall objective of the BirdsDirective is to conserve all birds ata favourable conservation statusacross the EU, taking into accounthuman activities. This means wehave to ensure that these humanactivities are carried out in asustainable and responsible mannerthat safeguards Europe’s varied butincreasingly vulnerable bird life.

At the heart of the Directivelies the establishment of a networkof protected sites (SPAs) whichnow forms part of the Natura 2000Network. The sheer scale of thisnetwork, which is set to coveralmost a fifth of the EU territory,means that it must remain anintegral part of our livinglandscape in which people are atthe heart of the process rather thanon its periphery. This implies theactive participation of all interestgroups.

To achieve this ambitioustarget, nature conservationists,authorities, land owners and usersneed to work together to find theright balance in securing theconservation of wild birds whilsttaking economic and recreational

requirements into account. This isby no means an easy task and, ithas, unfortunately, resulted in someconfusion and emotive reactionsfrom all sides during the earlystages of implementation of theBirds Directive.

Much of this can be put down toan initial lack of understanding andexperience in implementing theprovisions of the Directive whichhas since considerably improved,but there is another underlyingcause which has still to be fullyaddressed. This concerns the lack ofeffective communication betweenthe different interest groups, bethey public, private or NGO, on theaims of the Directive.

Yet, such communication isessential if interest groups are to befully informed about what theDirectives mean in practice for themand actively involved in decisionsover the future management of theirsites. Once a sufficient level of trustand mutual understanding has beenbuilt up between the differentgroups, it will be much easier tofind practical management solutionson the ground.

The El Teide DeclarationIt was with this in mind that, in May2002, all 25 countries of theEuropean Union signed the El TeideDeclaration to re-affirm theircommitment to promoting a greaterawareness and understanding of thetwo EU Nature Directives and theNatura 2000 network, and toencouraging the active participationof stakeholders in decisions over thelong-term management of the sites.

Since then, the Commission haslaunched the Natura NetworkingInitiative2 which aims to build localpartnerships on Natura 2000 sitesacross the EU.

Inspiration for this initiative canbe sought from the LIFE-Natureprojects² . They have provided auseful test bed for gauging people’sreaction to SPA designation andgenerated a wealth of experience inengaging local stakeholders in themanagement of the sites.

Their overwhelming conclusionis that attitudes can, and really do,change once a concerted effort ismade to explain the natureDirectives to local interest groupsand actively involve them in the

The Birds Directive: workingin partnership

WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP

Photo: Archiv der Abteilung Umweltschutz, Amt der Tiroler Landesregierung


VIEW OF THE EUROPEAN LANDOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND THE NATURA 2000 USERS’ FORUM

Much has happened since the Birds Directive was hatched 25 years ago. Today the Directive works together with other EU directives in theprotection and management of the European environment. The conservation areas designated under the Birds Directive and the HabitatsDirective are now included under the Natura 2000 network. All water and wetland habitats protected under the Birds Directive and HabitatsDirective are now dealt with by the Water Framework Directive –which must have attained ‘good ecological status’ by 2015.

With the arrival of ten new Member States, the share of rural territories in the total European area has reached 90%. More than ever, theEU requires a sustainable and balanced development of the rural world including its environment, the use and care of land, water habitats andthe species in them. The European countryside, shaped by human activities for millennia enjoys a unique biodiversity. Keeping such a naturalheritage and halting the loss of biodiversity implies cooperating in order to ensure a proper stewardship of land and a living countryside

Owners, managers and users* of the land and aquatic environment play a key role in the countryside’s management and livelihood. In themarine and coastal environment, as well as the freshwater environment of rivers, lakes and ponds, angling organisations play a big and increasingrole all over Europe, giving advice to decision makers and taking part in the implementation of restoration programs striving for a self-sustainableaquatic environment with a rich and secured biodiversity therein. A balance must be reached, taking into account the need for socio-economicactivities as well as for environmental protection. If each interest is protected, the equation between environmental protection and developmentof rural activities (agricultural and forestry production, businesses, human use of land and aquatic resources including leisure) can be solved.

The environment and human activities are interdependent. Environmental protection, secured biodiversity and sustainable development donot compete with each other with proper management in place. Environmental protection in practice often means restrictions of use, whichrequires prior negotiations at a local level and fair compensations when needed. The question of the funding of Natura 2000 is still underanalysis. Production of environmental services beneficial to the whole of society should be supported, and if needed also financed throughsubsidies or the economic market. On the technical aspects, certain specific provisions of the “Bird” Directive would need further interpretation inorder to be more workable on land, particularly on the special protection areas, the concepts of “significant disturbance” or “completeprotection” ... etc.

Industrial activities, sustainable farming, sustainable forest management, sustainable hunting and fishing (both commercial and recreational)all play an important role in environmental protection and more specifically in the protection conservation of Birds. Examples of these activitiesinclude quarries, ports, salt flats and marshes and wetlands. These environmental improvements often go unreported in the media.

Working together and developing common actions are good tools for sustainable management of the countryside and biodiversityconservation.

Thierry de l’Escaille, ELO Secretary General

* The present position was drawn up by the European Landowners’ Organization (ELO), theBureau of Nordic Family Forestry, the Confederation Européenne des PropriétairesForestiers (CEPF), the European Anglers’ Alliance (EAA), the Fédération des Associations deChasse et Conservation de la Faune sauvage de l’UE (FACE) within the Natura 2000 UsersForum which also includes the Comité des Organisations Professionnelles Agricoles de l’UE –Comité Général de la Coopération Agricole de l’UE (COPA-COGECA), the FédérationEuropéenne des Communes Forestières (FECOF), the Gîtes d’Europe (EuroGites), the Uniondes Sylviculteurs du Sud de l’Europe (USSE), and as observers, the Council of EuropeanProducers of Materials for Construction (CEPMC).

1 http://www.eurosite-nature.org/2 http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/

infoproducts/index.htm

decision making process. This is notto say the process is withoutdifficulties, or doesn’t suffer fromthe occasional impasse, but thelevel of success clearly increases inproportion to the time and effortspent in planning thesecommunication activities.

The onus is therefore on all ofus – authorities, conservationists,NGOs, land owners and users orindividual members of the public –to dedicate the necessary time andresources to make this happen.Once this has been achieved Natura2000 can become a truly effective

Network that works both for itspeople and for our rich and diversenatural heritage.

Wetland restoration in Emilio-Romagna, Italy. Photo: R. TinarelliEngaging stakeholders.

Photo: UK limestone pavements LIFE project


WORKING INPARTNERSHIPcontinued

14

VIEWS OF BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL

The Birds Directive has been a valuable tool for bird protection and conservation in its 25years of implementation across the European Union. Although still a lot remains to be donethe Directive has been instrumental in raising awareness on bird protection across the EU.Even though the Directive’s provisions for site protection are still insufficiently implementedand the provisions for site management almost not implemented at all, the Directive can besaid to have made an impact on species protection. In particular, it has been successful inregulating hunting practices across the EU (especially in the southern Member States) andby almost eliminating the trade with European wild birds.

However, the Directive has had to compete with conflicting EU policies, in particular theCAP and as a result “common birds”, like many farmland birds, have declined dramatically inthe years since the adoption of the Directive. Although the Directive applies to all wild birds, ithas been especially successful at protecting some of those species that are listed on Annex Iby encouraging targeted conservation efforts.

Looking into the future, the full implementation of all provisions of the Directive and theintegration of its objectives into other EU policies, continues to be as pertinent as ever inorder to meet the target of halting biodiversity decline by 2010, and at thesame time it is becoming clear that the EU will have to consider actionfor its migratory species beyond its the geographicalboundaries in places such asAfrica, as well as consider howto deal with the effects ofclimate change.

Clairie Papazoglou,BirdLife International

VIEWS FROM FACE – the Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU

Representing around 7 million hunters in 33 European countries, FACE fully recognises the contributions of the Birds Directive’ in conservingEurope’s birds and their habitats and has played an important role in raising awareness amongst hunters of their responsibilities towardsconservation, management and the wide use of wildlife. The Directive is a good base from which to realise the European Community’s target tohalt biodiversity decline by 2010.

FACE also supports the establishment of a Natura 2000 network and recognises the importance of having a good protection regime andactive habitat management in order to conserve biodiversity, considering that the principle of Natura 2000 site designation is not in principleincompatible with hunting. As the Commission states in its Hunting Guide , responsible hunting within Natura 2000 is possible solong as it is compatible with the conservation objectives of the site.

If certain key principles, such as the concepts of ‘full protection’, ‘confusion’ and ‘disturbance’ have now been clarified inthe Hunting Guide, there is a need to apply these on the ground in a reasonableand proportionate manner so as to avoid unnecessary conflicts in the future.

FACE’s message that ‘hunting is not part of the problem but is, on thecontrary, an integral part of the solution when it comes to conserving birds’ ismore than just a slogan. It can be illustrated by numerous concrete actions andcase study on the ground.

Dr. Yves Lecocq, Secretary General, FACE

VIEWS FROM EUROSITE – professionals working for nature

Eurosite, a distinctive network of nature conservation management organisations formally created in 1989, chose this motto as an expressionof its philosophy, along with its special logo. The Birds Directive played a key role in the development of the organisation, encouragingmembers to exchange, enhance and promote expertise on the management of sites for nature throughout Europe, with the objective ofensuring that the wildlife of these sites is conserved in the best possible way.

The Directive helped many site managers to explain to their local stakeholders the European importance of their sites, which requireprotection and management measures.

The protection of life and beauty knows no frontier, birds and their habitats have a special contribution to offer toEuropeans: they are so inspiring. Their survival and well being depend largely on the motivation and daily decisions of landmanagers all over Europe.

We invite therefore private land owners, local authorities, NGOs, natureconservation organisations, to join us in giving visibility to what you are doing inSpecial Protection Areas and to discover examples of good practice through thegrowing Natura Network Initiative, developed in partnership with ELO andEuropark on www.natura.org.

Nicole Nowicki-Caupin, Déléguée Générale, Eurosite

Involving volunteers.Photo: UK limestone pavements LIFE project


FROM CONFRONTATIONTO COOPERATION:Agreement between BirdLifeand FACE

When it comes to birds, the issue ofhunting has always been a ratheremotive one and, it has to be said,the climate of mistrust between thedifferent protagonists probablyworsened during the early years ofthe Birds Directive, for lack of goodinformation on hunting practicesand successive legal cases in frontof the European Court of Justice.

Yet, the Birds Directive fullyrecognises the legitimacy of huntingand endorses the concept of wiseuse and good management of birdpopulations. Indeed, theCommission has always consideredthat hunters and birdconservationists have much incommon. They each have a soundknowledge of nature and a vestedinterest in ensuring the continuedsurvival of the species.

This prompted the Commissionto start up a Sustainable HuntingInitiative in 2001 to try to create aconstructive dialogue betweenhunters and bird conservationists.Three years on, the key partners –BirdLife International and FACE –have reached an agreement on tenpoints which will enable hunting to

continue within a well-regulatedframework, whilst fully respectingthe provisions of the Directive. Thiswas signed at a high profile eventon the 12th October 2004 and marksthe beginning of the end of morethan a decade of emotive conflict.

Having played the role offacilitator in this process, DGEnvironment is keen to see similarinitiatives being launched with

LESSONS LEARNT FROM THE SUSTAINABLE HUNTING INITIATIVE

The Sustainable Hunting Initiative was launched in February 2001 by the European Commission. Our two organisations, invited to be part of thisnew initiative, BirdLife International and the Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU, FACE, could at the time beconsidered arch enemies and had just finished a major confrontation at the European Parliament over a Written Declaration that was asking theCommission to consider an amendment to the 1979 Birds Directive. FACE was supporting such an amendment and BirdLife was entirelyopposed. The first meetings and the first years of this initiative were slow in progress, and there was an overwhelming feeling of distrust between

the two organisations, mainly as a result of misunderstandings andstrong feelings on both sides. In BirdLife International on a number ofoccasions it was thought this initiative was not going to go anywhere.

So how did it all happen in the end? Well, firstly the EuropeanCommission played an important role because its officials didn’t giveup. They continued to press and insist on bringing the twoorganisations together. They also insisted strongly on us havingbilateral meetings. We think the real breakthrough happened afterwe started having bilateral meetings without the Commission, as thishelped the two organisations build the trust between them and it wasonly then that the real progress could be made. Trust is indeedessential for achieving respect between the organisations, withoutwhich no constructive dialogue can take place. Of course people’spersonalities matter too.

So to summarise, it’s important to have a mediator who doesn’tgive up, especially in the face of slow process. Old foes can neverbecome new friends overnight but trust helps to build respect thatleads to success.

Clairie Papazoglou, Head of EU Policy, BirdLife InternationalDr. Yves Lecocq, Secretary General, FACE

other key stakeholders, such asfarmers, fishermen, foresters,tourism operators…. and to seethese agreements put into practiceat the level of the sites, for instance,through the Natura Networkinginitiative (NNi). The Huntingagreement is, after all, living proofthat such cooperation can work,even if the partners have verydifferent views at the outset.

Commissioner Margot Wallström with Gilbert de Turckheim, President of FACE and MichaelRands, Director and Chief Executive of BirdLife International at Signing of Agreement on

hunting under the Birds Directive. Photo: Micheal O’Briain

Photo: LIFE-Nature Project Biosphärenreservat Flusslandschaft Mittlere Elbe


LIFE FOR BIRDS

Since its inception in 1992, LIFE-Nature has played a key role in theEU’s strategy for bird conservationby supporting many targetedconservation actions for Europe’smost threatened bird species. Its’very focused project-based approachhas proven to be highly efficient inpromoting a better practicalunderstanding not only of theconservation needs of many birdspecies but also of the requirementsof the Directive on the ground. It hasalso made a significant contributionto the Natura 2000 Network bycatalyzing the management ofaround 13% of the SPAs included inthis Network, in close collaborationwith the stakeholders concerned.

Through this comes a wealth ofbest practice experiences, for

instance, in winning support andengaging stakeholders, applyingpractical management techniquesand integrating bird conservationneeds into other land-use policieswhich can be of use to othersinvolved in implementing the BirdsDirective across Europe.

As a direct result of these actions,LIFE-Nature projects havecontributed significantly toimproving the conservation status ofEurope’s most vulnerable birdspecies. The Spanish imperial eaglepopulation has, for instance, showna notable increase in its populationsince the completion of a series ofLIFE-Nature projects targeting itsentire range. Similar trends areemerging for many otherendangered birds, such as the GreatBustard, waterbird communities,endemic species from the Canariesand Azores, to name but a few.

Much of this success is down tothe strategy, adopted early on in theprogramme, of focusing the limitedfunds available on priority actionsand projects for the mostendangered bird species in the EU.Also important is the ability of LIFEprojects to, either collectively orindividually, tackle the conservationof species over a significantproportion of their population orrange. This is something no otherEU fund has achieved, yet it remainscentral to the success of the Birds

Directive and the overall coherenceof the SPA Network.

This article examines the strategythat lies behind the use of LIFEfunds for bird conservation andhighlights some of the actions andachievements of the projects fundedso far. These are explored further ina new publication ‘LIFE for the BirdsDirective’1

The strategy behind LIFEFrom the outset LIFE-Nature’s keyobjectives included the co-financingof projects that target theconservation of one or more of theSPAs included in the Natura 2000Network or that aim to addressspecific problems for endangeredspecies listed in Annex I of the BirdsDirective.

To be selected for funding,projects also need to be wellprepared, able to demonstrate aclear added value and potentiallysignificant conservation impact andbe fully aware of the socio-economic circumstances in whichthey operate. This is to ensure thatLIFE’s limited funds are put tomaximum use.

Support is usually limited to 3–5years so that the projects have apump priming and catalytic role anddo not pay for ‘business as usual’activities. The normal co-financingrate is set at 50% to encourage a realpartnership and sense of ownershipamongst the project beneficiaries.

Co-financing rates of up to 75%are nevertheless also available toprojects that target highly endangeredbird species. This was a deliberatestrategy on the part of the Commissionto further channel the limitedresources towards those actions andspecies considered to be in mosturgent need of support. Altogether49 so called ‘priority’ bird species,including all globally threatened birdspecies in the EU, were earmarkedfor this higher co-financing rate.Species action plans were subsequentlydeveloped for each, partly with LIFE-Nature funding, to further guide thechoice of conservation actions (seearticle pages 4–6).

Despite this very narrow andhighly focused approach, LIFE-Nature continues to this day to be

Breathing LIFE intobird conservation

LIFE project: restoring Larus audouinii populations on Islas Columbretes, Spain.Photo: Consellería de Medio Ambiente. Valencia

LIFE project: surveying seabirds in coastaland marine SPAs in the Azores.

Photo: Universidade dos Açores, ImagDOP

1 http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/infoproducts/index.htm


heavily over-subscribed, demonstrat-ing the value of such targetedsources of funding to help informand implement the Birds Directive.

Coverage of LIFE-NatureprojectsBy 2003, over 300 LIFE-Natureprojects had been funded onthreatened bird species and theirhabitats across the EU. Collectivelythese projects contributed around€350 million to bird conservation,€200 million of which came fromLIFE. As a result, the majority of the194 species listed in Annex I of theBirds Directive and all except sevenof the priority species have beentargeted by at least one or more LIFEprojects.

The projects also kick started theconservation management andrestoration of over 400 SPAs,representing close to 13% of the SPAnetwork. Amongst the most commonhabitats to be featured in the LIFE-Nature projects are, unsurprisingly,wetlands. In Spain alone, 21 of the39 Spanish Ramsar sites have beenincluded in a LIFE-Nature project sofar. Other habitats such as forests,steppic areas, coastal and marinecommunities are nevertheless alsowell represented.

Type of actions funded underLIFE-Nature projectsThe range of activities funded underLIFE-Nature projects is very wideindeed. It has involved, amongstothers, scientific research,management planning, habitatrestoration, land acquisition,initiation of recurring management,reintroduction of bird species, testingof new techniques, monitoring,stakeholder dialogue and publicawareness.

Each project will include anycombination of these activitiesdepending on the conservationneeds of a particular species, thehabitats involved and the socioeconomic conditions of the area inquestion. It is, however, thecombined effect of these activitiesand their long-term durability thatdetermines their real impact.

For the majority of projects thisimpact is felt at the level ofindividual SPAs but in some cases ithas wider reaching effects that gobeyond the scope of the project.The following illustrates someexamples of how LIFE-Natureprojects have played a strategic rolein the conservation of threatenedbird species and their habitats.

Informing policyWhilst the LIFE-Instrument focusesfirst and foremost on practical on-site conservation actions on theground, a number of projects haveinvolved preparatory actions ofstrategic value to theimplementation of the BirdsDirective. The co-financing of thespecies action plans for 23 of themost threatened bird species in theEU is one example of this.

The inventorying of importantmarine bird areas in offshore watersis another. Whereas terrestrialbreeding colonies for marine birdsare generally well protected, this isnot the case for the offshore marinesites, principally because of theoverall lack of detailed scientificknowledge of their whereaboutsand conservation threats. Thisremains a significant gap in the SPANetwork. Two LIFE-Nature projectsin Spain and Portugal are currently

attempting to address this byundertaking detailed marine surveysin their own territorial waters. Theaim is to identify sites for the SPAnetwork and make recommendationson the management actions requiredfor these sites.

Catalyser effectMany LIFE-Nature projects have alsobeen recognised for their significantcatalytic effect in initiating the long-term conservation management ofSPAs. This, they have achievedthrough a range of differentapproaches in engaging localstakeholders, demonstrating what theconservation actions mean in practiceand identifying additional long-termsources of revenue, for instance,through the Rural DevelopmentProgramme. Some projects havedone this at the level of theindividual sites themselves, othershave been more strategic in nature.

In the west of Ireland forinstance, a LIFE-Nature project hasset out to demonstrate howconservation friendly practices forkey bird species such as thecorncrake can be integrated into thenational agri-environment schemes.Contact was made with all farmers inthe Termoncarragh SPA to persuadethem to test different techniques ontheir land in exchange for an annualmanagement fee. Eventually, withthe help of its partner, Teagasc, thenational farm advisory body inIreland, it managed to sign up 87%of the farmers.

Once this was done, the projectset out to demonstrate these adaptedfarming techniques to a wideraudience. It organised regular fieldvisits to Termoncarragh for farmers in

Raptors(33%)

Water birds(34%)

Marine birds(25%)

Endemics(4%)

Forest birds(8%)

Steppe birds(6%)

Meadow birds(3%)

LIFE-Nature expenditure,species-oriented projects


LIFE project: restoring wetlands for Bittern in the UK. Photo: RSPBINSET Bittern benefiting from a LIFE Nature project in France run by LPO.Photo: Christophe Egreteau/LPO


neighbouring regions (around 200so far) and training courses forplanners and ecologists fromdifferent farming associations andauthorities.

This demonstration area is nowwell known across Ireland. Thanksto its high profile and the success ofthe demonstration training days,decision-makers are now activelydiscussing the inclusion ofconservation orientated measures inthe new Agri-environment schemesas of 2006.

Taking a strategic approachAnother notable feature of LIFE-Nature projects is that they have theunique advantage of being able tosupport actions that address aparticular conservation problemfacing certain species across asignificant proportion of theirpopulation or range.

Many large birds of prey havebeen targeted in this way. Oneproject in Aragon Spain, forinstance, is addressing the problemof electric power lines which runacross significant parts of the SPAnetwork and are a major cause ofmortality for raptor species, such asa the Spanish Imperial Eagle orBonelli’s Eagle. Focusing on 16 of

these SPAs the project is workingwith the electricity companies toadapt the existing power lines over350 km in order to remove the riskof electrocution and collision.Similar projects have been fundedelsewhere in Spain and now also inItaly and have, collectively, had asignificant effect on the survival rateof some of Europe’s rarest birds ofprey.

This strategic approach can alsowork at the level of individual siteswhich have different conservationthreats and multifunctional uses, yetharbour the same species. In theUK, two LIFE-Nature projects havetargeted the entire nationalpopulation of bittern. Working inpartnership with a range of publicauthorities, water companies andNGOs, the project aims not only tooptimise the breeding potential forbittern in existing SPAs whichalready harbour the species but alsoto create the right conditions for therecolonisation of a further 11 sites.The ultimate aim is to establish amore extensive network ofstrategically located and selfsustaining sites across the UK.

Passing on best practiceexperiencesFinally, the very practical and‘hands-on’ nature of the LIFEprojects has generated a wealth of

good management practices andtechniques which can be very usefulfor site managers dealing withsimilar conservation issueselsewhere. To promote greaternetworking and exchange of projectexperiences, the Commissionintroduced in 2002 a new type ofproject called ‘co-op’.

So far 3 Coop projects have beenapproved for birds. The first aims toproduce a handbook for actions topromote Bittern conservation inEurope, the second is examining theissues surrounding grouseconservation and tourism in Natura2000 sites and the third is evaluatingbest practices for Little Bustardconservation in Western Europe. Allwill use the practical experiences ofselected LIFE-Nature projects to feedinto this process and willdisseminate the results to a wideraudience.

ConclusionsThese projects illustrate some of theachievements of LIFE-Natureprojects in supporting theimplementation of the BirdsDirective and in improving theconservation status of Europe’s mostvulnerable species. Whetherworking at the level of anindividual site or a whole suite ofsites, or at the level of the speciesacross a significant part of itsnatural range, the actions fundedunder LIFE remain unique in thatthey focus on the all-important gapbetween policy and practice. Thereis a need to now build on theexperience of LIFE as we work tohalt the decline of Europe’s birdspecies by 2010.

LIFE FOR BIRDScontinued

Black Grouse. Photo: Jorma Luhta

LIFE project: construction of artificial rabbit warrens for Spanish Imperial Eagle.Photo: CDB-Habitat INSET Spanish Imperial Eagle. Photo: Fernando de Antonio


Pan-European wild birdindicator.1

In 2001, European leaders setthemselves an ambitious target tohalt biodiversity decline by the year2010. This objective is nowenshrined in both the EU’sSustainable Development Strategyand its 6th Environment ActionProgramme. The Birds Directive isone of the key delivery mechanismsfor achieving this target, particularlyfor vulnerable and threatenedspecies. However, with most ofEurope’s biodiversity located in thewider countryside, there is also anincreasingly urgent need to lookbeyond site protection in order tofind ways of better integrating natureconservation requirements into otherEU land-use policies and practices.

What’s happening toEurope’s birdsThe Birds Directive places a generalduty on Member States to maintainpopulations of all naturallyoccurring birds in the wild withinthe EU. As the previous articlesillustrate, this has proven to beeffective in many ways. It has led tothe establishment of an alreadyextensive network of SpecialProtection Areas across the EU toconserve Europe’s most vulnerableas well as migratory birds. It hasalso inspired the development ofInternational Species Action Plansfor Europe’s most criticallyendangered species, which have, inturn, benefited from targeted fundssuch as LIFE.

The results speak for themselves.According to a new report byBirdLife International on the status

of birds in the European Union, thenumber of threatened bird species,most of which are listed in Annex Iof the Directive, has increased by10% in the last ten years alone.

The Directive has not, however,been effective in conserving birds inthe wider countryside. Yet, one oftheir main threats, today, comesfrom the continued unsustainableland-use practices and developmentsacross much of rural Europe, a factborne out by the alarming rate ofdecline of many of Europe’s morefamiliar birds. Recent surveys byBirdLife have shown that the overalldecline outside protected areas isnow at record levels, with 46% ofthe 524 birds in Europe in troubleup from 38% just ten years ago. Asbirds are valuable indicators of whatis happening to biodiversity, theproblems and pressures they arefacing are symptomatic of what ishappening to other forms of wildlifein Europe.

Farmland birds are amongst theworst hit, especially in countrieswith a higher proportion of intensiveagricultural use. There is also theproblem of land abandonment insome regions of Europe. Longdistance migrants and some waders

have also suffered badly. As a result,many of the species that were oncea common sight in our countryside,such as the Lapwing, Swallows,Common Snipe, Tree Sparrow orSkylark, are becoming increasinglyscarce.

The need for greaterintegrationIf the target of halting biodiversitydecline by 2010 is to be achieved, itis clear that efforts need to beredoubled to ensure that currentrural land-use practices in Europebecome more environmentallysustainable. This can only be achievedif conservation requirements aretaken fully into account during thedevelopment and implementation ofthe different policies and practicesthat define Europe’s rural land uses,be it in the farming, fishing, forestry,water resource management ortourism sectors.

Some efforts have already beenmade in this direction, for instancewith the targeted use of agri-environment schemes. There arenow several examples of theseschemes which have beendemonstrated to deliver significantbenefits for birds and biodiversity.

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Wetland birds

Woodland birds

Farmland birds

BIODIVERSITY

Birds in a wider biodiversity context

1 From DG Environment’s2004 “EU environmentrelated indicators” andbased on data fromBirdLife International,the European BirdCensus Council andWetlands International.

Schaalsee LIFE project, Germany. Photo: Archiv des AfBRS INSET Skylark. Photo: David Kjaer


KH-AA-04-002-EN-C

NATURA 2000 NEWSLETTEREditors: Kerstin Sundseth (Ecosystems LTD., Brussels) and Nicholas Hanley (DG ENV B2)

The following contributed to this issue: Micheal O’Briain, Anne Teller, Thierry de l’Escaille,Szabolcs Nagy, Yves Lecocq, Nicole Nowicki, Clairie Papazoglou, Carlos Romao, ZoltanWaliczky, Andras Demeter, Frank Vassen, Simon Goss, Konstantin Kreiser.

This newsletter is produced twice a year and is available in English, French, German, Spanishand Italian. To be included in the mailing list just log on to http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/news/natura/index_en

Alternatively you can consult DG ENV’s homepage: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/home.htm where you will find this newsletter and other documents relating to theEU’s conservation policy.

For details on LIFE projects go to http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/home.htm

The Natura 2000 newsletter does notnecessarily reflect the official views of theEuropean Commission. Reproduction isauthorised, except for commercial purposes,provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed on Cyclus®Print 115gr/m2 100%recycled paper.

Design: Nature Conservation Bureau, UK.

However, these generally remain theexception rather than the rule.

Nevertheless, with the adoptionof the EU’s SustainableDevelopment Strategy and recentreforms in Europe’s ruraldevelopment policies, newopportunities are emerging forsecuring better integration. Therecent reform of the CommonAgricultural Policy has, for instance:• introduced agricultural support in

the form of a Single FarmPayment which is decoupledfrom production levels.

• placed greater emphasis oncross-compliance by ensuringthat the Single Farm Payment islinked to the respect of the Birdsand Habitats Directives,

• increased the amount of moneyavailable for the RuralDevelopment Programme, byshifting of funds within the CAP,which is expected to add €1.3billion a year to RuralDevelopment funds . This willnow allow for enhanced agri-environmental schemes and aspecific support scheme destinedto agricultural and forest siteswithin Natura 2000.

• continued the application ofgood farming practice, that allrecipients of support under ruraldevelopment measures need toapply

The challenge will be to ensurethat these opportunities are fullyexploited for the benefit of Europe’sbiodiversity. This will only bepossible if it has the activeinvolvement and support ofEuropean farmers, fishermen,foresters, etc. who are after all the

main managers of these naturalresources. Recent examples ofeffective stakeholder dialogue andpartnerships, such as the SustainableHunting Initiative, or through LIFE-Nature projects, provide invaluableadvice and in how to achieve this.We need to build upon theseexperiences.

The international contextThe decline in many long distancemigrants brings to attention anotherimportant factor of bird conservation.As factors operating outside the EUalso determine the conservationstatus of these species there is aneed for international cooperationand coordination to secure theirconservation across their entireflyway. The African-EurasianMigratory Waterbird Agreement(AEWA), is a good example of suchinternational collaboration. Itestablishes a framework in which117 countries can work together tosave 235 migratory waterbirdspecies across their entire range.Many Member States have alreadyratified this important agreement.The Commission has recentlyproposed that the Community doeslikewise, giving greater effect tothe role and commitment of the EUin international waterbirdconservation.

Meeting the 2010 target andbeyondSo, in conclusion, much has clearlybeen achieved for bird conservationin Europe thanks to the BirdsDirective. But there is still a lot to doto halt the continuing decline ofEurope’s birds and biodiversity by2010. Renewed efforts will be requiredto complete the SPA network and tosecure the long term management ofthese areas. Species protectionprovisions will also need to be re-enforced and extended to beyond theEU frontiers through internationalcooperation and collaboration.

Moreover, the implementation ofthe Birds Directive in the widercountryside also now needs to movecentre stage. With the recentenlargement of the European Unionand changes in EU rural policies,there are more opportunities thanever to better integrate birdconservation requirements into widerrural land-uses. The onus is now onall of us to seize these opportunitiesand work in close partnership withthe different land users to securemore sustainable land-use practicesacross Europe. Only then willEurope’s biodiversity be recognisedas a truly integral part of our richand diverse living landscape, and theshared responsibility of all. Here’s tothe next 25 years….!

BIODIVERSITYcontinued

The Camargue, France, a key wetland along a major European migratory flyway.Photo: Micheal O’Briain

birds issue - european...

Documents