Saving Europe's most threatened birds - BirdLife International

SAVING EUROPE’S MOST
THREATENED BIRDS
Progress in implementing
European Species Action Plans

■ What is BirdLife International?
BirdLife International is a Partnership of non-governmental conservation organisations with a special focus on birds. The BirdLife
Partnership works together on shared priorities, policies and programmes of conservation action, exchanging skills, achievements
and information, and so growing in ability, authority and influence.
Each Partner represents a unique geographic area or territory (usually a country). In addition to Partners, BirdLife has Affiliates
and a flexible system of Working Groups (including some bird Specialist Groups shared with Wetlands International and/or the
Species Survival Commission (SSC) of the World Conservation Union (IUCN)), each with specific roles and responsibilities.
■ What is the purpose of BirdLife International? – Mission Statement
The BirdLife International Partnership strives to conserve birds, their habitats and global biodiversity, working with people towards
sustainability in the use of natural resources.
■ Where is BirdLife International heading? – Vision Statement
Birds are beautiful, inspirational and international. Birds are excellent flagships and vital environmental indicators. By focusing on
birds, and the sites and habitats on which they depend, the BirdLife International Partnership is working to improve the quality of
life for birds, for other wildlife (biodiversity) and for people.
■ Aims
BirdLife’s long-term aims are to:
• Prevent the extinction of any bird species.
• Maintain, and where possible improve, the conservation status of all bird species.
• Conserve, and where appropriate improve and enlarge, sites and habitats important for birds.
• Help, through birds, to conserve biodiversity and to improve the quality of people’s lives.
• Integrate bird conservation into sustaining people’s livelihoods.
BirdLife International works with all like-minded organisations, national and local governments, decision-makers, landowners and
managers, in pursuing bird and biodiversity conservation. The global work of the BirdLife Partnership is funded entirely by voluntary
donations.
To find out more about how you could support this work please contact the BirdLife European Regional Office, Droevendaalsesteeg 3a,
PO Box 127, NL–6700 AC, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Tel: +31 317 478831 Fax: +31 317 478844 Email: birdlife@birdlife.agro.nl
Internet: www.birdlife.net

SAVING EUROPE’S MOST
THREATENED BIRDS
Progress in implementing
European Species Action Plans
Edited by U. Gallo-Orsi
The present publication is sponsored by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature
Management and Fisheries through the PIN/MATRA Funds of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
i

Recommended citation
U. Gallo-Orsi, ed. (2001) Saving Europe’s most threatened birds: progress in implementing European Species Action Plans, BirdLife
International, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
©2001 BirdLife International
Wellbrook Court, Girton Road, Cambridge, CB3 0NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 1223 277318 Fax: +44 1223 277200 Email: birdlife@birdlife.org.uk Internet: www.birdlife.net
For more information on BirdLife in Europe contact:
BirdLife European Regional Office, Droevendaalsesteeg 3a, PO Box 127, NL–6700 AC, Wageningen, The Netherlands,
Tel: +31 317 478831 Fax: +31 317 478844 Email: birdlife@birdlife.agro.nl Internet: www.birdlife.net
BirdLife International is a UK-registered charity
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by
any means, electronic, electrical, chemical, mechanical, optical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of
the publisher.
ISBN 0 946888 45 0
British Library-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
First published 2001 by BirdLife International
Designed and produced by the NatureBureau,
36 Kingfisher Court, Hambridge Road, Newbury, Berkshire RG14 5SJ, United Kingdom
Cover: Great Bustard Otis tarda (Photo: Nigel Collar); Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca (Photo: Štefan Danko); Red-breasted Goose
Branta ruficollis (Photo: Tony Martin)
Printed by Information Press, Oxford, United Kingdom
ii

CONTENTS
iv Acknowledgements
1 Introduction
1 Methods
2 Results
3 The role of international treaties in the conservation of threatened species
5 Policies and legislation
6 Species and habitat protection
6 Research and monitoring
6 Public awareness
Implementation of the Action Plans
7 Fea’s Petrel Pterodroma feae
8 Zino’s Petrel Pterodroma madeira
9 Pygmy Cormorant Phalacrocorax pygmeus
10 Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus
12 Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus
13 Red-breasted Goose Branta ruficollis
15 Marbled Teal Marmaronetta angustirostris
17 White-headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala
19 Cinereous Vulture Aegypius monachus
21 Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca
23 Spanish Imperial Eagle Aquila adalberti
25 Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni
27 Corncrake Crex crex
30 Great Bustard Otis tarda
32 Houbara Bustard Chlamydotis undulata fuerteventurae
34 Slender-billed Curlew Numenius tenuirostris
36 Audouin’s Gull Larus audouinii
38 Madeira Laurel Pigeon Columba trocaz
40 Dark-tailed Laurel Pigeon Columba bollii
40 White-tailed Laurel Pigeon Columba junoniae
42 Aquatic Warbler Acrocephalus paludicola
44 Blue Chaffinch Fringilla teydea
45 Azores Bullfinch Pyrrhula murina
46 Conclusions
iii

The present report has been produced on the basis of the
questionnaires received. Their compilation has been carried out
by collecting, verifying and evaluating information from national
experts. All contributors are listed below. We are most grateful
for their efforts.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Alexander Aduladza (RBCU)
Stefan Avramov (BSPB)
Nicola Baccetti (INFS)
Boris Barov (BSPB)
Hans-Guenther Bauer (DRV – German Bird
Conservation Council)
Victor Belik (RBCU)
Taulant Bino (ASPBM)
Michael Borsch Grell (DOF)
Stratis Bourdakis (HOS)
Ariel Brunner (LIPU)
P. Buerger (CSO)
S. Bukreev (RBCU)
Alex Copland (BirdWatch Ireland)
Helder Costa (SPEA)
Bernard Deceuninck (LPO)
Ventzeslav Delov (BSPB)
Miroslav Demko (SOVS)
Sergey Dereliev (BSPB)
Dereliev Dimitar (BSPB)
Vlatka Dumbovic (Croatian Ornithological Society)
Güven Eken (DHKD)
Asbjørn Folvik (NOF)
Johannes Frühauf (BirdLife Austria)
Vladimir Galushin (RBCU)
Dimitar Georgiev (BSPB)
Sergey Georgiev (BSPB)
Cristina Gonzalez (SEO)
Maciej Gromadzki (OTOP)
Andy Green (Est. Biol. Doñana)
George Handrinos (Ministry of Agriculture)
Lorenz Heer (SVS)
David Hoccom (RSPB)
Jan Hora (CSO)
Baz Hughes (WWT)
Petar Iankov (BSPB)
Boris Ivanov (BSPB)
Bojidar Ivanov (BSPB)
Ingar Jostein Øien (NOF)
Andres Kalamees (EOS)
Mikhail V. Kalyakin (RBCU and
Zoological Museum of Moscow State University)
Pavol Kanuch (SOVS)
Savas Kazantzidis (HOS)
Oskars Keišs (Latvian Fund for Nature, LOB)
Khristo Khristov (BSPB)
Alexander Kozulin (APB)
Bahtiyar Kurt (DHKD)
Iordan Kutzarov (BSPB)
Elena Lebedeva (RBCU)
Teemu Lehtiniemi (BirdLife Finland)
Juan Antonio Lorenzo (SEO)
Patric Lorgé (LNVL)
Wolfgang Mädlow (NABU)
Juha Markkola (WWF Finland)
Ubbo Mammen (LBV/NABU)
Claus Mayr (NABU)
Alexander Mikityuk (UTOP)
Alexander Mischenko (RBCU)
Johan H. Mooij (ZWFD, c/o Biological Station Wesel)
Vladimir Morozov (Russian Research Inst. of Nat. Protection)
Dan Munteanu (SOR)
Theodoros Naziridis (HOS)
Paul Newberry (RSPB)
P. Oliveira (Parque Natural da Madeira)
Daniel Oro (CSIC-UIB)
Eduard Osieck (VBN)
Giovanni Palumbo (LIPU)
Maria Panayotopoulou (HOS)
Costas Papaconstantinou (HOS)
Nikolai Petkov (BSPB)
Tzeno Petrov (BSPB)
Márcia Pinto (ICN)
Danae Portolou (HOS)
J. Pykal (CSO)
Andreas Ranner (BirdLife Austria)
Liutauras Raudonikis (LOD)
Pedro Rocha (SPEA)
German Rusanov (RBCU)
Pawel Olaf Sidlo (OTOP)
Luis Silva (ICN)
Theodora Skartsi (WWF Greece Dadia Project)
Stoycho Stoychev (BSPB)
Eva Suchomelova (Agency for Nature Conservation and
Landscape Protection/CSO)
Olga Sukhanova (RBCU)
Balázs Szabó (MME)
György Szimuly (MME)
Petteri Tolvanen (WWF Finland)
Antonio Torre (Medmaravis)
Peter Trontelj (DOPPS)
Willem Van den Bossche (BNVR/RNOB)
Björn Welander (SOF)
Johanna Winkelman (VBN)
F. Zino (Parque Natural da Madeira)
Kerem Ali Boyla’s help was invaluable in checking and evaluating
the replies from the Partners, as well as in managing the database
resulting from the replies. Szabolcs Nagy extensively revised the
introductory text, while Giovanna Pisano (RSPB) and Euan
Dunn (RSPB) provided extremely helpful input on Agriculture
and Fishery policies respectively.
Several species’ texts were discussed with international experts,
co-ordinating working groups or conservation teams. We are
deeply grateful to Norbert Schäffer (RSPB) for his inputs on
Corncrake and Aquatic Warbler, and to Martin Flade (coordinator
of the Aquatic Warbler Conservation Team). We also
thank Baz Hughes (WWT) and Andy Green (Est. Biol. Doñana)
(TWGS) for their comments on Marbled Teal and White-headed
Duck, Daniel Oro (CSIC-UIB) of the Audouin’s team, Ingar
Jostein Øien (NOF), Petteri Tolvanen and Juha Markkola (WWF
Finland and Finnish LWfG Conservation Group), for comments
on the Lesser White-fronted Goose, Evelyn Tewes and Juan José
Sanchez (Black Vulture Conservation Foundation), who checked
the text for the Cinereous Vulture, and Dan Munteanu (SOR),
who provided useful comments on the Red-breasted Goose.
Comments were also received from Cristina Gonzalez (SEO) on the
Canary Islands endemics and from Helder Costa (SPEA), F. Zino
and P. Oliveira (Parque Natural da Madeira) for the Madeira species.
Richard Thomas, Sheila Nightingale and Martina Bernhard
have been invaluable in their task of checking and proof reading.
Adrian Long provided useful ideas and comments for the layout
and cover. Finally, many thanks to Peter and Barbara Creed
(NatureBureau) for their flexibility and professionalism in the
production of the publication. Obviously any mistake is entirely
the compiler’s responsiblity.

INTRODUCTION
In 1993 BirdLife International was asked by the European
Commission to develop 23 Species Action Plans for the globally
threatened species occurring in Europe. The documents were
produced through an extensive consultation process involving
many people. The action plans were approved by the Ornis
Committee 1 and endorsed by the Standing Committee of the
Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and
Natural Habitats (the so-called Bern Convention) 2 . The
Conference of the Parties of the Convention on the Conservation
of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (the so-called Bonn
Convention) endorsed the 18 plans developed for the species listed
in Appendix I and II of the Convention 3 . These were published
as a book by the Council of Europe in 1996 4 . Species Action Plans
are also available on the Internet 5 .
The Species Action Plans (SAPs) are an important step for
the conservation of a species, and their implementation needs to
be monitored and updated on a regular basis. Each SAP states a
review time-scale that is, according to the species, 3 to 5 years.
Although there is not yet any agreed review/update process with
the European Commission, the Bern or Bonn Conventions, there
is a need to understand clearly the implementation level of the
SAP as a first step toward the revision/update of the existing
documents.
The present report cannot be considered as an update of the
SAPs since this would need to take into consideration new
information on population sizes and trends as well as level of
threats, and these have not been considered here. However, this
report can be used to identify actions which have been fully or
largely implemented and to focus conservation, research and
public awareness/advocacy activities for the future.
All species covered by the SAPs analysed here are considered
“priority for funding” under the LIFE Nature programme and
the SAPs are important reference documents for the compilation
of project proposals. LIFE Nature funds can therefore provide
good opportunities for the conservation of these species.
The survey was carried out with the involvement of the
BirdLife Partnership, as a test of a monitoring system which
should include information from governments as well. The replies
seem to give a reasonably accurate picture of the actions carried
out by the Partners, and often also by others (other NGOs or
governmental agencies), thus expressing the level of
implementation of the SAPs at the national level.
METHODS
Preparation of the questionnaires
This report has been produced on the basis of the replies to
questionnaires sent to all BirdLife International Partners,
Partners Designate and Affiliates in Europe.
For each of the 23 species a separate questionnaire was
prepared. Each objective has been summarised into one or more
statements/targets using the reference number of the objective.
Often a single objective has been broken down into several
statement/targets, while in some cases two or more objectives have
been merged into a single target. Each questionnaire was sent in
electronic format to all countries with a BirdLife International
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
Partner, Partner Designate or Affiliate as listed in the geographical
scope of each SAP. Each recipient was asked to determine the level
of implementation of each statement/target according to four
mutually exclusive categories:
• Action fully (100%) implemented, no further work required.
• Significant results (51%–75%), but work still to be done.
• Some work done (11%–50%), further action needed.
• Little or no work carried out (0%–10%).
The percentage has been calculated in terms of the percentage of
the national population or habitat affected. In some instances
the evaluation carries an element of subjectivity, particularly
where legislation, research or public awareness and lobby work
are concerned. Since some actions refer only to a limited
geographical range or to specific situations, there was also the
option of stating that the target was “not needed/not relevant”
for a country. Partners were also invited to describe briefly their
achievement for each objective.
Verifying and interpreting the replies
Each answer has been converted into an Implementation Score
(IS) as follows:
Category IS
Action fully (100%) implemented, no further work required 4
Significant results (51%–75%), but work still to be done 3
Some work done (11%–50%), further action needed 2
Little or no work (0%–%10%) carried out 1
Not needed/not relevant 0
The answers were subsequently checked individually. Some scores
were corrected after examining the comments or descriptions.
The questionnaires on the same species from different countries
were compared to make sure the same criteria were used in
determining the category and IS. Unclear replies were checked
by consulting the compilers individually.
Evaluating the implementation of the SAPs
Each objective in the SAPs is given a priority. This ranking has
been transformed into a Priority Score (PS) as follows:
Priority PS
Essential or Critical 4
High 3
Medium 2
Low 1
As a third step an Action Priority Index (API) was developed
for each action across its geographical scope. It was calculated
as follows (excluding “0” values):
Action Priority Index (API) = Priority Score (PS) ×
(4 – Implementation Score [IS]) ÷ 3
The range of the score is between 0 and 4. This index expresses
the need for action for each target. The API for a target of a high
priority (e.g. PS=4) with a low level of implementation (IS=1)
has the highest value (4). A target with a low priority (e.g. PS=1)
and a high level of implementation (IS=3) has a low API value
1 The Ornis Committee assists the Commission in the implementation of the Birds Directive. It comprises representatives of each Member State.
2 Recommendation No. 46 of 26 January 1996.
3 Recommendation 5.1. Endorsement of action plans for selected Appendix I and II migratory birds. Adopted by the Conference of the Parties at its Fifth
Meeting (Geneva, 10–16 April 1997). Not included in the recommendation since non-migratory: Fea’s Petrel Pterodroma feae, Zino’s Petrel Pterodroma
madeira, Houbara Bustard Chlamydotis undulata fuerteventurae, Madeira Laurel Pigeon Columba trocaz, Dark-tailed Laurel Pigeon Columba bollii, Whitetailed
Laurel Pigeon Columba junoniae, Blue Chaffinch Fringilla teydea and Azores Bullfinch Pyrrhula murina.
4 Heredia B., Rose L. and Painter M. (1996) Globally threatened birds in Europe: action plans. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
5 http://www.birdlife.net http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/directive/birdspriority.htm
1

(0.33). All the targets with fully implemented actions have an
API value of 0 (= no further work required) 6 .
Evaluating the implementation of the SAP country by
country
An additional analysis was carried out to find out the National
Implementation Score (NIS) for each country which combines
the urgency of an action with its implementation level.
The Implementation Score (IS) of each target was multiplied by
its Priority Score (PS), and the sum of all these factors was divided
by the sum of the Priority Scores (PS). The formula used is as
following:
National Implementation Score NIS7 = Σ(PSxIS) ÷ Σ PS
The range of the NIS is, as with the IS, between 1 and 4, with 1
representing little or no implementation and 4 full
implementation.
Comparison with national priority (action by country)
Priority actions for most of the countries within the species
European range, cross-referenced to the numbered objectives, are
listed in an annex to each plan. These priority actions have been
highlighted in the tables for each species against the
implementation of each target. No specific score or index has
been developed for this part of the analysis.
Explanatory text
The results of each questionnaire are presented in tables
accompanied by a brief text which summarises the results, the
successes and the actions which are most needed. Most texts were
discussed with the relevant species working groups/conservation
team coordinated by BirdLife International. Each text includes
the three most urgently needed actions.
Figure 1. Data presentation and calculations.
RESULTS
Significance of the replies
A total of 184 questionnaires covering 23 species were sent out at
the end of July 2000 by e-mail, followed by a diskette by mail.
The European countries were those listed in the SAPs, even if in
some cases the species was not present in the country at the time
of compilation of the SAP. In one case (Pygmy Cormorant) the
2
Reference number
and target
4+
4+
0+
...+
2=
93
Country ISO codes
4x2+
4x2+
4x0+
...+
2×2=
184
National IS
184÷93=
1.98
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
Action Priority Index
(API)
Action
No. Target Priority AL BG GR UA API
1.1a, 2.1.2 The spe … 4 2 3 4 4 1.12
1.1b, 2.1.1 Key sit .. 4 2 1.33
1.2 Catch … 4 0 1.14
Priority Score (PS)
4.2 Training … 2 2
National IS 1.9
PS/Average IS
4/3.57 = 1.12
Bold indicates a
priority in the
annex of the
action plan
Implementation
Score (IS)
questionnaire was also sent to Italy because the species has now
been regularly breeding there for several years.
At the end of November 2000 (the final closing date for replies)
a total of 151 questionnaires had been received and checked,
representing 82% of the total sent out.
At least one reply was received from the majority of
countries (33 out of 36 countries, 92%). The missing countries
represent only a small percentage in terms of the population
and/or ranges of the threatened species (see Table 1).
Nineteen countries returned all questionnaires and a further
five countries only failed to return questionnaires for species
which are extinct in their territory, although they were included
in the geographical scope of the SAPs.
Table 1. BirdLife International Partner organisations involved in
the survey and their response rates.
No. of
Questionnaires
Organisation Replies %
Russia 13 RBCU [PD] 11 84.6
Spain 13 SEO [P] 11 84.6
Turkey 12 DHKD [P] 12 100.0
Ukraine 12 UTOP [PD] 12 100.0
Bulgaria 11 BSPB [P] 11 100.0
Greece 10 HOS [P] 10 100.0
Romania 10 SOR [P] 10 100.0
Hungary 9 MME [P] 6 66.7
Portugal 9 SPEA [PD] 7 77.8
Albania 7 ASPBM [DP] 7 100.0
Italy 7 LIPU [P] 6 85.7
Croatia 6 DDZPP [A] 1 16.7
France 6 LPO [P] 3 50.0
Germany 5 NABU [P] 5 100.0
Austria 4 BirdLife Austria [P] 2 50.0
FYR of Macedonia 4 BSPSM [A] 0 –
Belgium 3 RNOB [P] 3 100.0
Czech Republic 3 CSO [P] 2 66.7
Finland 3 BirdLife Finland [P] 2 66.7
Lithuania 3 LOD [PD] 3 100.0
Netherlands 3 VBN [P] 3 100.0
Norway 3 NOF [P] 3 100.0
Poland 3 OTOP [PD] 2 66.7
Slovakia 3 SOVS [PD] 3 100.0
Sweden 3 SOF [P] 2 66.7
United Kingdom 3 RSPB [P] 3 100.0
Belarus 2 APB [PD] 2 100.0
Denmark 2 DOF [P] 1 50.0
Ireland 2 BirdWatch Ireland [P] 2 100.0
Latvia 2 LOB [PD] 1 50.0
Slovenia 2 DOPPS [PD] 1 50.0
Switzerland 2 SVS BirdLife Schweiz [P] 2 100.0
Estonia 1 EOS [PD] 1 100.0
Iceland 1 ISPB [A] 0 –
Liechtenstein 1 BZG [A] 0 –
Luxembourg 1 LNVL [P] 1 100.0
Total Partnership 184 151 82.1
P = Partner; PD = Partner Designate; A = Affiliate.
6 This score was given only in a few clear cases. For example, when the species was granted full legal protection and there were no comments about poor legal
implementation, or where a complete survey was carried out as requested by the action plan.
7 All lines with IS=0 were excluded.

Species coverage
The significance of the coverage for each species was calculated
as a percentage of the European population (breeding and/or
wintering) in each country from which a specific questionnaire
was received. The significance is very high, reaching 100%. In
the vast majority of cases the questionnaires were not filled in
for those countries where the species was no longer present,
even at the time of preparation of the SAP.
The survey can therefore be considered reasonably complete
and provides an interesting overview of the level so far reached
in the implementation of the 23 SAPs.
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
Table 2. Contracting Parties, signatories to, or Member States of international treaties.
THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES IN THE
CONSERVATION OF THREATENED SPECIES
Although international conventions are “soft” laws, they
represent an important opportunity to advocate actions at a
national or international level which are, directly or indirectly,
aimed at the conservation of species.
Because of its broad approach to conservation, the
Biodiversity Convention can play an important role in the
conservation of the habitat of all 23 species. All 35 countries
involved in this survey have signed the Biodiversity Convention,
Country (ISO code) Barcelona CBD CITES CMS AEWA SbC MoU GB MoU CoE RAMSAR EU
Albania (AL) X X # X X X
Austria (AU) X X X X X
Belarus (BY) X # X
Belgium (BE) X X X X X X X
Bulgaria (BG) X # X X X X X A
Croatia (HR) X X X X X X X
Czech Republic (CZ) X # X X X A
Denmark (DK) X # X X X X X X
Estonia (EE) X # X X X A
Finland (FI) X # X X X X X X
France (FR) X X # X X X X X X
FYR of Macedonia (MK) X X X X X X
Germany (DE) X X X X X X X
Greece (GR) X X X X X X X X X
Hungary (HU) X X X X X X X A
Iceland (IS) X X
Ireland (IE) X X X X X X
Italy (IT) X X # X X X X X X
Latvia (LV) X # X X X X A
Liechtenstein (LI) X # X X X
Lithuania (LT) X # X X A
Luxembourg (LU) X X X X X X X
Netherlands (NL) X # X X X X X X
Norway (NO) X X X X X
Poland (PL) X X X X X A
Portugal (PT) X X X X X X
Romania (RO) X # X X X X X X X A
Russian Federation (RU) X X X X
Slovakia (SK) X # X X A
Slovenia (SL) X X # X X X A
Spain (ES) X X # X X X X X X X
Sweden (SE) X # X X X X X X
Switzerland (CH) X # X X X X X
Turkey (TR) X X # X X X A
Ukraine (UA) X # X X X X X
United Kingdom (GB) X # X X X X X X
Barcelona: Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution.
CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity. # a National Biodiversity Strategy and Species Action Plan (or similar document) developed.
CITES: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (aka Washington Convention).
CMS: Convention on Migratory Species (aka Bonn Convention).
AEWA: Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (under the CMS).
SbC MOU: Memorandum of Understanding concerning Conservation Measures for the Slender-billed Curlew (under the CMS).
GB MoU: Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Management of middle-European Populations of the Great Bustard (under CMS).
CoE: Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (under the Council of Europe, aka Bern Convention).
RAMSAR: Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (aka Ramsar Convention).
EU: European Union. X = Member state, A = Accession country.
3

and it is mentioned in six of the SAPs. Only two countries (Belarus
and Slovakia) have yet to sign the Ramsar Convention, and it is
referred to in six SAPs. The Convention has developed a
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on collaboration with
all the other conventions mentioned below.
The Washington (CITES), Bonn (CMS) and Bern
Conventions include lists of species grouped according to the
type of actions the contracting parties should take (or not take)
as they commit themselves to signing and ratifying the
convention.
The Ramsar and Barcelona Conventions, in contrast,
focus on species and habitats protection through site
designation.
The Biodiversity Convention calls the signatory parties to
develop national and local plans for the protection of the
environment and for habitat conservation.
The diversity of these approaches provides an important array
of conservation opportunities, which are often mentioned in the
SAPs.
CITES, which has been signed by 27 of the countries involved
in this survey, is relevant for 10 species which are listed in either
Annex I or II and it is specifically mentioned in three documents
(Imperial Eagle, Great Bustard and Blue Chaffinch, although
the latter is not yet in the CITES Annexes).
The CMS has been signed by 32 states and includes in its
Annexes 15 migratory species of which eight are also in the
AEWA annex. The convention is mentioned for six species.
Following the publication of the SAPs, significant actions have
been taken by:
4
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
Table 3. Species conservation status and coverage by international conventions.
• The constitution of the Slender-billed Curlew Working Group.
• The adoption of 18 of the 23 SAPs (i.e. those dealing with
migratory species).
• The preparation of SAPs for Corncrake and Lesser Kestrel
for their entire ranges.
• The MoU for the conservation of the central and eastern
populations of Great Bustard, which has been open for
signature since October 2000.
• The development of a MoU for the Aquatic Warbler.
The Bern Convention covers 33 countries and includes in its
Annexes 21 of the 23 species covered by this survey. The
Convention is directly mentioned in six action plans. The Standing
Committee recommended the Contracting Parties to develop
National Action Plans and to implement conservation actions
for the species. The Bern Convention is also taking a lead in the
development of the Emerald Network, which aims to establish a
network of sites holding a significant proportion of those species
listed in the appendices of the Convention and requiring habitat
conservation measures. Furthermore, the Convention is playing
an important role in the conservation of the White-headed Duck
through promoting a strategy for the eradication of the Ruddy
Duck (Oxyura jamaicensis).
The Ramsar Convention’s aim is to promote the protection
and wise-use of wetlands world-wide. Thus it is relevant for at
least 10 wetland species and it is specifically mentioned in six
SAPs. It has been signed by most countries; only Belarus and
Slovakia are yet to sign.
Birds Bern
World European Directive Convention CMS CITES
Species Status Status SPEC Annex Annex Annex AEWA Annex
Fea’s Petrel Pterodroma feae LR/nt E 1 I II
Zino’s Petrel Pterodroma madeira C E 1 I II
Pygmy Cormorant Phalacrocorax pygmeus LR/nt V 2 I II X
Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus LR/nt V 1 I II I / II X I
Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus V V 1 I II II 1 X
Red-breasted Goose Branta ruficollis V L 1 I II II X II
Marbled Teal Marmaronetta angustirostris V E 1 I II II X
White-headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala E E 1 I II II 1 X II
Cinereous Vulture Aegypius monachus LR/nt V 3 I II II II
Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca V E 1 I II II I
Spanish Imperial Eagle Aquila adalberti V E 1 I II II I
Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni V (V) 1 I II II 1 II
Corncrake Crex crex V V 1 I II II 4
Great Bustard Otis tarda V D 1 I II I / II 1,2 II
Houbara Bustard Chlamydotis undulata fuerteventurae LR/nt (E) 3 I II II 1 I
Slender-billed Curlew Numenius tenuirostris C 1 I II I / II 1,3 X I
Audouin’s Gull Larus audouinii LR/nt L 1 I II I X
Madeira Laurel Pigeon Columba trocaz LR/cd V 1 I
Dark-tailed Laurel Pigeon Columba bollii LR/nt V 1 I II
White-tailed Laurel Pigeon Columba junoniae V V 1 I II
Aquatic Warbler Acrocephalus paludicola V E 1 I II II 1
Blue Chaffinch Fringilla teydea LR/cd V 1 I II
Azores Bullfinch Pyrrhula murina E (E) I
World status as in BirdLife International (2000) Threatened Birds of the World. Spain
and Cambridge, UK: Lynx Edicions and BirdLife International.
European status and SPEC as in Tucker G.M. & Heath M.F. (1994). Birds in Europe: their
Conservation Status. Cambridge UK: BirdLife International (BirdLife Conservation
Series No. 3).
C = Critically Endangered, E = Endangered, V = Vulnerable, D = Declining,
L = Localised, R = Rare, LR = Lower Risk, DD = Data Deficient,
cd = Conservation Dependent, nt = Near Threatened, lc = Least Concern, S = Secure.
1 Selected as Concerted Action species by the Scientific Council.
2 A MoU for the conservation of the Central European population has been
developed and has been open for signature since October 2000.
3 A MoU for the species was developed in 1994.
4 Selected as Co-operative Action species by the Scientific Council.

The only International treaty with legally binding regulations
is the European Union, which presently covers 15 countries, while
another 12 are in the process of joining. Common policies (see
below) and directives have important impacts, not only within
the 27 countries involved. They can also have significant effects
in other European and non-European countries. The two most
important Directives are 79/409/EEC (the so-called Birds
Directive) and 92/43/EEC (the so-called Habitats Directive). The
objective of these Directives is to conserve Europe’s biodiversity
through the identification and conservation of sites, which will
form the Nature 2000 Network, and to ensure appropriate
management of species and habitats outside the identified sites.
POLICIES AND LEGISLATION
The first section of the objectives/actions in each action plan
covers policy and legislation issues. National and European Union
policies have a great impact on land-use and on economic
development and are usually the driving forces behind population
changes. In particular, policies on agriculture, forestry, transport
and fishery are often mentioned as the most important ones that
should be modified to secure the survival of those species covered
by SAPs.
Agriculture
44% of Europe’s land surface is under agricultural cultivation.
Agricultural intensification affects some 42% of declining species 8
and it is the commonest cause reported for these declines. It largely
results from agricultural policies, both within and outside the EU.
In contrast, abandonment of agriculture is also frequently given
as a cause of decline and occurs partly as an indirect effect of
intensification. This is because marginal land becomes less
profitable to farm (in Western Europe), or as a consequence of
economic transformation (in Eastern Europe).
Objectives related to agricultural policies can be found in the
following 10 SAPs: Lesser White-fronted Goose, Red-breasted
Goose, Marbled Teal, White-headed Duck, Cinereous Vulture,
Spanish Imperial Eagle, Lesser Kestrel, Corncrake, Great
Bustard, Madeira Laurel Pigeon and Aquatic Warbler. Seven of
these species (Lesser White-fronted Goose, Red-breasted Goose,
Imperial Eagle, Cinereous Vulture, Lesser Kestrel, Corncrake and
Great Bustard) are identified as priority species for agricultural
habitats.
In brief, the key recommendation of the SAPs in relation to
agricultural and land-use policies is that they should promote
agricultural practices compatible with the requirements of the
species. In other words, alteration of important habitat for the
species is not promoted and positive agricultural management
activities (e.g. maintenance of grazing with appropriate livestock
density or crop rotation systems, set-aside, etc) receive adequate
support.
In general, there is only moderate progress towards integrating
the conservation requirements of the action-plan species into
agricultural and land-use policies and practices. Although the
Agenda 2000 reform resulted in better integration of
environmental objectives into the EU’s Common Agricultural
Policies, it remains to be seen whether the introduction of the
new cross-compliance rules, attaching environmental conditions
to compensatory allowances within the Less Favoured Areas, will
deliver real conservation benefits in EU Member States. This will
largely depend on national implementation measures.
Our analyses show that there is even less progress in Eastern
Europe. It was expected that the SAPARD 9 programme would
significantly improve the situation. However, a recent review 10 of
the national plans submitted by the accession countries of Central
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
and Eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and
Slovenia) has revealed that the rural development plans lack clear
environmental objectives or a thorough analysis of their potential
environmental impact. They pay little attention to agrienvironmental
schemes, restricting their scope to limited pilot
schemes instead.
Forestry
Forests cover 3.1 million km 2 in Europe (about one third of the
continent’s land surface) and hold nine of the 23 species covered
by the SAPs.
The key recommendations of the SAPs in relation to forestry
can be summarised as follows:
• Avoid afforestation of habitats important for action plan
species.
• Integrate the ecological requirements of the species into the
planning and implementation of forest management activities.
Progress is also rather limited here, although there is remarkable
success in some countries, mostly in relation to afforestation. This
clearly shows the potential in increased collaboration between
conservation and forestry organisations.
Coastal strategies
BirdLife International has identified Dalmatian Pelican, Marbled
Teal, Slender-billed Curlew, Audouin’s Gull, Pygmy Cormorant,
Spanish Imperial Eagle and Aquatic Warbler as priority species
for coastal habitats 11 . The SAPs on Marbled Teal and Audouin’s
Gull explicitly refer to coastal strategies. The development of
coastal strategies is at an early stage, but the number of integrated
coastal zone management demonstration projects is increasing,
both within and outside the EU. Recently the European
Commission has adopted a Communication on a European
Strategy and a proposal for encouraging Member States to
develop their own national strategies.
However, the questionnaire replies show that these initiatives
are still too sporadic to promote effectively the conservation of
action plan species.
Fishery policies
Because the main diet of many action plan species is fish, the
survival and status of these species is affected by national and
EU fisheries policy. The management of capture fisheries and
aquaculture affects these birds, either directly by accidentally
killing them (e.g. fishing gear can be death traps for ducks such
as Marbled Teal or White-headed Duck), or indirectly through
altering habitats or the balance of the food chain (e.g. discharge
of discards and offal affects local ecosystems and provides a source
of scavenged food for, e.g. Audouin's Gull). For species affected
by marine fisheries and coastal aquaculture, the revision of the
EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in 2002 offers the
opportunity to create a more environmentally-friendly fishing
regime, which takes account of the impact on birds and other
non-target species. In many cases the key issue is simply overfishing
which exerts both direct and indirect effects on birds and
their environment.
Environmental Impact Assessment and
Strategic Environmental Assessment
Many infrastructures, such as large roads, industrial plans,
airports, powerstations etc, can have an important impact on
local, regional or national biodiversity. To assess their impact
and try to minimise the environmental impact at the planning
stage, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is generally
carried out before the plans can be approved by governmental
agencies. The EIA Directive (85/337/EEC, with a modification
8 Tucker and Heath, 1994.
9 Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development.
10 BirdLife International (2000) Environmental Assessment of SAPARD Rural Development Plans in the Accession Countries in Central and Eastern Europe
11 Tucker G.M and Evans M.I. (1997). Habitats for Birds in Europe; a conservation strategy for the wider environment. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International
(BirdLife Conservation Series No. 6).
5

inserted in 1997) provides a useful legal basis and all EU Member
States have transposed it into their national legislation. Most of
the non-EU states have their own legislation on this issue. The
EIA legislation generally applies to large-scale projects, although
from the survey it seems that threats often come from several
small-scale projects, which do not require an EIA but whose added
effects can be highly detrimental to many species. To tackle this
problem the EU is developing a Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA), which should be performed when programmes
and policies are prepared. SEAs will not replace EIAs, but will
help to identify and minimise environmental impacts from
larger policies which might be implemented by several smaller
projects.
In the SAPs there are specific recommendations for the EIA
to take into account the specific needs of Red-breasted Goose,
Marbled Teal, Cinereous Vulture, Imperial Eagle, Spanish
Imperial Eagle, Corncrake, Great Bustard, Slender-billed Curlew
and Aquatic Warbler.
Table 4. IBAs and species: their importance at a population
level and their protection status.
6
No. IBAs identified
for each species
(% of sites with % of population in IBAs 1
Name at least partial protection) Breeding Wintering
Fea’s Petrel 1 (100) 100 0
Zino’s Petrel 1 (100) 100 0
Pygmy Cormorant 116 (65) 100 100
Dalmatian Pelican 70 (70) 100 50–100
Lesser White-fronted Goose 42 (76) 9

Fea’s Petrel Pterodroma feae
1 questionnaire sent, 1 reply
Significance: 100% of the population
Fea’s Petrel is an extremely rare species found only in Madeira
(Portugal) and in some of the Cape Verde Islands. The Madeira
population consists of some 150 pairs. The main threat is habitat
alteration due to over-grazing by goats and rabbits. It is a fully
protected species. However, the recovery plan has not yet been
fully incorporated into national and international legislation.
Three LIFE projects have been funded for the conservation of
the species and its habitat.
The Marine Habitat Conservation Strategy developed by
BirdLife International has not yet been implemented.
The eradication of rats, goats and cats is complete on Desertas
Grande, but on Buigo, eradication of introduced animals and a
contingency plan for accidental introductions in the future are
still needed. Through LIFE funds, important steps were taken,
such as the establishment of wardening and the construction
of shelter facilities on Bugio. Soil erosion is still a problem;
although replanting of natural vegetation is thought not to be
relevant, dry walls as well as artificial burrows still need to be
built. Yellow-legged Gulls Larus cachinnans are no longer
considered a threat.
The species’s population and recovery of the vegetation cover
are monitored annually, although both need improvement. The
research projects on the taxonomy and population dynamics are
at an advanced stage. More research is still needed to evaluate
the effectiveness of the artificial burrows and the control of
introduced animals.
The establishment of an Information Centre has played an
important role in the increase of public awareness of the
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
archipelago and the species. Wardens have been trained for
management and monitoring.
Priority actions:
• Eradicate rabbits and cats from Buigo. Remove the goats from
Buigo.
• Provide artificial burrows.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the control programmes and
artificial burrows.
Action
No. Target Priority PT API
1.1.1a The species recovery plan is incorporated into national legislation 3 3 1.0
1.1.1b The species recovery plan is incorporated into regional legislation 3 3 1.0
1.1.2 Conservation actions for Desertas and for the species financially supported by LIFE Nature 3 2 2.0
1.1.3 The Marine Habitat Conservation Strategy developed by BirdLife used as basis for additional actions 2 1 2.0
2.1.2 Eradication of rabbits, goats and cats from Deserta Grande completed 3 4 0.0
2.1.3 Eradication of rabbits, goats and cats from Bugio completed 3 1 3.0
2.1.4 Some of the goats relocated 3 1 3.0
2.1.5 Contingency plan for the accidental introduction of problem animals developed 2 1 2.0
2.1.6 Expansion of the Yellow-legged Gull population prevented 2 0 –
2.2.1 Wardening of breeding colonies improved 2 4 0.0
2.2.2 Shelter facilities for wardens provided at Bugio 3 4 0.0
2.3.1a Natural vegetation replanted 2 0 –
2.3.1b Dry walls built to slow down erosion 2 1 1.5
2.3.2 Artificial breeding burrows provided 2 1 2.0
3.1.1a Breeding numbers monitored annually 3 3 1.0
3.1.1b Breeding success monitored annually 3 3 1.0
3.1.2 Effectiveness of artificial burrows verified annually 2 1 2.0
3.2a Effectiveness of the control programme for problem animals evaluated 2 1 2.0
3.2b Vegetation recovery carefully monitored annually 2 3 0.7
3.3.1 Taxonomic status determined 1 3 0.3
3.3.2 Studies on population dynamics continued 1 2 0.7
3.3.3 Potential breeding areas identified 2 4 0.0
4.1.1 Public awareness campaign launched prior to the eradication programme 3 4 0.0
4.1.2a Public awareness on the values of the Nature Reserve increased 2 4 0.0
4.1.2b Information centre about the archipelago and the species established 2 4 0.0
4.1.2c Wardens trained for management and monitoring 2 3 0.7
National IS 2.6
Michal Skakuj
7

8
Zino’s Petrel Pterodroma madeira
1 questionnaire sent, 1 reply
Significance: 100% of the population
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
Zino’s Petrel is endemic to Madeira, where the 20 pairs known
breed in the central mountain massif. The main threats are
predation by rats and cats, habitat degradation due to overgrazing
by goats and sheep, and human predation and
disturbance.
Conservation activities on this species have been carried out
with significant achievements by the Freira Conservation Project,
the Parque Natural of Madeira, and with financial support from
RSPB (BirdLife International, UK) and IFAW. The species is
fully protected and the recovery (action) plan has been included
in the relevant legislation and implemented to a certain extent.
LIFE funds have not been received for the conservation of this
species so far, but a proposal was submitted in 2000.
Rat control has not been completed, but the breeding areas
are virtually rat-free. Land has not been acquired, but habitat
management is on-going and wardens control the access to the
breeding area. No artificial burrows have been provided as they
are no longer considered necessary.
Breeding numbers are monitored annually and a new breeding
site has been identified. Other research is on-going: mainly on
the predator/prey relationship between rats (predators) and birds
(prey). An Information Centre has been established within the
Natural Park.
Most of the activities are focused on the breeding areas, while
little is yet known about where the birds feed at sea, or where
they spend their time outside the breeding season. Limiting
factors, other than predation at breeding sites are poorly known.
Alongside continuing the conservation activities on the
protection and management of the breeding sites, research should
focus on the identification of feeding and non-breeding areas at
sea and relevant threats, as a basis for the development of a marine
habitat conservation strategy.
Priority actions:
• Allocate LIFE funds for the conservation of the species and
the endemic flora.
• Complete eradication of rats, reduce the goat numbers in the
breeding area.
• Acquire the land where the birds nest.
Action
No. Target Priority PT API
1.1.1a The species recovery plan is incorporated into national legislation 1 4 0.0
1.1.1b The species recovery plan is incorporated into regional legislation 1 4 0.0
1.1.2 Management plan for the Natural Park of Madeira established 3 4 1.0
1.1.3 Funds from LIFE regulation used for the conservation of the species and the endemic flora 3 1 3.0
1.1.4 The Marine Habitat Conservation Strategy developed by BirdLife used as basis for additional actions 2 1 2.0
2.1.1 Eradication of rats completed 4 1 4.0
2.1.2 Breeding areas kept free of rats 3 3 1.0
2.1.3 Predation by feral cats controlled 4 3 1.0
2.2.1 Wardening of breeding colonies on-going 3 3 1.0
2.2.2a Acquisition of land where birds breed 3 1 3.0
2.2.2b Habitat management carried out and access controlled in the breeding area 3 3 1.0
2.3.1a Review of conservation action for other Pterodroma species completed 1 0 –
2.3.1b Artificial burrows for breeding provided in suitable areas 1 0 –
2.4 Goat numbers reduced by fencing the breeding area 3 1 3.0
3.1 Search for new breeding colonies 3 3 1.0
3.1.2 Breeding numbers monitored annually 3 3 1.0
3.2.1 Research on population dynamics and survival rates continued 2 2 1.0
3.2.2 Habitat selection for breeding colonies characterised 1 2 1.0
3.2.3 Diet of predators living around the breeding area studied 1 2 1.0
3.2.4a Birds’ feeding range identified 2 1 2.0
3.2.4b Birds’ non-breeding range identified 2 1 2.0
3.2.5 Research on the taxonomic status continued 1 1 1.0
3.2.6 Ecology and population dynamics of rats investigated 1 3 0.3
4.1.1 Leaflet on the species produced and Zino’s Petrel used as the symbol of cultural identity 2 1 2.0
4.1.2 Information centre about the Natural Park and the species established 2 4 1.0
National IS 2.2
Michal Skakuj

Pygmy Cormorant Phalacrocorax pygmeus
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
9 questionnaires sent, 8 replies
Significance: 97% of the breeding population, wintering population almost fully covered
The Pygmy Cormorant’s European distribution ranges from
Greece to Russia and from Italy (where the species bred for the
first time in late 1990s) to Turkey. It seems to be stable or slightly
increasing locally. The main threats are habitat loss and
degradation (by drainage), and also human persecution and
disturbance.
International conventions are a good tool for the conservation
of this species. Sites identified under the Ramsar Convention
cover a significant number of important sites for the species,
except in Albania and Russia. Site designation under the
Barcelona Convention is relevant only for those countries in which
the species breeds or congregates in coastal Mediterranean
wetlands.
A number of countries have developed, or are in the process
of developing, their National Strategy under the Biodiversity
Convention, although often the ecological needs of the Pygmy
Cormorant are not specifically addressed.
The species is fully protected in all countries, although stricter
implementation is needed in a number of countries.
Site protection seems to be fairly good, but this does not seem
to give sufficient protection against habitat loss and disturbance.
Furthermore, specific management and monitoring of vegetation
and water levels are rarely undertaken in the protected areas.
Further research is needed on seasonal movements at a
national and international level. An international workshop on
the species was organised in Bulgaria in 2000. It identified priority
actions ranging from legal protection and management of sites,
to monitoring and research. It also listed a number of
management recommendations. In Bulgaria, the Maritza river
(and surrounding areas) hosts an important staging/wintering
population and at least seven sites need protection. In Romania,
one major site is located outside the Danube Delta Biosphere
Reserve and is unprotected. Also, in the Ukraine, four sites do
not have any protection. The Maritza river basin hosts a large
proportion of the wintering population of the species in Europe
and birds move across three countries: Bulgaria, Greece and
Turkey. An e-group has been created which will facilitate the
exchange of information and the coordination of surveys and
monitoring across the range of the species.
A public awareness campaign focused on this species may be
useful to address threats; specific training for site managers is
also needed.
Priority actions:
• Lobby for the National Wetland Strategy to improve targets
and priorities for the protection and integrated management
of wetlands.
• Manage water, water quality and vegetation at breeding sites
correctly.
• Monitor water levels and quality at key sites.
Action
No. Target Priority AL BG GR IT RO RU TR UA API
1.1.1a All sites with colonies declared Med SPA (Barcelona Convention) 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1.0
1.1.1b All sites with colonies declared Ramsar sites 2 1 2 3 4 3 1 3 4 0.8
1.1.1c National strategies under Biological Convention promote conservation and correct
management of wetlands habitat
2 3 4 0 1 2 4 3 1 0.8
1.2.1a National action plan/recovery plan produced 3 1 4 3 1 1 1 1 4 1.5
1.2.1b National action plan/recovery plan implemented 3 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 1.5
1.2.2 National wetland strategy has clear targets and priorities for the protection and integrated
management of wetlands important for the Pygmy Cormorant
3 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 2.0
1.2.3 All key sites fully protected under national laws 4 2 3 3 4 4 1 3 1 1.5
1.2.4 The species is fully protected by law 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1.1
1.2.5 Entry to all breeding colonies forbidden 4 2 2 3 4 4 3 2 1 1.5
2.1 All important sites protected from habitat loss or degradation 4 1 2 3 4 3 1 2 1 1.9
2.2 Disturbance to the species is effectively prohibited 4 2 2 3 4 1 2 2 1 1.9
2.3 Management of important wetlands for the species is adequate 4 1 3 1 2 2 1 3 1 2.3
2.3.1 Vegetation at breeding sites correctly managed 4 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 2.5
2.3.2 Water and water quality management is adequate 4 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2.9
3.1 Numbers at wintering sites monitored annually 4 3 4 4 4 3 2 2 1 1.5
3.2 Water level and quality monitored at key sites 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2.9
3.3 Ecological changes at key sites monitored 2 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 1.2
3.4 Movement and dispersal understood 3 3 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 1.7
3.5 Feeding ecology and interaction with fisheries studied and understood 3 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 1 1.8
3.6 Interspecific relationship understood 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1.6
4.1 Public awareness campaign carried out at all key sites 3 1 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 2.0
4.2 Training courses for site managers carried out 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 1.1
National IS 1.6 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.1 1.6 2.1 1.4
Carl Christian Tofte
9

10
Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus
8 questionnaires sent, 7 replies
Significance: breeding population fully covered
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
The species is protected in all countries, but in Albania law
enforcement needs to be strengthened. In Bulgaria, the new
Biodiversity Act gives full protection to the species, but allows
for exceptions. The protection of key sites is quite advanced,
although not complete and access to breeding sites is not always
prohibited, or bans fully enforced.
In Albania, development, habitat loss and pollution from
agriculture, and changes in the hydrological regimes still represent
a threat. In Bulgaria, the Russian Federation, Turkey and Greece,
National Wetland Strategies have been developed or are under
development, but their implementation is still to come. At certain
strictly protected key sites, development, pollution and
hydrological changes are prohibited, but fisheries at many sites
still represent a source of disturbance to/competition with the
species. Involvement of local communities needs to be improved
almost everywhere.
The creation of the Balkan Park of Prespes is a good example
of international cooperation, covering the most important colony
in the western Balkans. Cooperation between NGOs is also ongoing
or under development between Turkey and Georgia (Aktaș
Gölü).
National action plans have been developed in Bulgaria and
Ukraine, but their implementation is still in the early stages.
Burning of reeds within the breeding area has been stopped in
most of the countries, although big steps need to be taken in
Albania, Turkey and Ukraine. The water regime at key sites is
not properly managed, except in Bulgaria and in Romania, where
some work has been done to protect a colony after it had been
flooded. Little has been done regarding the powerlines, except in
Greece where around Prespa some, but not all, powerlines have
been marked. Artificial nesting platforms have been built in many
countries and almost all countries are working on the construction
of platforms. In contrast, no work has been done on habitat
pollution at Ovcharitza Reservoir (Bulgaria), and at Lake
Koronia (Greece), little or no restoration has been undertaken.
In most of the countries, breeding numbers and wintering birds
are regularly monitored, although more efforts are needed in
Turkey and the Ukraine. Water levels and quality are monitored
only in some countries, and ecological changes are rarely
monitored.
While our understanding of the distribution and population
size of the species has increased not only in Europe, detailed
studies on habitat management and limiting factors, and their
effect on the species, have been carried out at only some of the
important sites.
In general, public awareness activities are limited, but some
steps have been taken in most of the countries. The Dalmatian
Pelican has a great potential as a flagship species for the
conservation of wetlands.
Priority sites:
• Protect the wetland habitats from development, pollution and
changes in the hydrological regime. Revise the tourism and
fishing policies and involve local communities.
• Manage the hydrology properly at key sites.
• Monitor ecological changes at key sites.
Action
No. Target Priority AL BG GR RO RU TR UA API
1.1a, 2.1.2 The species is fully protected 4 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 0.6
1.1b, 2.1.1 Key sites (for breeding, feeding and wintering) are fully protected 4 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 1.3
1.2 Catching of chicks and adults is banned 4 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 0.6
1.3a Wetlands habitat is protected from development, pollution, changes in hydrological regime 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 3.0
1.3b Tourism and fishing policies include wetland conservation 4 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 3.0
1.3c Local communities are involved in the conservation and management of wetlands 4 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 3.6
1.4 International cooperation for the conservation of trans-border wetlands in place 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1.7
1.5a National body for the compilation of an action plan established 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 4 1.4
1.5b National action plan developed 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1.7
1.5c National action plan implemented 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1.7
2.1.2 High penalties are inflicted for harming the species 4 1 3 3 2 3 3 3 1.9
2.1.3 All colonies are declared non-intrusion zones and wardens are appointed 4 4 2 3 2 1 3 1 2.3
2.2.1a Burning or cutting of reeds in spring within the breeding areas is forbidden 4 1 3 4 4 3 1 1 2.1
2.2.1b Habitat restoration implemented in key sites where needed 4 0 3 1 0 1 1 0 3.3
2.2.2 Hydrological regime is properly managed at key sites 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 3.4
2.2.3 Dangerous powerlines are buried or made visible to the birds in order to avoid collisions 3 1 1 3 1 0 1 1 2.7
2.2.4a Artificial structures to facilitate breeding or roosting are provided in protected areas, where needed 1 2 4 3 2 2 3 1 0.5
2.2.4b Dumping of residues, chemical pollution and eutrophication is prohibited at key sites 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 0.7
2.2.4c
Action
Sites which have suffered from pollution restored 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0
George Brown

Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
No. Target Priority AL BG GR RO RU TR UA API
3.1 Breeding numbers are monitored annually by trained people 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 1 1.1
3.2 Wintering birds are counted annually at roosting sites 4 4 4 3 0 0 2 1 1.6
3.3a Water levels are monitored at key sites 4 1 3 3 2 1 3 1 2.7
3.3b Water quality is monitored at key sites 4 1 4 3 4 1 3 1 2.1
3.3c Ecological changes are monitored at key sites 4 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 3.2
3.4 Studies on hydrology, possibly at catchment level, carried out 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2.4
3.5a Effect of conservation measures and management monitored 3 4 3 3 4 1 1 1 1.6
3.5b Conservation measures and management modified according to their effectiveness 3 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 2.3
3.6 Fishery catches monitored at key sites 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 1 1.5
3.7 Death rate and mortality causes monitored 1 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 0.7
3.8 Existing or potential conflicts between people and pelicans identified 1 3 3 4 3 1 1 1 0.6
3.9 Impact of pelicans on fish populations and commercial fisheries evaluated 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 0.9
3.1 Dispersal of pelicans understood and monitored 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1.4
4.1 Public awareness campaign carried out, targeting local communities, hunters, fishermen and local
authorities
3 3 3 2 1 2 1 1 2.1
4.2 Training courses on wetland issues carried out 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1.6
National IS 2.0 2.6 2.5 2.3 1.9 2.0 1.5
11

12
Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
12 questionnaires sent, 12 replies
Significance: the whole European breeding population, and the whole population wintering in Europe
The Lesser White-fronted Goose breeds in the sub-arctic/low-arctic
areas from Sweden to East Siberia (Russian Federation). The
Scandinavian population migrates across a number of European
countries, but most of the European breeding population winters
in Central Asia.
The main threats are hunting and habitat loss in breeding,
staging and wintering areas. Lack of information at the time of
compiling the Action Plan was the main problem and recent research
has increased our understanding of the threats and movements.
International Conventions and Agreements (Ramsar, Bonn and
AEWA) are important tools for the conservation of this migratory
species. All countries have ratified the Ramsar Convention.
Lithuania and the Russian Federation still have to join the Bonn
Convention and many countries still have to sign and ratify AEWA.
The species is now also fully protected in Romania. Site
protection, both at national and international level, is still
incomplete: not only at breeding and roosting sites, but also in
feeding areas. The species occurs in the same areas, or in mixed
flocks with other goose species that are still legally hunted; this
has an important negative impact (accidental shooting and
disturbance). Furthermore, the hunting season in most countries
is still too long, continuing in most cases beyond 31 January, and
in the Russian Federation, spring hunting near the breeding
grounds seems to be a significant problem.
Site conservation is not the only way to protect the Lesser
White-fronted Goose. Agricultural and other land-use policies still
need to be developed and implemented in a large part of the
species’s range. Habitat loss, or disturbance by tourists, is also
still a threat inside protected areas, which all too often lack
management plans addressing the needs of the species.
The Lesser White-fronted Goose Task Force has been working
very effectively since its establishment, and our knowledge on the
whereabouts of the species, both along the western and eastern
flyways, has increased dramatically. Many questions still remain
to be answered. Every year a comprehensive report on research
and conservation activities is published by WWF-Finland and
NOF (BirdLife International in Norway), a joint Fennoscandian
LWfG conservation project. The report identifies research and
conservation priorities at national and international levels.
Awareness among the general public, as well as in specific
groups, (e.g. hunters), has been increased by means of publications,
posters and stickers translated into a number of languages and
widely distributed.
Priority actions:
• Agricultural and other land-use policies should take the
conservation of the species into consideration.
• Harmonise the hunting season between neighbouring countries
in order to reduce hunting in late winter and spring.
• A specific inter-governmental agreement should be developed
for the conservation of the species.
Action
No. Target Priority BG FI DE GR HU LT NO RO RU SE TR UA API
1.1a Ramsar Convention signed and ratified 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0.0
1.1b Bonn Convention signed and ratified 3 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 1 4 0.8
1.1c AEWA signed and ratified 3 4 3 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 1.8
1.1d Specific inter-governmental agreement developed for the conservation of the species 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.9
1.2a The species is fully protected 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 0.3
1.2b, 2.2 Key sites are fully protected and provide feeding and roosting opportunities 3 3 3 2 4 4 1 2 3 1 3 0 1 1.5
1.3a Agriculture and other land-use policies take into consideration the conservation of the species 3 2 4 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.5
1.3b Conservation strategies for inland wetlands and agricultural habitats developed by
BirdLife International are implemented
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2.9
2.1a No shooting zones are established at all key sites to reduce disturbance and accidental
killing of the species
3 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 2.3
2.1b Hunting season is harmonised with neighbouring countries to reduce hunting in late
winter and spring
3 2 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2.8
2.2 Key sites are protected from industrial development and tourism 2 3 3 2 3 4 1 2 2 1 3 0 1 1.2
2.3 Management plans are developed and implemented for staging and wintering areas 3 3 4 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 0 0 1 2.0
2.4 Reintroduction or restocking takes place only as a last resort and following IUCN criteria 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
3.1a, 3.2a Key staging, wintering and moulting sites have been located and monitored 4 4 4 2 4 4 1 3 3 3 0 0 1 1.5
3.1b Ground surveys followed satellite tracking 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 3 1 3 0 1 1 1.5
3.2b Distribution, habitat use and threats described 3 3 4 1 4 4 1 3 1 3 4 1 1 1.5
3.3 Habitat requirement understood and used for habitat protection and management 3 3 4 1 3 4 0 2 0 3 3 1 1 1.5
4.1 Public awareness on the importance of the species and the need for its conservation increased 3 3 3 2 4 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 1.6
4.2 Hunters and landowners aware of the identification problems and of the need to avoid
hunting in key areas
2 2 3 1 4 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 1.4
4.3 Wardens of protected areas trained in identification and census techniques 2 3 3 1 2 4 1 2 1 1 4 1 1 1.3
National IS 2.9 3.32 2.1 3 2.9 1.4 2.4 1.9 1.9 2.9 1.4 1.7
Pavel Prochazka

Red-breasted Goose Branta ruficollis
6 questionnaires sent, 5 replies
Significance: wintering population fully covered
The breeding range of the species lies outside Europe and the
species migrates through the European part of the Russian
Federation and Ukraine to winter in Romania and Bulgaria,
reaching Greece and Turkey in small numbers. Land-use changes
and illegal hunting are the two main threats.
In Europe, the species feeds on agricultural land (grassland
and arable fields), but agricultural policies in Eastern Europe do
not address conservation issues and do not take the ecological
needs of the species into consideration.
Although the species is fully protected, many individuals are
still shot by mistake by hunters aiming at other goose species,
and law enforcement needs to be strengthened, particularly in
Bulgaria, Romania and the Ukraine. Most roosting sites are
protected, but no-hunting buffer zones should be established
around these sites, and feeding areas are not protected.
Goose hunting should also be prohibited in feeding areas;
penalties for killing the birds are not high enough, or offenders
are not prosecuted.
The reduction of the hunting season to the end of January
has not been achieved in any of the relevant countries. Poisoning,
often accidental, may kill the birds while feeding in arable fields.
The use of poison at key sites is effectively prohibited only in
Greece and Romania. AEWA covers this species, but the
agreement has not been signed by Turkey and the Russian
Federation and has yet to be ratified in Bulgaria, Greece and the
Ukraine. Coordinated winter counts have been carried out in
Romania and Bulgaria and the species is monitored through the
mid-winter counts (IWC) coordinated by Wetlands International.
Our knowledge of the distribution and numbers of the species is
still incomplete, but has increased since the publication of the
Action Plan. A comprehensive research project on the wintering
behaviour of the species is on-going in Romania, and some
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
research has also been carried out in Bulgaria. In these two
countries, which host most of the world’s population in winter,
public awareness of the species is increasing following the
production of posters, stickers and publications.
Priority actions:
• New agricultural and land-use policies in wintering countries
should be developed according to the recommendations
produced by BirdLife International for agricultural and inland
wetland habitats.
• Control hunting tourism, improve law enforcement and inflict
heavy penalties for shooting the species.
• Establish non-hunting buffer zones around the key sites.
Action
No. Target Priority BG GR RO TR UA RU API
1.1a New agricultural policies in the wintering countries take into consideration the ecological needs of the species 4 2 1 1 1 1 0 3.7
1.1b Conservation strategies for agricultural and inland wetlands habitats developed by BirdLife International
are implemented
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 4.0
1.2a The species is fully protected 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 0.2
1.2b, 2.2.1 All key sites are protected 4 3 4 3 3 1 2 1.8
1.2c Hunting tourism is controlled 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 4.0
1.2d, 2.1 All offenders are prosecuted and penalties sufficiently high to deter offences 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 3.8
1.2.1 The hunting season ends at the end of January 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1.9
1.3 AEWA signed and ratified 3 4 2 4 1 3 1 1.5
2.1a Legal protection granted to the species is fully enforced 4 1 3 2 1 2 2 2.9
2.1b Hunting bans established at all key sites where the species is present 4 1 3 3 1 1 1 3.1
2.1c Non-hunting buffer zone established around the key sites 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 4.0
2.1d Poisoning prohibited at key sites 4 1 4 4 1 1 1 2.7
2.2.2 Environmental Impact Assessment is carried out for all development proposals likely to affect the species
and its habitat
3 1 0 1 1 1 1 3.0
2.3 Use of rodenticide is controlled where it is a problem for the species 2 1 0 2 1 1 1 1.9
2.4 Management of feeding habitat carried out at staging and wintering areas as a result of specific research 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1.9
2.5a Specific inter-governmental agreement developed for the conservation of the species 3 3 3 4 1 3 1 1.5
2.5b International Red-breasted Goose Working Group established 3 2 0 2 0 1 1 2.5
3.1a Coordinated winter counts carried out in all relevant countries 4 4 1 3 1 3 1 2.4
3.1b Distribution and numbers of breeding Red-breasted Geese monitored 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.7
3.2.1, 3.2.2 All staging and wintering areas identified and monitored; their status and threats evaluated 4 3 3 3 2 1 2 1.9
3.2.3 The status of breeding areas monitored periodically 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.7
3.3.1 Research on the relationship between spring fattening and breeding success carried out 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.0
3.3.2 Feeding and behavioural ecology studied 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1.7
Juan Varela
13

14
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
Action
No. Target Priority BG GR RO TR UA RU API
3.3.3 Feeding ecology of breeding females studied 2 0 0 0 1 1 3 1.6
3.3.4 Changes in land-use in wintering areas monitored 4 2 4 2 1 1 0 2.7
3.5 Effect of hunting (mortality and disturbance) assessed 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 2.5
3.6 Impact of the use of rodenticides assessed 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 2.0
4.1.1 Public awareness on the importance of the species increased 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 2.7
4.1.2 Education/awareness programmes targeted at hunters, fishermen and farmers carried out 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.8
4.2 Red-breasted Goose used as a flagship for the conservation of its habitat 3 4 1 4 1 1 1 2.0
National IS 2.0 2.1 2.2 1.3 1.5 1.4

Marbled Teal Marmaronetta angustirostris
3 questionnaires sent, 2 replies
Significance: 100% of the European breeding population
The Marbled Teal is confined to a few brackish wetlands in the
Mediterranean basin in Europe and is undergoing a rapid decline,
largely due to habitat loss and habitat degradation. Knowledge
about the distribution of the species is good in Spain, while
research in Turkey is still in progress.
International conservation agreements such as AEWA can
play an important role, but Turkey has not signed up to this yet.
In Turkey and Spain the species is fully protected.
Regional action plans have been developed in Spain for
Valencia and Andalucia, but have not been endorsed officially.
A LIFE project in Valencia has implemented some of the actions
listed in the plan.
In Spain, a Mediterranean Wetland Conservation Strategy has
been approved, but not yet implemented. The conservation of
the species has not yet been integrated into the national policies
and plans for agriculture, transport or tourism; thus the species’s
habitat is still under threat both in Spain and in Turkey.
In Turkey, all IBAs known to host the species, and holding
82% of the national population, are protected at a national level,
and 50% of the known national population breeds within Ramsar
sites. In Spain, the most important breeding sites have been
protected since before the compilation of the Action Plan, and
some more recently, such as Marjal del Moro and Pego-Oliva.
At least three sites hosting important numbers during winter need
further protection. Not all sites have management plans which
take the ecological needs of the species into consideration, and
where they exist their implementation needs to be improved.
All potentially damaging activities in Turkey and Spain are
subject to environmental impact assessments, but this does not
seem to be sufficient to stop habitat loss, and the protection at
sites is not enough since large-scale changes in the hydrology of
the catchment areas result in habitat degradation.
Hunting still occurs, although at El Hondo and Marjal del Moro
(Spain) hunting has been limited to a certain extent, and more
work is needed to reduce and eliminate hunting and lead poisoning.
The use of lead shot will be banned at least at Ramsar sites in
Spain in 2002. Wardening needs to be increased and there is not
enough control of hunting. In Spain, the enforcement of hunting
regulations is fairly good where hunting is forbidden, but little
control occurs in areas open to hunting. In Turkey, however,
enforcement of hunting laws is hampered by the lack of funds.
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
In Spain, measures have been taken to reduce mortality caused
by structures such as crayfish nets and concrete drains. In Turkey,
only limited surveys have been carried out and the species’s
interaction with human activities remains unknown.
In Spain, known and possible breeding sites are surveyed three
times every year, but the International Midwinter Counts (IWC)
need to be improved, as also in Turkey, where all known sites are
covered by IWC only once every three years. There is a significant
number of surveys, especially in Spain, and more research is
needed in Turkey on the habitat requirements and distribution
of the species.
Extensive research on the ecology of the species is being carried
out in Spain, which will possibly provide a better understanding
of the limiting factors. Within a LIFE project at El Hondo, a
booklet on the species, a video and other materials were produced
and distributed. SEO/BirdLife declared the Marbled Teal as ‘Bird
of the year 1997’. Neither in Spain nor in Turkey is there an
education/awareness campaign specifically aimed at hunters.
Although no international group has been established, the
Threatened Waterfowl Specialist Group with its e-forum has
proved a useful tool for the exchange of information.
Priority actions:
• Increase the protection of key sites from changes in hydrology,
vegetation and water quality through appropriate land-use
policies and integrated management.
• Minimise illegal hunting by all possible methods including
appointing wardens to the sites.
• Establish an education campaign for local people and hunters.
Action
No. Target Priority ES TR API
1.1.1 AEWA signed and ratified 2 4 1 1.0
1.2.1a National or regional action plan developed 3 2 1 2.5
1.2.1b National or regional action plan implemented 3 2 1 2.5
1.2.2 The species is fully protected 3 4 4 0.0
1.2.3a National wetland conservation strategy sets clear targets and priorities for the protection and integrated management of
potential Marbled Teal habitats
2 2 1 1.7
1.2.3b National policies on agriculture, transport and tourism take into consideration the need for wetland conservation 2 2 1 1.7
1.2.3c Conservation strategies for inland and coastal wetlands developed by BirdLife International are implemented 2 2 1 1.7
2.1.1 All sites regularly holding the species are declared protected areas 3 3 4 0.5
2.1.2a All sites regularly holding the species are effectively protected from changes in their hydrology, vegetation and water quality 4 1 2 3.3
2.1.2b Environmental impact assessment is performed for any new development at the sites regularly holding the species 4 1 4 2.0
2.1.3a All key sites are declared Ramsar sites 3 1 4 1.5
2.1.3b Conservation status of Ramsar sites holding the species is improved where necessary 3 2 1 2.5
2.2a Management plan for each site is developed, and includes specific objectives and prescriptions for the species 2 1 2 1.7
2.2b Management plan for each site is implemented 2 1 2 1.7
2.3 If artificial wetlands are created, they are designed so as to provide suitable habitat for the species 1 1 1 1.0
2.4.1 Hunting is prohibited at all sites regularly holding the species 3 2 2 2.0
Juan Varela
15

16
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
Action
No. Target Priority ES TR API
2.4.2a Hunting ban is effectively implemented by wardens 3 2 1 2.5
2.4.2b Where hunting is permitted, wardens ensure that no Marbled Teals are shot 3 1 1 3.0
2.4.3 Where hunting ban cannot be achieved, all possible methods to minimise the number of Marbled Teal killed are employed 3 1 1 3.0
2.4.4 Lack of funds does not hamper the enforcement of hunting regulations 3 4 1 1.5
2.5 Lead shot is not allowed at key sites 2 1 1 2.0
2.6 Other mortality factors, such as crayfish nets and concrete drains, are modified to reduce impact on the species 4 3 1 2.7
3.1.1 Known breeding sites are regularly surveyed 3 3 1 2.0
3.1.2 Surveys in possible breeding sites carried out 4 4 1 2.0
3.1.3 All sites where the species is recorded are covered by the mid-winter counts (IWC) 2 1 4 1.0
3.1.4 All important sites are surveyed simultaneously 2 3 1 1.3
3.1.5 Foreign birdwatchers visiting known or possible sites submit their records to the national BirdLife Partner 2 0 4 0.0
3.2.1 Studies on species’s ecology and habitat requirement, relevant for conservation, carried out 4 3 2 2.0
3.2.2 Movements of the Marbled Teal understood 3 3 1 2.0
3.2.3 Nature and significance of threats understood at all key sites 2 3 1 1.3
4.1a Educational booklet on the species produced and distributed 4 2 1 3.3
4.1b Educational campaign on the species targeted at hunters carried out 4 1 1 4.0
4.1c International working group on the species established 4 1 0 4.0
National IS 2.1 1.7

White-headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
24 questionnaires sent, 16 replies
Significance: 85% of the breeding population and the entire wintering population
The Action Plan for the White-headed Duck identifies the
hybridisation with the Ruddy Duck O. jamaicensis as the biggest
threat for the White-headed Duck in Europe. The Ruddy Duck
is an American species, which escaped from captivity in the UK
in the 1950s and is now breeding and spreading in Europe. In
Great Britain, Spain, Switzerland and France, there are national
control strategies, and in other countries within its range, the
control of the Ruddy Duck is legally possible. In a few countries
the release of captive Ruddy Ducks is still permitted: legislation
has to be improved in France, the Netherlands, Italy and Ireland.
In most of these countries, captive Ruddy Ducks are not registered
and actions are urgently needed on this aspect.
The Bern Convention has been taking the lead on this issue,
promoting an international control strategy and the exchange of
information.
Control and eradication programmes of the Ruddy Duck are
in place in Spain, France, and the UK. In the UK, the Ruddy
Duck population has been reduced within an experimental control
programme. In Spain and France controls are going on, which
include the hybrids between the two species.
In countries within the range of the Ruddy Duck the number
of captive birds is not recorded. In most of the countries the need
to control the Ruddy Duck is understood, although in general
more action is needed.
The White-headed Duck is fully protected in all countries in
which it occurs, but better law enforcement is needed in Albania
and Greece, although the species is very rare in Albania and no
longer breeds there. The species’s habitat is hardly protected in
the range states. Romania and the Ukraine need to declare the
important sites as protected areas, and in Turkey, the number of
protected sites should be increased. A national recovery plan exists
only in Spain and Greece.
All the White-headed Duck sites are protected in France (the
Biguglia wetland where a reintroduction programme is on-going)
and Greece; most of the potential and historical sites in Italy are
protected. In Spain, most of the areas were already protected
before the compilation of the Action Plan, but since then not
much progress has been achieved. The breeding sites in Turkey
are only partially protected, and the known breeding population
has decreased, particularly in the Hotamis and Eregli marshes;
Bürdür Lake is a Ramsar site, but other wintering sites need
protection. In all the countries, the sites are not safe from
destruction and degradation. Habitat management is quite
poor at the species’s key sites. In Italy, some steps are being
taken for habitat creation within a reintroduction scheme in
the south-east of the country.
The protection of the species needs to be improved in
Turkey, the Ukraine, Bulgaria and Albania. In Albania,
Bulgaria and Romania hunting is still allowed at key sites.
Effective wardening is lacking, and in Albania, Romania,
Turkey and the Ukraine, the penalties for killing a Whiteheaded
Duck are still too low to act as a deterrent. In these
countries improvement of the control measures is hampered
by financial constraints.
Surveys at (potential) breeding sites need to be carried out
in Albania, Romania, and Turkey, and monitoring of the
Ruddy Duck needs to be improved. In Albania, Turkey and
the Ukraine, the passage sites have not yet been identified,
and movements along the Black Sea are not clearly understood,
although research is on-going in most countries. The
understanding of White-headed Duck ecology and habitat
requirements has improved following a number of research
projects in Turkey and Spain, but further work is still needed
in other countries.
There is a good network of individuals and organisations, and
the Threatened Waterfowl Specialist Group with its e-forum has
proved a useful tool for the exchange of information. In Bulgaria,
the White-headed Duck has been used as a flagship species for
the protection of wetlands, but there are still few education
programmes.
Priority actions:
• Develop and implement national strategies for the control of
the Ruddy Duck.
• Enlist all captive Ruddy Ducks in a special registering system
and avoid any escapes.
• Protect the key sites and make sure they are safe from
destruction or degradation through appropriate land-use
policies.
Action
No. Target Priority AL BE BG FR DE GR IE IT NL NO RO CH ES TR GB UA API
1.1.1 National Strategy for the control of the Ruddy Duck developed 4 1 1 0 3 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 3 3 1 4 0 2.9
1.1.2 Control of Ruddy Duck legally possible 4 3 1 4 4 1 1 4 3 4 1 0 4 4 3 4 1 1.6
1.1.3 Captive Ruddy Duck cannot legally be released 4 4 4 0 2 3 1 1 2 1 4 0 4 4 0 4 1 1.7
1.1.4 All captive Ruddy Ducks enlisted in a special registering system 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 3.8
1.2.1a Species is protected 3 2 4 3 4 0 3 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 4 0.3
1.2.1b Habitat is protected 3 2 0 3 4 4 3 0 3 0 0 1 2 3 2 0 1 1.5
1.2.2a All key sites declared Ramsar sites 2 2 0 3 2 2 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1.4
1.2.2b AEWA agreement signed 2 1 3 4 2 4 4 0 1 4 1 1 4 4 1 0 3 0.9
1.2.3a National action plan/recovery plan produced 3 1 1 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 2.5
1.2.3b National action plan/recovery plan implemented 3 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2.6
1.3 Habitat Conservation for WhD is taken into account in broad policies
(agriculture, transport, tourism)
2 1 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 1.8
2.1.1 Ruddy Duck population in UK reduced 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2.7
Juan Varela
17

18
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
Action
No. Target Priority AL BE BG FR DE GR IE IT NL NO RO CH ES TR GB UA API
2.1.2 Small Ruddy Duck population eradicated in the Western Paleartic 4 1 1 0 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 3.5
2.1.3 Hybrids Ruddy × White-headed eliminated 4 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1.8
2.2.1 All sites regularly holding WhD are protected 4 1 0 2 4 0 4 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 3 0 1 2.2
2.2.2 All sites regularly holding WhD are safe from destruction or
degradation
4 1 0 1 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 3.4
2.3a Habitat managed/action taken to reduce mortality 2 1 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 1.7
2.3b Habitat managed/action taken to increase breeding success 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1.8
2.4 New habitat for breeding and wintering created 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1.0
2.5 Species protection fully implemented 3 1 4 1 3 0 3 0 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 0 2 1.0
2.5.1 In all key sites hunting is not allowed 3 1 0 2 1 0 4 0 3 4 0 1 0 3 3 0 0 1.6
2.5.2a In all key sites wardening in place and effective 3 1 0 2 1 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 2.2
2.5.2b Killing of WhD results in high penalty 3 1 4 3 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 4 1 2 0 1 2.1
2.5.3 Where permanent hunting ban is not possible, other methods to
minimise WhD mortality are implemented
3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 2.7
2.5.4 Implementation of hunting law not hampered by financial constraints 3 3 0 2 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 0 2 4 2 0.7
2.5.5 Hunting season harmonised with neighbouring countries 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 0 3 0 0 1 4 0 2 0 1 0.7
2.6 Lead shot forbidden in key sites 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1.7
2.7 WhD reintroduction schemes postponed 4 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3
3.1 Ruddy Duck status monitored regularly 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 4 2 4 2 0.8
3.2 Methods for controlling Ruddy Duck developed and information spread 4 1 1 0 4 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 3 3 0 2 0 2.7
3.3.1 Known breeding sites regularly surveyed 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 1.7
3.3.2 Possible breeding sites regularly surveyed 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 1.4
3.3.3 International Waterfowl Census regularly covering all wintering sites 2 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 3 0.3
3.3.4 All major passage sites identified 3 2 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 1 1.2
3.3.5 Key sites monitored throughout the year 3 3 0 3 3 0 4 0 4 4 0 3 4 4 3 0 1 0.7
3.3.6 Birdwatchers provide information 2 2 4 3 3 4 2 0 4 4 3 3 4 2 2 0 1 0.7
3.4.1 Research on the behaviour of released captive-bred birds carried out 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1.5
3.4.2 Movement of WhD understood 2 3 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 1 1.3
3.4.3 WhD ecology and habitat requirements well-known 1 1 0 1 1 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0.9
3.4.4 Genetic studies on Ruddy Duck carried out to understand origin 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 3.7
3.4.5 Applied studies on hydrology, pollution and socio-economic needs
carried out in all key sites
2 1 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1.6
3.5 Number of stiff-tail ducks in captivity known and monitored 4 1 1 0 1 3 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 3 1 3.6
4.1 The need to control Ruddy Duck understood at the appropriate level 4 1 1 0 4 4 1 1 2 3 0 0 2 4 0 3 1 2.3
4.2 Public and relevant decision-makers aware of the need to protect
WhD and its habitat
3 1 0 1 2 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 1 2.2
4.2.1 A good network of individuals or organisations established 3 1 4 3 3 4 3 1 3 4 0 1 4 4 3 3 1 1.2
4.2.2 WhD used as a flagship species for the protection of wetlands 3 1 0 3 2 0 2 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 1 2.1
4.2.3 Education programmes on the WhD carried out 3 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 1 2.5
National IS 1.5 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.8 2.4 1.7 2.1 2.6 2.7 1.6 3 2.6 2 2.9 1.3

Cinereous Vulture Aegypius monachus
The European species’s range is nowadays divided in two. The
eastern part ranges from northern Greece and southern Bulgaria
to Turkey, the Caucasus, the Ukraine and southern Russia. The
western part is limited to the Iberian peninsula, which holds
almost 90% of the European known population, and France
where a small population has been recently reintroduced following
IUCN criteria. The main threats are habitat loss and changes at
breeding sites, poisoning and food shortage.
Forestry policies are changing in order to take into
consideration the ecological needs of wildlife, as well as
productivity and wildfire control, but this process is just beginning.
The Dadia Forest (Greece) and Rascafria (Spain) are good
examples of collaboration between the management authorities
of the reserves and the local forestry departments, but such
examples are rare. Extensive cattle rearing is getting less common
and food-shortage is a problem. This is being dealt with in some
countries (Bulgaria, Greece and Spain) by providing additional food.
The species is legally protected in all countries, and a fair
percentage of the colonies are protected as well, although
management plans for the conservation of this species are not
always in place or properly implemented. Very limited protection
is granted to colonies outside protected areas and they are under
constant threat because the EIA regulations do not apply to
forestry operations and the conservation of nesting trees is not
fully implemented where it exists.
International cooperation has improved significantly in recent
years when the Black Vulture Conservation Foundation
successfully helped reintroduction/restocking projects (following
IUCN criteria) in Spain, France and Italy (where a feasibility
study had been prepared by LIPU).
Under BVCF’s coordination, an international campaign
(funded by LIFE) against the use of poisoning has been carried
out in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece and France. Poisoning is
still a problem, and after a couple of decades during which the
problem seemed to be significantly decreasing, it is spreading
across Europe. In Spain in the 1990s 391 individual birds are
known to have perished because of poison and in 2000 some 40
have died as well. Some Spanish colonies have been badly affected,
with a decrease of 50% of the pairs. Poison is used to control
predators such as foxes and wolves. Interesting results have also
been achieved in Bulgaria where BSPB is providing shepherds
with a dog to protect their stocks from wolves.
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
12 questionnaires sent, 8 replies
Significance: the whole naturally-occurring European population
In recent years surveys have been carried out in almost all
countries. However, regular monitoring needs to be improved in
order to identify negative population trends as soon as they appear
since recovery, in a species with such a low reproductive rate, is
very slow.
Conservation efforts in Spain resulted in an increase of the
population of the Black Vulture during the 1990s, showing what
can be achieved by species and colony protection and appropriate
habitat management. The Spanish experience has been publicised
and adopted elsewhere, but further work is needed, particularly
in the eastern part of the European distribution.
Public awareness campaigns have been launched in Spain,
Greece and Bulgaria and France, but the potential of the species
as a flagship species for the conservation of forest and pastoralism
has not yet been fully utilised.
Priority action
• Develop forestry policies which take into consideration the
ecological needs of the species.
• Enforce legislation against the use of poisoning.
• Protect all colonies and develop and implement appropriate
management plans.
Action
No. Target Priority AL BG GR PT RO ES TR UA API
1.1 Forestry policy is based on the principle of sustainability and ensures long-term survival of
all native forests and takes into consideration the presence of the species
3 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2.6
1.1.2a Agricultural policy ensures the sustainability of stock-raising and the long-term survival of
traditional extensive livestock practices and conditions which favour adequate populations
of key prey such as rabbits
2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1.9
1.1.2b Conservation strategy for agricultural habitats developed by BirdLife International
is implemented
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.0
1.1.3 International cooperation plays a role in carrying out research and conservation actions 4 1 3 3 2 1 3 2 1 2.7
1.2.1a The species is fully protected 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 0.1
1.2.1b,
2.1.1a
All breeding colonies are in protected areas 4 0 2 4 0 1 3 2 4 1.8
1.2.1c National recovery plan established 3 1 3 1 2 1 3 1 3 2.1
1.2.1d Environmental impact assessment law exists and takes the species into consideration 3 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 2.4
2.1.1b Management plans for the protected areas take into account the presence of the species
and provide specific recommendations for its conservation
4 0 1 2 0 2 2 1 1 3.3
2.1.2 For breeding colonies which cannot be declared protected areas, all damaging or
disturbing activities are prevented
3 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 2.8
2.1.3a Forestry operations are not allowed near the colonies between January and September 3 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 1 2.6
Juan Varela
19

20
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
Action
No. Target Priority AL BG GR PT RO ES TR UA API
2.1.3b All trees containing a nest are protected from cutting 3 0 0 3 0 2 2 1 1 2.2
2.1.3c Plans to prevent wild fires are developed and implemented 3 1 2 4 0 2 2 1 1 2.1
2.2.1 Dead stock is left for the vultures under careful veterinarian supervision 2 2 4 4 3 1 2 1 1 1.2
2.2.2 Reintroduction or restocking of ungulates is carried out following IUCN criteria and
avoiding over-grazing and competition with other key prey species such as rabbits
1 0 3 1 2 1 1 1 0 0.8
2.2.3 Supplementary food is provided at specific sites 1 1 4 4 3 1 3 1 1 0.6
2.3a Use of toxic chemicals for predator control is prohibited 4 2 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 2.3
2.3b Competent authorities are encouraged and assisted by NGOs in enforcing existing legislation
which prohibits the use of poisoned baits
4 1 3 2 3 1 3 1 1 2.8
2.4 Reintroduction schemes are carried out following IUCN criteria 1 0 2 1 0 0 4 1 0 0.7
3.1.1a At least one national survey has been carried out in the last four years 2 1 4 4 2 2 4 1 4 0.8
3.1.1b Colonies in protected areas are monitored annually 2 1 0 4 0 2 3 1 4 1.0
3.1.2a Status and distribution of the species known 2 1 4 4 4 3 4 2 3 0.6
3.1.2b A national inventory covering all breeding colonies established 2 1 4 4 0 1 3 2 1 1.1
3.1.3 Mortality causes are monitored 2 1 4 3 3 2 3 1 1 1.2
3.1.4 Results of the reintroduction schemes monitored 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0.0
3.2 Studies on home range, habitat use and dispersal undertaken 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1.5
4.1a Education and awareness campaign on the species carried out 1 1 3 4 3 3 2 1 1 0.6
4.1b Cinereous Vulture used as a flagship for the conservation of forests and traditional
farming practices
1 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 0.8
4.2 Anti-poisoning awareness campaign launched 4 1 1 3 2 2 3 1 1 3.0
National IS 1.3 2.4 2.9 2.4 1.6 2.6 1.4 1.6

Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca
12 questionnaires sent, 8 replies
Significance: 99% of the European population
The species is distributed in Europe with fragmented populations
ranging from Slovakia through most of the Balkan Peninsula,
Turkey, the Ukraine and the Russian Federation. The species is
protected in all the countries and heavy fines are imposed in many
countries, but law enforcement needs to be enhanced. The decline
of the species, which is still on-going across its European range,
is caused by habitat loss or degradation from forestry and human
disturbance, often related to forestry operations carried out
during the breeding season. Only in a few countries do forest
policies and management take the species and other wildlife into
account. This results in the felling of large old trees, which provide
nesting sites for the species. In some countries artificial nest
platforms are provided.
Cooperation between relevant authorities, landowners and
conservation NGOs exists in several countries, but often only at
local level.
The Imperial Eagle population is not well represented within
the IBA network, because of its dispersed distribution; all those
IBAs in which the species occurs should be protected. So far, only
a small proportion of IBAs are protected, and only a few of them
have adequate management plans. In some countries, nests are
protected by law, but due to their dispersed distribution, law
enforcement is often not strict and human disturbance is still a
problem. CITES and the Biodiversity Convention (CBD) were
signed and ratified by all countries, although the Russian
Federation still has to join the Bern and Bonn Conventions. While
CITES and CBD resulted in specific legislation at national level,
this has not yet been the case for the Bern and Bonn Conventions,
which could make an important contribution towards the
conservation of this migratory species. Suslik Citellus citellus is
the main prey, and a decrease in this species has often resulted in a
decrease in the Imperial Eagle population. In Hungary and
Slovakia, some work has been done to improve the Suslik
population, while in other countries it seems that the species feeds
largely on other prey also.
The nests are protected in half of the countries by surveillance
carried out by governmental agencies or NGOs. Although
information on the illegal trade of chicks and adults is still
fragmentary, is seems that this is still a problem in Greece,
Romania, Turkey and the Ukraine.
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
Many countries have taken steps to decrease illegal poisoning;
further actions are needed in Bulgaria, Greece, Slovenia, Turkey
and the Ukraine. Electrocution is known to be a limiting factor
in most countries and special devices to reduce this type of
mortality have been developed and installed in Hungary and
Slovakia with good results. Surveys carried out in Russia resulted
in some 1,000 pairs being identified, thus dramatically increasing
the population figures for Europe. The IV International
Conference on the Imperial Eagle was organised in 1998 in
Hungary, and the next is planned in Bulgaria in 2003.
Monitoring has been carried out in most countries for some
years in a coordinated way, at least at national level. For many
countries, information on the limiting factors and mortality exists
which could and should be shared with other countries.
Finally, public awareness has been increased, but more work
is needed in Romania, Turkey and the Ukraine.
Priority actions:
• Lobby on the forestry policy for wildlife-friendly practices.
• Produce species-specific guidelines for forestry.
• Protect all sites with at least one nest.
• Reduce mortality from electrocution by changes in pylon
design or by other means.
Action
No. Target Priority BG GR HU RO RU SK TR UA API
1.1.1a Forestry policy gives priority to wildlife resources 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2.5
1.1.1b Part of the forests managed for commercial use are left to natural development 3 1 2 1 4 1 2 1 1 2.3
1.1.1c Yearly planning takes into account the presence of the species 3 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 2.3
1.1.1d Guidelines on species-friendly forest management produced and distributed 3 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 2.5
1.1.1, 2.1.2 Cooperation with landowners and relevant forestry authorities for the protection of the
2.1.3 species in place
3 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 2.1
1.1.2 Guidelines on species-friendly agricultural practices produced 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1.9
1.1.3a All IBAs where the species occur have adequate management plans 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2.6
1.1.3b All sites with at least one nest are protected 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2.6
1.1.4 Experience gathered in some countries used abroad 3 3 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 2.2
1.2a The species is fully protected 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0.1
1.2b National action/recovery plans produced 3 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 3 2.0
1.2c National action/recovery plans implemented 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2.5
1.2d Environmental impact assessment required for forestry schemes 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2.7
1.2e Poisoning efficiently banned or strictly regulated 3 3 2 4 2 2 2 2 1 1.7
1.3a Bern Convention signed and ratified 3 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 0.3
1.3b Bern Convention implemented adequately at national level 3 3 2 3 1 1 2 2 2 2.0
1.3c Bonn Convention signed and ratified 3 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 0.7
Ren Hathaway
21

22
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
Action
No. Target Priority BG GR HU RO RU SK TR UA API
1.3d Bonn Convention adequately implemented at national level 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2.3
1.3e Washington Convention signed and ratified 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0.0
1.3f Washington Convention adequately implemented at national level 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 4 1 1.1
1.3g Biodiversity Convention signed and ratified 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0.0
1.3h Biodiversity Convention adequately implemented at national level 3 3 1 3 3 2 2 3 1 1.7
2.1.1 All IBAs in which the species occurs are protected 3 2 1 1 1 2 3 4 1 2.1
2.1.2 Forest IBAs where the species occurs are monitored 3 2 1 4 1 1 3 1 2 2.1
2.1.4 Artificial nest platforms provided 1 2 1 3 1 1 0 1 1 0.8
2.1.5a Prey population (Suslik) restored 3 0 1 3 1 1 2 0 0 2.4
2.1.5b Technical guidelines for Suslik population restoration produced and spread 3 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 2.8
2.2.1a Surveillance of nests in place where necessary 3 3 1 4 1 3 3 1 1 1.8
2.2.1b Heavy fines for taking birds included in national laws 3 3 1 2 4 2 3 2 2 1.6
2.2.1c Relevant agencies and NGOs informed of the threat posed to the species by trade 3 3 1 0 1 3 3 1 1 2.1
2.2.1d Zoos informed of the threat posed to the species by trade 3 3 1 0 1 0 3 1 1 2.3
2.2.1e Information on Imperial Eagle trade gathered 3 3 1 0 1 3 3 1 1 2.1
2.2.2 Use of poisoned baits prohibited or strictly controlled 3 2 2 4 3 3 2 2 1 1.6
2.2.3 Species protection law efficiently implemented 2 2 2 4 1 2 2 2 2 1.2
2.2.4a Mortality from electrocution reduced by changes in pylon design or other means 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 2.6
2.2.4b Information on methods to reduce electrocution available to the relevant organisation 3 2 1 4 1 4 3 1 1 1.8
2.2.5 Disturbance reduced 2 1 0 2 1 2 3 1 1 1.6
2.2.6 Leg-hold traps prohibited by law 1 2 4 4 4 0 3 3 1 0.3
3.1 Monitoring programme in place 3 3 3 4 1 3 3 2 1 1.5
3.2 Guidelines on surveys distributed, fieldwork carried out 3 3 3 2 1 3 2 2 2 1.7
3.3 New information on migration and wintering areas gathered by satellite-tracking 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.8
3.4 Limiting factors and causes of mortality identified 2 3 2 3 1 3 2 1 3 1.1
3.5 National IBAs updated 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 1 0.6
4.1 Awareness of the need for protection of the species increased 2 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 1 1.1
National IS 2.5 1.8 2.7 1.8 2.0 2.4 1.9 1.5

Spanish Imperial Eagle Aquila adalberti
1 questionnaire sent, 1 reply
Significance: 100% of the population
The species is endemic to Spain, with a very small population of
130–140 territorial pairs; the main threats are poisoning, reduction
in prey, electrocution and habitat loss and degradation. 95% of
the population breed inside IBAs, and 60% are in SPAs, but only
a few of these areas have a management plan. The presence of
the species is well known and generally taken into consideration.
Only one of the six known key areas for juvenile dispersion is
protected. Forestry is regulated at national and regional level,
and there are some restrictions within 500–1,000 metres around
the nests, but these are not always enforced. The new rural
development plans represent a good opportunity for the
protection of oak woods, which will have a positive impact on
the species’s habitat. SEO/BirdLife Spain is carefully
monitoring any development in the breeding areas, and
recently the construction of a highway was stopped because it
was affecting an SPA. Most of the sites are still privately
owned, but some landowners are being involved and are
receiving management advice within a LIFE project. The
classification of the rabbit as “lower game” following the new
hunting regulations is having a negative effect on its density.
A vaccine against myxomatosis has been developed and tested
and could be used to protect the Spanish population. There
are no recent reported cases of illegal shooting of the species,
but illegal poisoning aimed at controlling predators, such as foxes,
is increasingly common and is very seriously affecting the eagle
population (nine individuals poisoned in 1999). In Extremadura
and Castilla-La Mancha hunting activities can be stopped in the
areas where an Imperial Eagle is found dead, or where poison or
traps have been used.
Electrocution is an important cause of mortality; new national
regulations on powerlines have been prepared, but not yet
published, while at regional level some regulations are already in
place. Most of the dangerous pylons have been located and
mapped and the information passed to the relevant electricity
companies, which are putting in place devices to reduce
electrocution.
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
The population is regularly monitored, although the flow of
data has to be improved. Chick survival has been increased by
supplementary feeding at the nests and wardening is a regular
activity in “problem areas”. Knowledge of the species has
improved, particularly concerning distribution and movements,
while the importance of the limiting factors still has to be fully
understood.
The species has been SEO’s “Bird of the Year” in 2000, and
an effective public awareness campaign has been launched,
targeted at the general public as well as at specific groups.
Priority actions:
• Suitable areas of protected habitat should be maintained and
managed.
• Increase rabbit populations. Identify cost-effective techniques
and methods for rabbit restocking.
• Ensure that chicks removed from the nest are returned to the
wild in the most appropriate way.
Action
No. Target Priority ES API
1.1.1a Management plans of protected areas take into consideration the ecological needs of the species 2 2 1.3
1.1.1b Forestry planning instruments take into consideration the ecological needs of the species 2 1 2.0
1.1.1c Agricultural planning instruments take into consideration the ecological needs of the species 2 0 –
1.1.2 Regeneration of Holm and Cork oak are promoted within the species’s range 2 2 1.3
1.1.3 Any work or project likely to have negative impact on the species is subject to an environmental impact assessment 3 3 1.0
1.1.4 Landowners receiving advice on habitat management for the species 2 2 1.3
1.2a Rabbit hunting restricted to facilitate population recovery 3 2 2.0
1.2b Rabbit restocking and other measures subsidised 3 2 2.0
1.3a Regulation 3115/68 includes anti-electrocution measures 3 3 1.0
1.3b New powerlines avoid breeding colonies, dispersal and re-colonisation zones 3 4 0.0
1.3c, 2.6.1b Electricity companies have received all the necessary information 3 4 0.0
1.4 All activities that may disturb the breeding of the species are prevented 3 2 2.0
2.1.1 Suitable areas of protected habitat maintained and managed 4 2 2.7
2.1.2 All known breeding sites are protected and a resource management plan in place 3 2 2.0
2.1.3 Juvenile dispersal and re-colonisation zones are protected and natural resources management plan implemented 2 2 1.3
2.1.4 The most important areas for the species are owned, or rented by, Regional administration 2 1 2.0
2.2 Mortality due to hunting activities reduced 3 2 2.0
2.2.1 Hunting legislation is strictly enforced 3 2 2.0
2.2.2a Reserve licence is withdrawn in areas where dead eagles are found 3 2 2.0
2.2.2b If a Spanish Imperial Eagle is found dead in a common hunting area, hunting is temporarily banned 3 2 2.0
2.2.3 Where poison has been used to control predators, the measures mentioned in 2.2.2 are taken 3 2 2.0
Juan Varela
23

24
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
Action
No. Target Priority ES API
2.2.4 Where traps have been illegally set, the measures mentioned in 2.2.2 are taken 2 2 1.3
2.2.5 Wardening in hunting reserves increased 2 2 1.3
2.3.1 Rabbit populations increased 3 1 3.0
2.3.2a Vaccine for rabbits developed and tested 3 4 0.0
2.3.2b Rabbit populations restocked with immune individuals 3 1 3.0
2.4 Annual productivity of the species increased 2 2 1.3
2.4.1 Unstable nests secured 2 1 2.0
2.4.2 Artificial nests provided 2 1 2.0
2.4.3a Chick mortality reduced by providing extra food at the nests 2 2 1.3
2.4.3b Injured chicks are removed from nests and properly treated 2 2 1.3
2.4.4 Chicks removed form the nest are returned to the wild in the most appropriate way 3 1 3.0
2.4.5 Supplementary food is provided when appropriate 2 1 2.0
2.4.6 Human disturbance in the breeding season is eliminated 3 0 –
2.4.7 All roads near nests are closed 2 1 2.0
2.4.8a All breeding areas are under surveillance 2 3 0.7
2.4.8b When necessary, individual nests are watched 2 2 1.3
2.5 If captive-reared chicks are available, their reintroduction follows IUCN criteria 2 1 2.0
2.6 Number of deaths from electrocution reduced 3 3 1.0
2.6.1a Pylons that cause deaths, or are potentially dangerous, are located 3 3 1.0
2.6.2 Corrective measures for pylons are in place 4 3 1.3
2.7.1 All potential re-colonisation areas are listed and mapped 1 4 0.0
2.8 Captive breeding stock are available for reintroduction or restocking in the event of a natural catastrophe or disease 1 1 1.0
3.1.1 Annual surveys of the breeding population carried out 3 3 1.0
3.1.2 Breeding pairs carefully monitored during breeding period 2 3 0.7
3.1.3, 3.1.4 Radio and satellite tracking used for monitoring and research 3 2 1.7
3.1.5 Level of pollutants in eggs monitored 2 3 0.7
3.1.6 Effect of supplementary feeding monitored 2 3 0.7
3.1.7 Efficiency of modified powerlines monitored 2 3 0.7
3.1.8 Any animal found analysed for poison 3 3 1.0
3.2.1 Extension of land needed to be protected for the species understood 2 1 2.0
3.2.2 Ecology of juvenile dispersal studied 2 1 2.0
3.2.3 Population regulating factors and minimum viable population evaluated 1 1 1.0
3.2.4 Design for harmless electricity pylons developed 3 3 1.0
3.2.5 Cost-effective techniques and methods for rabbit restocking identified 3 1 3.0
3.2.6 Effects of chemical contamination of eggs studied 2 3 0.7
3.2.7 Breeding, dispersal and re-colonisation zone mapped and directory updated 1 3 0.3
3.2.8 Population size needed to remove the species from the list of threatened birds determined 1 1 1.0
4.1.1a Educational campaign for schoolchildren carried out 2 3 0.7
4.1.1b Awareness campaign targeted at relevant land-users carried out 2 1 2.0
4.1.2 Educational material prepared 2 3 0.7
4.1.3 Travelling exhibition and related material produced and used across the species’s range 1 1 1.0
National IS 2.2

Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni
16 questionnaires sent, 11 replies
Significance: almost 100% of the population
The Lesser Kestrel in Europe breeds from Portugal to Turkey
along the Mediterranean Basin, spreading north, with decreasing
densities, up to the Ukraine and southern Russia. The main
threats are the loss of feeding and breeding habitat and prey
reduction due to pesticide use. The species is protected in most
of the countries, except in Albania. Habitat is considered to be
effectively protected in France, Italy and Russia, while better
legislation is needed in other countries. In Italy and Bulgaria,
national action plans have been produced. In most countries,
conservation strategies for agricultural and grassland habitats
could not be implemented. Only in France, where there is only
one colony of Lesser Kestrels, do agricultural policies take the
needs of the species into consideration. Forestry practices may
still be a threat to the species, and environmental impact
assessments are not needed for afforestation schemes in most
countries. In general, the conservation of the species’s habitat is
in its early stages.
Lesser Kestrels use towns and old buildings for breeding to a
significant degree. In places where nests are found on historical
buildings, significant steps have been taken in Spain and Italy in
cooperation with the responsible governmental departments.
Artificial nest boxes are provided in many countries, but more
work on this aspect is needed in relevant locations. The
species’s habitat is completely protected in France and more
work is being done in many other countries, whereas in
Albania, Greece, Romania and the Ukraine, the protection of
steppe habitats has not yet been introduced. In EU countries,
except in Greece and Spain, most of the key breeding habitats
are designated as SPAs.
Research and monitoring on the species is at a high level in
France, Italy, Portugal and Spain, but very limited in the rest of
the countries. In most countries, however, appropriate habitat
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
management regimes have not yet been identified. Hence, studies
on the habitat requirements of the species are needed: except
in France, where a good body of information exists on this
issue.
Public awareness of the species is still quite low; awareness
campaigns targeted at local authorities, farmers, shepherds and
hunters are still limited.
The species’s obvious beauty, tameness and interest in nesting
in buildings provides an opportunity to make it a flagship species
for the protection of steppes and other open arid habitats.
Priority actions:
• Influence agricultural policies for the conservation of the
species’s habitat.
• Lobby to include afforestation and deforestation programmes
in environmental impact assessment legislation.
• Protect the colonies in historical buildings as well as outside
built-up areas.
Action
No. Target Priority AL BG FR GR IT PT RO RU ES TR UA API
1,1 Conservation strategies for agricultural and grassland habitats developed by
BirdLife International are implemented
3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 2.8
1.1.1a Agricultural policies are adequate for the conservation of the species’s habitat 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.7
1.1.1b The species benefits from zonal programmes under the Agri-environment Regulation (2078/92),
or similar measures available outside the EU
3 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2.6
1.1.1c Coordination between agriculture and nature conservation authorities guarantees that the
species’s ecological needs are taken into consideration
3 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2.5
1.1.2 Grazing pressure is adequate to maintain the suitable habitat for the species 3 1 3 2 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 2.5
1.1.3 Adequate cultivation techniques are used 4 3 3 2 1 2 2 0 3 1 1 1 2.8
1.1.4 Use of pesticide in feeding habitat is regulated and monitored 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 1.8
1.2a Forestry practices do not conflict with the conservation of the species 3 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 2.8
1.2b Afforestation and deforestation programmes in Lesser Kestrel areas are subject to environmental
impact assessments
3 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 3.0
1.2c Coordination between agriculture and forestry authorities in place 3 4 4 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 2.1
1.3a The species is fully and efficiently protected 3 1 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 0.5
1.3b The species’s habitat is efficiently protected 3 1 2 3 2 3 2 1 3 1 1 1 2.2
1,4 National action plan developed 3 1 4 3 1 4 1 1 2 2 1 3 1.9
2.1a Steppe and dry habitat are designated as protected areas 3 1 2 4 1 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 2.2
2.1b Key breeding and feeding areas are designated as SPAs 3 0 0 3 1 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 2.0
2.1c Land is acquired, or agreements are reached with landowners, and properly managed 3 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2.5
2.2.1 Cooperation with departments responsible for historic buildings results in conservation of
breeding sites
3 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 2 1 0 2.7
2.2.2 Artificial nests are provided 2 1 1 3 1 2 3 0 1 2 1 1 1.6
2.2.3 Colonies outside built-up areas are protected 3 1 2 0 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2.7
3.1a Standard methodology for monitoring the species developed and published 3 1 1 3 1 4 3 1 1 3 1 1 2.2
Juan Varela
25

26
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
Action
No. Target Priority AL BG FR GR IT PT RO RU ES TR UA API
3.1b Surveys carried out at breeding, migrating and wintering areas 3 1 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 4 1 1 1.9
3.2a Research on habitat requirements carried out 3 1 1 4 1 3 2 1 2 3 1 1 2.2
3.2b Appropriate habitat management for the species identified and promoted 3 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 2.5
3,3 Reintroduction programmes carried out closely, following IUCN criteria 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0.9
3.4a Pesticide residues and heavy metal contamination in eggs and tissue monitored 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1.8
3.4b Impact of chemical pollutants studied 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1.9
3.5a Scientific information and expertise between researchers exchanged 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 1 3 4 1 1 1.2
4.1a Awareness campaign on the species, targeted at local authorities, farmers, shepherds and
hunters, carried out
2 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1.7
4.1b Lesser Kestrel used as a flagship for the conservation of steppe, grasslands and traditional
agricultural practices
2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1.8
4.2a Awareness campaigns on the importance of breeding colonies carried out 2 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1.6
4.2b Leaflet on restoration practices which favour the species produced 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1.9
National IS 1.3 1.8 2.6 1.1 2.3 1.8 1.1 1.8 1.8 1.2 1.2

Corncrake Crex crex
30 questionnaires sent, 28 replies
Significance: the whole breeding population
Corncrake is a widespread migratory species, breeding largely in
Central and Eastern Europe, with isolated populations in several
western countries.
It mainly inhabits various types of permanent grassland,
including agricultural habitats, and is thus greatly affected by
agricultural practices. The species has decreased dramatically
during the last 150 years, but the rate of disappearance increased
to 20%–50% in the last decades of the 20th century. The main
causes are agricultural intensification and mechanisation,
affecting habitat availability and breeding success. The species is
thus restricted to land with low-intensity, low-technology
agriculture, which is still common in Eastern and Central
European countries. EU agricultural policies have directly
affected the species, whose distribution in Western Europe is now
restricted to fragmented populations. The accession process
towards the enlargement of the EU, as well as financial aids for
the development of Eastern and Central European countries, can
play a major role in the future of the species.
The Action Plan details a number of opportunities and ways
in which the conservation of the species and its habitat should be
taken into consideration and promoted. Since the document was
produced, the accession process has proceeded with a somewhat
slower pace than expected, while in non-accession countries the
economic situation has worsened, resulting in agricultural
abandonment. This situation has favoured the species, and in
the last few years the number of calling males has increased: not
only in these countries, but also in some western countries. This
favourable situation will not last, and the threats highlighted in
the Action Plan are still present.
Only Belgium, Finland, Germany, Hungary and Ireland have
taken steps towards environmentally-sensitive farming. In CEE
countries, only in Slovakia has some research been carried out
on the implications of foreign investment on the environment.
International agreements have important impacts on national
legislation. In 1997 the species was listed in Annex II of the Bonn
Convention (CMS) and was selected for “cooperative actions”.
In 2000 an International Action Plan covering the whole range
of the species was prepared by BirdLife International on behalf
of the Bonn Convention, and was distributed. Most countries
have signed the international conventions listed in the Action
Plan (see also Table 2 in the introduction) except some Baltic
countries and Russia.
National (or regional) action plans have been prepared in a
number of countries and are under development in most of the
others.
The species is protected across Europe, except in Belarus, the
Ukraine and Russia. In most countries, agricultural policies are
not integrated with the conservation of nature and countryside,
although the new Agenda 2000 has included nature conservation
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
issues in agricultural and rural development, to a certain extent.
However, clearly measurable targets are still missing.
Priority areas for the development of agri-environmental
schemes for the species have been identified in almost all EU
countries and funds are available in most of these. In the accession
countries some work has also been done.
BirdLife International and the Corncrake Conservation Team
(CCT) have been instrumental in the collection and spreading of
knowledge on the species and in the development of the
competence of the BirdLife Partners.
Key site identification and protection is in an advanced stage
in most countries, although where the species population is still
quite widespread, only a small percentage of it is covered by IBAs
and protected areas. Development and implementation of
management plans is still insufficient, but work is on-going often
with the direct involvement of the relevant BirdLife Partner.
Since its establishment the CCT has been coordinating and
promoting research, surveys and monitoring which have increased
significantly our understanding of the species, its ecology,
population size and trends and limiting factors.
A good number of publications, either technical or aimed at a
specific audience or the general public, are available in most
countries. Increased public awareness and technical support is
necessary across Europe.
Priority actions:
• Lobby for the development of policies to minimise the changes
in agricultural practices resulting in damage to the species’s
habitat.
• Allocate at least 10% of the financial support allocated for
environmentally sensitive farming for specific actions for the
Corncrake.
• Develop and implement management plans for all the statutory
sites, and monitor the results of the management.
Action
No. Target Priority AT BY BE BG HR CZ DK EE FI FR DE HU IE IT LV LT LU NL NO PL RO RU SK SI SE CH GB UA API
1.1.1a National development policies promote rural
development which maintains Corncrake habitat
3 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2.6
1.1.1b Aid from international organisations promotes
sustainable rural development which benefits
Corncrakes
3 3 1 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2.6
1.1.1c Environmental consequences of international
aid evaluated
3 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 1 1 2.8
1.1.1d Scheme and grants promoting changes in agriculture
do not result in damages to the species’s habitat
3 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2.7
1.1.1e At least 10% of support to rural areas is allocated
for environmentally sensitive farming with
Corncrake as a priority
3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.9
1.1.1f Environmental conditions are attached to aid funds 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2.8
Christof Bobzin
27

28
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
Action
No. Target Priority AT BY BE BG HR CZ DK EE FI FR DE HU IE IT LV LT LU NL NO PL RO RU SK SI SE CH GB UA API
1.1.1g Environmental conditions are attached to
international trade agreements
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 2.8
1.1.1h Trade conditions which are potentially damaging to
Corncrake habitat are assessed and minimised
3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3.0
1.1.2a Development of rural areas is matched by
increased environmental standards
3 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 2.6
1.1.2b Environmentally sensitive farming is promoted 3 2 1 4 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 2.3
1.1.2c Specific agri-environmental scheme (or similar in non-
3
EU countries) aimed at conserving the species’s habitat
2 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 2.5
1.1.2d EU policy shifted from support for production to
support for environmental management
3 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 3 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 2.4
1.1.2e In CEE countries capital grants assure extensive
agricultural practices
3 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 2.9
1.1.2f “Debts for nature” agreement developed and used
for habitat management for the species
3 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 3.0
1.1.3 International agencies and national governments
cooperate to promote actions 1.1 and 1.2.
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 1 1.9
1.1.4 Implication of foreign investments in CEE
countries examined
2 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 2.0
1.1.5a The species is listed in Annex II of the
Bonn Convention
2 4 0 4 4 4 4 4 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 0.0
1.1.5b Bern Convention signed and ratified 2 4 0 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0.2
1.1.5c Bonn Convention signed and ratified 2 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 0.5
1.1.5d Ramsar Convention signed and ratified 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0.2
1.1.5e Biodiversity Convention signed and ratified 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 0.2
1.2.1a National action plan for the species prepared 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 1 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 1 4 1 3 2 1 4 0 3 1.9
1.2.1b Agricultural habitat conservation strategy developed
by BirdLife International is used as a basis for the
national habitat action plan
3 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2.8
1.2.2a The species is protected 3 4 1 4 3 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 0 1 0.4
1.2.2b The species’s habitat is protected 3 3 1 4 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 3 4 3 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 2.1
1.2.2d The Corncrake is listed as a species which justifies
the designation of protected areas
3 4 1 4 2 1 1 4 2 1 4 4 4 3 3 1 3 4 4 0 1 1 2 3 4 4 1 0 1 1.4
1.2.3a All rural land-use policies are integrated with
nature conservation objectives
3 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 0 1 2.6
1.2.3b Agricultural policies are also aimed at the
conservation of the countryside
3 3 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 4 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 0 1 2.2
1.2.3c Structural funds promote rural development and
Corncrake-friendly farming systems
3 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 4 0 1 2.7
1.2.3d All EU-funded programmes are subject to
strategic environmental assessment
3 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 2.8
1.2.3.1 National policies on land tenure, farm
reconstruction and capital investment aid for
agricultural improvements favour the Corncrake
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2.9
1.2.3.2 National policies on taxation and employment
legislation balance the need for economic
development with conservation
2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 1 1.8
1.2.3.3a Funds are allocated to pay farmers for
Corncrake-friendly management in key areas
3 2 1 4 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 1 2.3
1.2.3.3.b The management agreement schemes have
clear and measurable nature conservation targets
3 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 0 1 1 2 0 2 3 4 1 2.2
1.2.3.3.c Priority areas for the development of such
schemes identified
3 3 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 2 4 3 2 2 3 3 1 0 1 1 2 4 1 3 4 1 1.8
1.2.3.3.d Collaborators in farming organisations identified 3 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 4 3 2 2 4 2 1 1 2 1 3 0 1 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2.0
1.2.3.4 Ecotourism developed where appropriate 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.9
1.2.4 NGOs with competence in the species’s
conservation developed
3 3 3 4 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 2 0.9
1.2.5 Habitat for Corncrake recreated in formerly
important areas for the species
2 2 1 4 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 2 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1.6
2.1.1, 3.1a All key sites for the species are identified as IBAs 3 4 2 4 1 3 3 3 2 1 4 4 4 4 2 4 3 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 1 3 3 2 1.2
2.1.2a All key sites are protected by the most suitable
international statutory designation
3 3 1 4 1 2 2 3 2 4 2 4 4 3 1 1 2 3 2 0 2 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 1.8
2.1.2b All key sites are protected by the most suitable
national statutory designation
3 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 4 2 3 4 3 1 2 1 3 1 0 2 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 2.0

Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
Action
No. Target Priority AT BY BE BG HR CZ DK EE FI FR DE HU IE IT LV LT LU NL NO PL RO RU SK SI SE CH GB UA API
2.1.2.2a All proposed and existing statutory sites have
management plans
3 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2.5
2.1.2.2b Management plans implemented and their
results monitored
3 1 1 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2.5
2.1.2.3 Any development potentially damaging a
Corncrake site is subject to adequate
environmental impact assessment
3 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 0 1 2.0
2.1.2.4 International Conventions assist member states in
designating and protecting all key sites for the species
3 1 2 4 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 4 2 3 4 2 1 4 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 0 1 2.0
2.1.3 Nature reserves acquired and managed for the species 3 0 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2.1
2.1.3.1 Acquisition of land evaluated against
management agreement with landowners
3 4 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 0 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2.1
2.1.3.2a Managers of reserves are given advice on suitable
management for the species
3 1 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 2 2 3 4 3 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 1.6
2.1.3.2b Corncrake-friendly management in reserves
extended to surrounding wider countryside
3 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2.3
2.2 Nature conservation organisations cooperate
with local authorities and relevant land
user groups for the conservation of the species
2 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 0 1 1.5
2.3 Nature conservation organisations produce and
distribute printed material which provides technical
advice for administrators and land managers
2 1 1 3 2 2 1 3 3 1 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 3 1 1.5
3.1b Population estimate improved 3 4 1 4 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 0 2 0.7
3.1c Trends in numbers monitored 3 3 1 3 1 1 4 3 2 4 2 3 4 4 3 3 2 3 4 3 2 1 2 3 3 3 4 0 2 1.3
3.1.1 Comparable Corncrake surveys carried out 3 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 4 2 3 4 4 3 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 3 4 3 2 1.5
3.1.2 Pan-European monitoring strategy developed
and implemented
3 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 2.6
3.1.3 Corncrake census working group established 3 0 1 4 1 1 4 2 1 0 3 3 4 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 4 2 2 3 1 4 0 2 1.6
3.2.1 Rapid assessment of incidence and success of
breeding carried out in sample areas
3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 0 2 2.4
3.2.2 Timing of reproduction and incidence of
double-brooding determined
3 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 0 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 2 3 1 4 4 2 2.1
3.2.3 Correlation of population trends with habitat
and mowing determined
3 4 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 4 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 2 2.1
3.2.4 Movement between regions understood 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 1 2.6
3.3 Survival rates of juveniles and adults estimated 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 2.7
3.4 Studies of ecological requirements of the species
in habitat with infrequent management carried out
3 0 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 0 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 0 2 2.4
3.5 Effectiveness of conservation measures quantified 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 2 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 0 2.5
3.6 Rapid assessment method for suitability of
vegetation stands developed
3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 0 1 2.6
3.7 Impact of predation assessed in breeding areas 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1.8
3.8a Important plant and animal species and communities
associated with the species identified
2 4 1 4 2 2 2 3 1 0 3 4 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 2 2 4 2 3 0 1 1.2
3.8b Benefits to other plants and animals from
Corncrake-friendly agricultural measures identified
2 4 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 4 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 0 1 1.5
3.9 Mortality caused by hunting and trapping quantified 2 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 1.7
3.10 Factors affecting Corncrake habitat outside
Europe assessed
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.0
3.11 Corncrake research working group developed 3 1 1 3 1 2 4 2 1 1 3 4 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 2 0 2 2.2
4.1 Awareness and support for the Corncrake raised
through carefully targeted messages and actions
3 2 1 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 2 3 2 1 3 0 2 2.2
4.1.1 Decision-makers supporting and undertaking
actions for the Corncrake
3 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 0 1 2.5
4.1.2 Farmers and their organisations committed to
undertake Corncrake-friendly policies and practices
3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2.6
4.1.3 Local communities where the species occurs
feel ownership of the species
3 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 0 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 0 1 2.5
4.1.4 Non-agricultural land managers and users
involved in the conservation of the species
2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 1.9
4.1.5 General public supports Corncrake conservation 3 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 2 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 1 2.4
4.2 Materials promoting Corncrake and its requirements
are produced in a coordinated fashion
3 1 1 3 2 2 1 3 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 0 1 2.3
National IS 2.3 1.1 2.8 1.4 1.5 1.7 2.0 1.3 1.7 2.0 2.5 2.1 2.7 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.8 1.7 2.3 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.8 1.8 1.5 2.6 2.3 1.4
29

30
Great Bustard Otis tarda
14 questionnaires sent, 12 replies
Significance: 100% of the breeding population
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
The European population of the Great Bustard has been
decreasing in range and size for a long time, and at present the
Iberian peninsula holds half of the population. The Eastern
population range, composed of small separate sub-populations,
ranges from Germany to Austria across the Balkans and into
Russia.
The species is fully protected across Europe, although it is
still listed as a game species (but with no open season) in Germany,
Austria, the Czech Republic and the Ukraine, and in most
countries illegal hunting is still a reality. The species is listed in
the annexes of a number of international treaties. The Bonn
Convention has still to be signed by Austria, the Russian
Federation and Turkey. The recently developed Memorandum
of Understanding on the conservation and management of the
middle-European population of the Great Bustard under the
Bonn Convention has been open to signatures, and this provides
an important framework for cooperation on the species.
Agricultural policies at national and international levels do
not address the conservation needs of this species, and the idea
that conservation is not a duty of agricultural authorities is still
widespread. Nevertheless, agri-environmental schemes are
providing opportunities for developing bustard-friendly activities
at a local level.
The Great Bustard’s habitat is still largely unprotected,
particularly where the species is distributed in large areas (Spain,
Turkey, the Ukraine). Where the species is present in a limited
number of relatively small sites, these are often protected areas.
The Hungarian population (some 1,000 birds) is found in
protected areas.
The establishment of new forest plantations, which reduce the
habitat available to the species, is still occurring in Spain and
Hungary, often on a small scale, and therefore not requiring an
EIA. The creation of windbreaks is affecting the species’s habitat
in Austria, where the species uses fertile agricultural land. EIA is
requested in most countries, with the exception of Romania and
the Ukraine, but its implementation has failed to avoid the
construction of a motorway across the species’s habitat in Slovakia,
and similarly in Spain.
Powerlines have been marked in order to reduce Great Bustard
mortality in some areas of Austria, Germany, Portugal, Slovakia
and Spain, and the threat has been identified and brought up
with the relevant authorities in the Ukraine.
Great Bustard-friendly agricultural practices (extensification,
delayed harvesting, reduced use of pesticide, set-aside and
cultivation of alfalfa) are promoted in many countries, but often
on a limited number of sites. In Bulgaria, most of the cultivation
is extensive or has been recently abandoned due to the economic
situation, but things may change rapidly in the near future as is
happening in Turkey and Spain.
Removal of eggs from threatened nests is carried out in
Germany and Hungary, where the chicks are released after some
weeks (up to one year) and their survival monitored.
Research is on-going in different parts of the range, often with
a certain degree of coordination and exchange of information,
but the understanding of mortality factors and winter movements
has to be improved. Monitoring takes place on a regular basis in
most countries with similar methods as a result of the exchange
of information and expertise between researchers, but better
coordination and coverage is requested in many countries.
Captive breeding is on-going in some countries, often
apparently without clear exchange of information or monitoring
of the results of any success; a captive breeding programme in
Slovakia was terminated because of poor success.
The species has a great potential for public awareness, as
demonstrated in a number of countries, but more needs to be
done.
Priority actions:
• Lobby for the national agricultural policy for the conservation
of (pseudo)-steppes and the Great Bustard.
• Support and promote traditional agricultural practices and
set-aside schemes.
• Carry out awareness campaign targeted at farmers and
landowners.
Action
No. Target Priority AT BG CZ DE HU PT RO RU SK ES TR UA API
1.1b The Agricultural Conservation Strategy developed by BirdLife is implemented 3 1 1 1 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.6
1.1.1 National agriculture policy takes into consideration the conservation of pseudo-steppes
and of the Great Bustard
4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3.9
1.1.2a Afforestation programmes are subject to environmental impact assessment 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.2
1.1.2b Afforestation schemes do not occur in Great Bustard areas 3 2 3 4 4 2 3 4 0 4 1 2 1 1.3
1.1.3a Semi-natural habitats (steppes, pseudo-steppes, grassland) where the species occurs
are protected
4 4 1 1 2 4 3 1 1 0 2 2 1 2.3
1.1.3b The species is fully protected 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 2 0.7
1.1.4 National strategies, policies and programmes are subject to strategic environmental
assessment
2 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1.7
1.1.5a Bern Convention signed and ratified 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 0.1
1.1.5b Bonn Convention signed and ratified 2 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 0.5
1.1.5c Biodiversity Convention signed and ratified 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0.0
1.1.5d Washington Convention (CITES) signed and ratified 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0.0
Juan Varela

Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
Action
No. Target Priority AT BG CZ DE HU PT RO RU SK ES TR UA API
1.1.5d The MoU for the conservation of the Great Bustard in Central Europe (under CMS) signed 2 1 3 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 1.5
1.1.5e Bilateral agreements among the species’s range developed 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1.8
1.1.6a Hunting of Great Bustard is still prohibited and removed from the list of game species 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 0.5
1.1.6b The species is included in the relevant protection legislation 3 1 3 1 2 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 1 1.1
2.1.1 Traditional agriculture practices are maintained and promoted through a system of
incentives to farmers
4 2 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 3.2
2.1.2 Effective set-aside schemes and other extensification schemes are implemented in
Great Bustard areas
4 3 0 1 3 2 3 0 0 1 2 1 1 2.8
2.1.3 Farming practices adapted to the breeding cycle of the species 3 1 1 1 3 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 2.5
2.1.4 Disturbance at breeding sites minimised through appropriate actions 3 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1.9
2.1.5a Breeding sites with poor breeding success appropriately managed 3 1 1 0 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2.5
2.1.5b Temporary scheme protects areas of high density, allowing appropriate breeding conditions 3 1 1 0 3 3 0 1 1 2 2 1 1 2.4
2.1.6a Where necessary, eggs are removed from nest and chicks are promptly released into the wild 1 1 1 0 2 4 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0.9
2.1.6b Any captive breeding management carefully follows IUCN criteria 1 0 1 0 4 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0.7
2.1.7a Where predation is a constant limiting factor, foxes and stray dogs are removed 2 2 1 1 3 2 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 1.6
2.1.7b Shepherds are informed of the problem, and their dogs trained not to chase and kill
Great Bustards
2 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 1.8
2.2.1 Cultivation of alfalfa and rape promoted in wintering grounds 3 2 1 1 4 3 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 2.3
2.2.2a Great Bustard areas are protected from any alteration (e.g. new roads, powerlines,
irrigation, afforestation)
3 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 2.0
2.2.2b Any activities likely to alter or fragment Great Bustard areas are subject to
environmental impact assessment
3 1 3 1 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 1.7
2.2.3 Powerlines crossing Great Bustard areas are marked or buried 3 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 2.4
3.1.1 Census methods are standardised 3 2 1 1 4 4 3 1 2 3 4 2 1 1.7
3.1.2 At all sites population size and trends are monitored 3 4 2 3 4 4 3 2 2 3 2 2 1 1.3
3.1.3 Effect of habitat management monitored 3 3 1 1 4 4 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 2.1
3.1.4a Success of release programmes monitored 3 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1.3
3.1.4b If failure of survival of released birds in the wild is detected, the reintroduction
scheme is discontinued
3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 2.0
3.1.5 Cooperation between researchers allows coordinated censuses of trans-boundary
populations
2 3 1 2 0 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1.5
3.2.1 Comparative studies on different populations allow redefinition of conservation strategies 2 1 1 1 4 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 1 1.6
3.2.2 Mortality factors in different areas studied 3 3 2 1 3 4 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2.2
3.2.3 Factors affecting breeding success identified 3 3 0 3 3 4 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 1.7
3.2.4 Migration patterns understood 3 4 1 1 4 4 0 1 1 2 3 1 1 1.6
3.3.1a The Working Group acts as a forum for information exchange, meeting once a year 2 3 1 2 4 4 3 4 2 3 1 1 4 0.9
3.3.1b Bibliography on the species is compiled and circulated to relevant persons 2 1 1 2 2 4 3 2 1 2 3 1 1 1.4
3.3.2 Joint research programmes developed 3 3 1 1 3 4 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 1.9
3.3.3 High priority conservation projects receive appropriate funding 3 2 2 1 4 4 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2.0
4.1 The species is used as a flagship for the conservation of steppes, dry grassland and
traditional agricultural landscapes
3 4 1 1 4 3 2 1 3 1 3 2 1 1.5
4.2 Awareness campaign targeted at farmers and landowners carried out 3 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 2 3 1 1 1 2.3
4.3 Media used as a tool to inform public of the need to conserve the species and its habitat 3 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 2 2 2 1 2.2
4.4 Staff working in conservation organisations receive specific training 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 1 1 2.1
5.1 A stud-book of Great Bustards in captivity prepared by the Working Group 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 2.0
5.2 Criteria for the evaluation of the success of breeding station developed 2 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 1.5
5.3 Feasibility study, following IUCN criteria, carried out 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0.9
5.4 Captive management stations receive adequate support 2 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1.5
National IS 2.2 1.7 1.8 3.0 2.8 2.6 1.7 1.7 2.3 2.0 1.6 1.4
31

32
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
Houbara Bustard Chlamydotis undulata fuerteventurae
1 questionnaire sent, 1 reply
Significance: 100% of the population
The Houbara Bustard in Europe is limited to four islands in the
eastern Canary archipelago (Spain) with an endemic sub-species.
The main threats are habitat loss, disturbance from tourists and
agricultural changes.
The species is fully protected by Spanish law and in the regional
threatened species regulations; the latter have not yet been
approved. A regional action plan was developed some years ago,
but is still to be approved. Since the production of the
International Action Plan, no new protected areas have been
declared, despite the fact that new important areas have been
identified for the species. Less than 20% of the species’s
population lives within SPAs and both the lack of adequate
management plans and staff and the lack of involvement of NGOs
in the managing bodies of the protected areas are serious limiting
factors for the implementation of concrete conservation activities.
A number of developments and powerlines have been approved
and built within the species’s habitat.
The Houbara Bustard habitats have not been selected as
Environmental Sensitive Areas. Agri-enviromental schemes have
been developed to promote some crops, but these measures have
so far been limited, and a comprehensive plan for the maintenance
and promotion of traditional farming activities and the control of
grazing pressure from goats and rabbits would be needed.
Off-road traffic within protected areas was regulated in 1995,
but the lack of staff resulted in the limited implementation of the
ban. Furthermore, since most of the Houbara population lives
outside these areas, the results have been extremely limited. A
special unit of the Guardia Civil (SE.PRO.NA) has been
established, but its staffing needs to be increased.
Powerlines are a threat, and some hot-spots have been
identified. Although further research has to be carried out,
immediate action is needed to reduce mortality in known areas.
Military authorities have been provided with maps of the most
important areas for the species, and the number of military
manoeuvres have decreased, but not curtailed.
Following specific research, an area has been acquired by the
regional government, but so far no specific management has been
carried out. No control of feral cats and stray dogs has been
implemented.
Captive breeding is under reconsideration since it has been
agreed that the conservation of the habitat and of the wild
population is a priority. Some research is on-going into various
aspects of the species’s biology, but further work is needed.
Although public awareness materials have been produced in
the last five years by the regional government and NGOs, a fullscale
campaign has yet to be carried out.
Priority actions:
• Include the Action Plan in the relevant legislation, provide
adequate funding and staffing.
• Include building and commercial projects in critical areas in
environmental impact assessment legislation. Ban off-road
driving, restrict vehicle access in critical areas.
• Improve knowledge of breeding biology, and limiting factors,
as well as the impact of predators (rats, cats and dogs).
Action
No. Target Priority ES API
1.1a The Action Plan for the species in included in the relevant legislation 4 1 4.0
1.1.b Adequate staffing and funding are available for its implementation 4 1 4.0
1.2a Regulations on the use and management of protected countryside take into account the conservation of the species and its habitat 3 1 3.0
1.2b Nature conservation organisations are represented on the management boards of protected areas 3 1 3.0
1.3a At least 80% of the Houbara population is in areas designated as SPAs 3 1 3.0
1,3b The species’s habitat in SPAs is effectively protected 3 1 3.0
1.4 The species is fully protected 3 4 0.0
1.5a All suitable areas holding the species are declared ESA 3 1 3.0
1.5b Agri-environmental schemes are effective in promoting traditional farming 3 2 2.0
1.5c Grazing pressure from goats and rabbits reduced 3 1 3.0
1.6 Off-road driving is effectively banned from Houbara areas 4 1 4.0
2.1.1a Surveillance is increased to implement hunting ban 3 1 3.0
2.1.1b A SEPRONA unit is established 3 2 2.0
2.1.1c New hunting reserves established 3 1 3.0
2.1.1.d Current legislation enforced and penalties inflicted 3 1 3.0
2.1.2a Places where collisions with powerlines occur identified 2 2 1.3
2.1.2b Preventive measures to reduce collisions taken in these sites 2 1 2.0
2.1.2c All new powerlines in Houbara sites are underground 2 1 2.0
2.1.3 Feral dogs and cats are removed from Houbara areas 1 1 1.0
2.2.1a Vehicle access in critical areas restricted 4 1 4.0
Juan Varela

Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
Action
No. Target Priority IS API
2.2.1b Surveillance in critical areas increased 4 1 4.0
2.2.2a Military authorities are given information on areas where manoeuvres should not take place 3 2 2.0
2.2.2b Military manoeuvres are no longer a threat for the species 3 1 3.0
2.2.3a 10 wardens allocated to Fuerteventura 3 1 3.0
2.2.3b 5 wardens allocated to Lanzarote, with extra numbers during breeding and hunting seasons 3 1 3.0
2.3.1 Any proposals for building and commercial projects in critical areas are subject to environmental impact assessment 4 1 4.0
2.3.2 At least one of the critical areas for the species has been acquired (or lent) and managed 4 2 2.7
2.4a Captive breeding programme reviewed 2 0 –
2.4b If the centre is still operating it follows IUCN criteria, is fully equipped and operates in the best possible way 2 1 2.0
3.1.1 Houbara’s distribution fully mapped 4 3 1.3
3.1.2 Population status and distribution in Lanzarote and Graciosa known 3 3 1.0
3.1.3 Census methods improved 3 3 1.0
3.1.4 Simultaneous censuses carried out on all sites every 3–4 years 3 3 1.0
3.1.5a Knowledge on breeding biology and limiting factors improved 4 1 4.0
3.1.5b Impact of predators (rats, cats and dogs) evaluated 4 1 4.0
3.1.6 Breeding success monitored every two years 3 1 3.0
3.2.1 Radio-tracking studies carried out 3 2 2.0
3.2.2 Effect of grazing on the species’s habitat carried out 2 1 2.0
3.2.3 Facilities at La Oliva Biological Station provide useful help for basic research on the species 2 1 2.0
3.2.4 Study grants for the Houbara in the Canary Islands developed 1 1 1.0
4.1 Public awareness campaign for a ban on off-road driving carried out 4 2 2.7
4.1.2 Observation hide built 2 1 2.0
4.1.3a Educational material on the species prepared 2 2 1.3
4.1.3b Educational campaign launched 2 1 2.0
4.2 Local monitoring network established 4 1 4.0
Average IS 1.5
33

34
Slender-billed Curlew Numenius tenuirostris
11 questionnaires sent, 9 replies
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
As one of the world’s rarest birds, the Slender-billed Curlew has
featured strongly in international agreements. The
“Memorandum of Understanding” developed under the Bonn
Convention (CMS) has been signed by 10 countries across its
range, but Albania, Hungary, Romania, the Russian Federation
and Turkey still have to sign it. Under the auspices of the CMS,
an International Working Group (SbC WG) has been established.
BirdLife International is serving as the secretariat of the SbC
WG and is keeping a database of all records of the species. The
last verified sightings occurred in Greece in 1999 and Italy in
2000, while data from Oman and Iran need to be confirmed. In
Iran, two expeditions carried out in early 2000 failed to locate
wintering birds, but further surveys are planned. The traditional
wintering site in Morocco has been deserted since 1998.
Both international and national policies have not yet been
developed to an extent which could effectively protect the species’s
habitat. The only EU countries within the species’s range, Italy
and Greece, did not include suitable wetlands under the
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) scheme. Albania, Italy,
the Russian Federation, Turkey and the Ukraine still need to
improve the protection of sites and thus reduce habitat loss or
damage and hunting, and they have still to develop national
wetland conservation strategies. National wetland inventories
have been prepared, or are in preparation, in all countries, except
in Hungary, Romania and the Ukraine.
The species is strictly protected in all countries except in
Albania. Due to the extreme similarity to other Numenius and to
Limosa species, these should also be effectively protected in
Albania, the Russian Federation and the Ukraine.
All countries have signed the Ramsar Convention, but few key
sites are Ramsar sites. Relevant legislation for buffer zones around
the key sites is being prepared in Greece and Hungary, while in
other countries buffer zones do not exist or need to be enlarged.
Illegal hunting is one of the main threats for the Slender-billed
Curlew. Hunting legislation has been enforced in all the countries
concerned. Some work has been done for the education of hunters
in Greece, Hungary and the Russian Federation. However,
intensive wardening occurs only in Hungary and needs to be
improved in all the other countries. Disturbance by visitors and
hunters aiming at other species still remains a problem.
In the Russian Federation, a strategy for the protection of the
breeding ground (once discovered) is under development. In
recent years, a number of ground surveys have been carried out
and a list of 22 potential breeding areas has been developed. More
ground surveys are needed to discover the breeding grounds and
to monitor habitat changes in western Siberia and northern
Kazakhstan. In Albania, Romania, the Russian Federation,
Turkey and the Ukraine, the information on passage sites is still
considered insufficient.
Research and monitoring at key sites are still at a low level in
Albania, Russia, Turkey and the Ukraine. Information on
hunting and poaching is not available from any country.
In Greece, within the LIFE nature project “Conservation
Actions for the Slender-billed Curlew”, important work has been
done to increase public awareness of the species among the general
public and hunters. In other countries, however, the species is
still largely unknown.
Priority actions:
• Carry out ground research to identify the breeding sites, and
study winter and breeding sites.
• Include all key sites as Ramsar sites and establish buffer zones
around the key sites.
• Develop and implement management plans for all key sites
which take into account the ecological needs of the species.
Action
No. Target Priority AL BG GR HU IT RO RU TR UA API
1.1.1 Memorandum of Understanding under CMS signed 2 1 4 4 1 4 2 2 1 4 0.8
1.1.2a All IBAs where the species occurs, or has occurred, are protected 3 1 3 3 4 3 3 1 4 2 1.3
1.1.2b All suitable wetlands sites are ESA (within the EU) 3 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 2.0
1.1.2c International funds do not damage wetlands 3 1 2 2 4 2 2 1 1 1 2.2
1.1.3 Identification skills are shared in all range countries 2 4 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 1 1.1
1.1.4a, 2.1 Habitat loss or damage is avoided at key sites 3 1 3 2 4 1 3 1 1 1 2.1
1.1.4b Hunting is banned from key sites 3 1 3 3 4 1 3 1 1 1 2.0
1.1.4c National wetland inventory prepared 3 3 3 4 2 4 1 2 3 1 1.4
1.1.4d Wetland conservation strategy developed 3 1 2 3 2 1 3 1 4 1 2.0
1.2.1 The species is strictly protected 4 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0.4
1.2.2 All look-alike species are protected 3 1 3 4 4 3 4 2 4 1 1.1
2.1.1a Ramsar Convention signed and ratified 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0.0
2.1.1b All key sites are Ramsar sites 3 1 2 3 4 1 4 1 4 1 1.7
2.1.1c Buffer zone around key sites established 3 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2.6
2.1.2a Legislation is enforced 3 1 1 2 3 1 4 3 1 2 2.0
2.1.2b Education campaign for hunters carried out 3 1 1 4 3 2 1 3 1 1 2.1
Maris Strazds

Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
Action
No. Target Priority AL BG GR HU IT RO RU TR UA API
2.1.2c Intensive wardening in place at key sites 3 1 1 2 4 1 2 1 1 1 2.4
2.1.3 Disturbance at key sites prevented 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 1.7
2.1.4 All key sites have a management plan which takes into account the ecological needs of the species 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.9
2.1.5 A strategy for the protection of the breeding grounds (once discovered) is in place 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1.0
3.1.1 Ground searches to locate breeding sites on-going 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3.3
3.1.2 Suitable satellite tags developed 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0
3.1.3 Studies on summering/breeding sites (when located) carried out 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3.0
3.2.1 Wintering and passage sites located 3 1 3 4 3 4 2 2 1 1 1.7
3.2.2 Satellite tracking carried out (when suitable tags available) 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3.0
3.2.3a All key sites monitored 2 1 3 4 3 3 2 1 1 1 1.3
3.2.3b Research programme carried out at wintering sites 2 1 2 4 0 2 0 0 1 0 1.3
3.2.3c Recommendations for beneficial management developed 2 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1.8
3.2.3d Central database on the species developed 2 0 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 3 0.3
3.3 Hunting and poaching monitored at key sites 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1.6
4.1 Awareness of the species increased among politicians and decision-makers 3 1 1 0 2 2 2 2 1 1 2.5
4.2 Awareness of the species increased among general public 2 1 1 4 1 2 1 2 1 1 1.6
4.3 Awareness of the species increased among hunters 3 1 1 4 2 1 1 2 1 1 2.4
National IS 1.4 2.2 3.0 3.1 2.1 2.4 1.9 1.7 1.5
35

36
Audouin’s Gull Larus audouinii
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
5 questionnaires sent, 4 replies
Significance: 100% of the breeding population, 96% of the wintering population
The Audouin’s Gull breeds in the Mediterranean with fewer than
20,000 pairs (in 1997, when most colonies were surveyed), 90%
of which are concentrated in Spain. The main threats are habitat
alteration at breeding sites and changes in fishing practices. The
species is fully legally protected in Europe, although its breeding
sites and habitat are still under threat.
National coastal strategies have not yet been developed, while
in Greece and Italy eco-tourism is being promoted, but mainly
at local level, and not within a clearly planned strategy.
The species often nests on small rocky islands (although the
main colony is not on an island, but on a relatively well isolated
peninsula), and these need to be protected. This is often not the
case: in Greece, 52% of the islets used at present or in the past by
the species are SPAs (Birds Directive) or proposed SICs (Habitats
Directive). In Italy, only the Tuscany Archipelago National Park
is a SPA, while the two National Parks on Sardinia are not yet
SPAs. In Turkey, only two sites are protected as “Monk Seal
Protection Areas”. Management plans for the protected areas
rarely identify special actions for the species. In Spain, important
colonies, such as Isla Grossa, Alboran, islets off Ibiza and
Formentera and Chafarinas are not yet fully protected. In Italy,
the National Park of La Maddalena was designated, and the islet
where the species breeds also declared a core area, which will be
moved if the colony moves to other sites within the park.
The Biodiversity Convention, AEWA and the Barcelona
Convention provide a useful official background for the
conservation of the species and sites. So far, only Spain has ratified
AEWA, and the SPA protocol under the Barcelona Convention
has not yet come into force.
A national action plan is under development only in Italy, where
the government will soon endorse it, while a LIFE project on the
Tuscany archipelago is already implementing some activities listed
in the international Action Plan. In Spain, a national working
group has been established.
Fishing moratoria offshore of the Ebro Delta (Spain) have
been stopped. The importance of discharged fish in other parts
of the breeding range is not clear, despite some monitoring of
fishing activities in Greece. Environmental impact assessments
should be an important tool for the conservation of the breeding
sites, but often the activities affecting the species are not subject
to such a procedure.
The population of the Yellow-legged Gull Larus cachinnans
has increased significantly in the last decades and, in some cases,
competition with Audouin’s Gull for breeding sites has occurred.
In some areas controls of the former species were carried out,
but without monitoring the effect at local and global level. There
is evidence that such interventions might be successful on a local
scale, but in fact the birds simply move to other breeding sites.
Other predators seem to be a problem only at some sites. Since
most of the colonies are located on uninhabited islands, problems
from dogs and cats arise from a temporary human presence, which
should be regulated.
Wintering areas are not yet well documented and thus no
protection has been achieved.
Research and ringing activities have been particularly intensive
in Spain, Italy and Greece, while in Turkey, the knowledge of
the species’s distribution and population size is still incomplete.
An almost complete survey was carried out in 1997, but
unfortunately this has not continued in the following years.
Valuable research on the distribution of the colonies, and a
number of awareness activities have been carried out by HOS
within a LIFE project and the species has been used as a flagship
for the conservation of islets in the Aegean sea.
Priority actions
• Reduce the risk of oil pollution by developing agreements with
the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and shipping
insurance brokers to promote avoidance of sensitive areas by
oil tankers.
• Develop temporary protection schemes which apply to mobile
colonies.
• Planning instruments take the presence of the species into
consideration.
Action
No. Target Priority GR IT ES TR API
1.1 Fishing moratoria are compatible with the subsistence of the major breeding colonies 3 0 1 3 1 2.3
1.2a National Coastal Strategy developed, taking into account the conservation of the species and its habitat 2 1 1 1 1 2.0
1.2b National Coastal Strategy implemented 2 0 0 0 0 –
1.3a National policies promote sustainable development (eco-tourism) in inhabited islands 3 2 2 1 1 2.5
1.3b National policies grant full protection to deserted islands 3 1 3 1 1 2.5
1.3c All islands where the species occurs, or occurred recently, are declared SACs. Outside the EU similar protection is granted 3 3 2 2 2 1.8
1.3d All islands where the species occurs, or occurred recently, are declared SPAs. Outside the EU similar protection is granted 3 2 2 1 2 2.3
1.3e The species is fully protected 3 4 4 4 4 0.0
1.3f All breeding and wintering sites are protected by national law 3 1 3 1 2 2.3
1.4a National and international legislation on chemical pollution is enforced 3 2 2 2 1 2.3
1.4b Use of agricultural chemicals near colonies is monitored 3 0 1 1 1 3.0
1.4c Release of chemicals in the feeding waters is monitored 3 1 1 2 1 2.8
1.4d Incentives are developed in agreement with IMO and shipping insurance brokers for oil tanker companies to avoid
sensitive marine ecosystems
3 1 1 1 1 3.0
Juan Varela

Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
Action
No. Target Priority GR IT ES TR API
1.4e Heavy fines are imposed for the cleaning of oil tankers outside designated areas 3 1 2 1 1 2.8
1.5a National action plan developed 3 1 3 1 1 2.5
1.5b National action plan implemented 3 0 2 0 0 2.0
1.6a AEWA signed and ratified 2 2 1 4 1 1.3
1.6b Barcelona Convention signed and ratified 2 4 4 4 4 0.0
1.6c All colonies are MedSPAs 2 1 1 2 1 1.8
1.6d Biodiversity Convention signed and ratified 2 4 4 4 4 0.0
1.6e National strategy under the CBD promotes conservation and sustainable management of the coastal and island ecosystem 2 1 1 1 3 1.7
1.7 Bilateral agreement in place between governments for establishing and managing protected areas, and for research 3 1 1 1 1 3.0
2.1.1a All IBAs where the species breed are declared protected areas 3 2 3 3 2 1.5
2.1.1b Where colonies are highly mobile, temporary protection schemes are implemented 3 1 1 2 1 2.8
2.1.1c,
2.1.2a
Management plan for each designated site developed and implemented 3 2 1 1 2 2.5
2.1.2b Where protection status has not been completed, planning instruments take into consideration the presence of
breeding colonies
3 2 1 1 1 2.8
2.1.2c All proposed land-use changes threatening occupied or traditional breeding sites are subject to environmental
impact assessment
3 1 1 1 4 2.3
2.2 Human access to colonies, both from land and sea, is prevented 3 2 1 2 1 2.5
2.2.2a When competition with, and predation by, Yellow-legged Gulls is proved to be a problem, their population is controlled 2 0 1 3 1 1.6
2.2.2b Causes of Yellow-legged Gull population increase understood 2 2 4 1 1 1.3
2.2.2c When rats are seriously threatening a colony, they are controlled by appropriate means 2 1 1 2 1 1.8
2.2.2.d Foxes, feral cats and dogs are removed from colonies 2 1 1 1 1 2.0
2.2.3a Location of unprotected colonies is kept confidential 1 3 2 0 0 0.5
2.2.3b Wardening in place to avoid egg-collection 1 2 1 2 1 0.8
2.3.1a All wintering sites with more than 200 individuals of the species are protected 2 0 1 3 0 1.3
2.3.1b Fishing activities in the vicinity of the major wintering site are monitored, and over-fishing avoided 2 1 1 1 0 2.0
3.1.1a Population monitored 3 3 4 3 1 1.3
3.1.1b, 4.3 The Working Groups meet every 2–3 years 3 4 4 4 4 0.0
3.1.2a Detailed population surveys carried out in eastern and southern Mediterranean 3 3 0 0 1 2.0
3.1.2b World population census carried out 3 3 4 3 2 1.0
3.1.3a Coordinated colour ringing scheme on-going at selected colonies, covering the whole range of the species 2 2 4 3 1 1.0
3.2.1 Most important passage and wintering sites identified 3 1 1 3 1 2.5
3.2.2 Knowledge of the species’s winter ecology improved 3 1 1 2 1 2.3
3.3.1a Factors regulating breeding success and survival determined 3 2 1 3 1 2.3
3.3.1b Predictive population model developed 3 1 1 3 1 2.5
3.3.2a Mechanism for breeding site selection understood 2 1 3 1 1 1.7
3.3.2b Breeding success at different habitats compared 2 2 1 2 1 1.7
3.3.3 Diet in different parts of the range determined 2 2 1 3 1 1.5
3.4.1 Level of chemical pollution determined 2 2 3 3 1 1.2
3.4.2 Effects of fishing evaluated 3 1 2 3 1 2.3
3.4.3 Habitat requirements understood 2 2 3 2 1 1.3
3.4.4 Effects of human disturbance assessed 2 2 2 2 1 1.5
3.4.5 The impact of Yellow-legged Gulls on Audouin’s Gulls evaluated 2 1 2 3 1 1.5
3.4.6 Impact of terrestrial predators estimated 2 2 2 3 1 1.3
3.4.7 Fishing activities monitored 3 1 1 3 1 2.5
3.5 Protocol on low-disturbance monitoring and research agreed 2 2 1 3 1 1.5
4.1.1 Awareness among politicians and decision-makers increased 2 2 1 1 1 1.8
4.1.2 Awareness amongst general public increased 2 3 1 2 1 1.5
4.1.3 Tourists and fishermen involved in preventing disturbance 3 2 1 1 1 2.8
4.1.4 Educational material prepared and distributed 2 3 1 1 1 1.7
4.1.5 Media used to increase awareness 2 2 1 1 1 1.8
4.2 Audouin’s Gull used as flagship for the protection of Mediterranean coastal habitats and islands 2 4 1 1 1 1.5
National IS 1.9 1.8 2.1 1.4
37

38
Madeira Laurel Pigeon Columba trocaz
1 questionnaire sent, 1 reply
Significance: 100% of the population
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
Madeira Laurel Pigeon is the least-endangered island endemic
of Madeira (Portugal). Its population is currently increasing due
to the on-going protection, management and research activities.
The laurel forests have been declared a World Heritage Site, the
Natural Park of Madeira, which offers full protection to the
species and covers almost all its habitat, in particular the laurel
forest.
Illegal hunting of the species still occurs, but hunters who
specialised in pigeons have been identified and followed. The crop
damage by the species has been evaluated, but no efficient plan
for compensation has been developed yet, and the conflict with
farmers has not yet been completely resolved, although the
Natural Park has already carried out three LIFE projects. The
protection of the species’s habitat is at an advanced stage, and
effective habitat management continues. Grazing by domestic
livestock still occurs in the protected area, but the feasibility of
the elimination of grazing has been evaluated. The forestry
authorities and the Natural Park’s management body need
appropriate means for fire fighting, and further work is needed
to prevent shepherds from lighting fires and to inform tourists
about the risks of fire.
Monitoring of the population continues, but needs to be
improved in order to acquire information on the breeding success,
as well as on the rat control programme. Research on the
interaction between rats and the laurel forest has provided
important information and is still on-going; more research is
needed on the effect of rat predation on breeding success. There
is a good exchange of information among researchers from the
Canaries.
An Information Centre on the biotopes of the Natural Park
has been established, and materials are being produced. With
slight improvements the on-going conservation activities will
protect the species successfully.
Priority actions:
• Prevent forest fires. Develop an efficient system to extinguish
fires.
• Develop and implement an efficient compensation plan for
any crop damage.
• Remove sheep and goats from sensitive areas.
Action
No. Target Priority PT API
1.1.1a The management plan for the Natural Park of Madeira developed and approved 3 3 1.0
1.1.1b Adequate funds are available for its implementation 3 3 1.0
1.1.1c The Species Action Plan is incorporated in the management plan 3 3 1.0
1.1.2 Funds received from the EU and other international sources for conservation of the species 3 3 1.0
1.1.3a The species recovery plan is incorporated into national legislation 1 4 0.0
1.1.3b The species recovery plan is incorporated into regional legislation 1 4 0.0
1.1.4 The Natural Park of Madeira is a World Heritage site 2 4 0.0
1.1.5 The species is listed in Annex II of the Bern Convention 1 4 0.0
1.1.6 Abandonment of agriculture in key areas promoted by appropriate policy mechanism 1 0 –
2.1.1a Prohibition of killing the species enforced by the Natural Park 3 4 0.0
2.1.1b Number of wardens in areas where killing is a problem increased 3 4 0.0
2.1.1c Hunters specialising in pigeon shooting identified, and their movements observed 3 3 1.0
2.1.2 The Natural Parks provides farmers with a variety of bird-scaring devices 3 3 1.0
2.1.3a Extent of crop damage evaluated annually 2 3 0.7
2.1.3b Efficient compensation plan developed 2 1 2.0
2.1.3c Farmers supported with payments in kind 2 1 2.0
2.2.1 All dense, high-canopy forest below 950 m receive maximum protection status 3 4 0.0
2.2.2a Inventory of the laurel forest completed 3 4 0.0
2.2.2b All patches of laurel forest are declared protected areas 3 4 0.0
2.3.1 Amount of litter accessible to rats reduced 2 4 0.0
2.3.2 Where and when necessary, visitor numbers are restricted 2 4 0.0
2.4.1a Feasibility of eliminating grazing from sheep and goats evaluated 3 3 1.0
2.4.1b Sheep and goats removed from sensitive areas 3 2 2.0
2.4.3a Shepherds prevented from setting fire to the laurel forest 3 0 –
2.4.3b Tourists informed of the risk of fires 3 0 –
2.4.3c The Natural Park has appropriate means to extinguish fires 3 0 –
Jose Projecto

Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
Action
No. Target Priority PT API
3.1.1 Population monitoring on-going 3 4 0.0
3.1.2a Breeding success monitored 3 1 3.0
3.1.2b Impact of rat predation on breeding success understood 3 2 2.0
3.1.2c Information exchanged with researchers from Canaries 3 3 1.0
3.1.3 Habitat selection understood in detail 3 3 1.0
3.2.1 Interaction between rats and the laurel forest studied 3 3 1.0
3.2.2 Rat control programme carefully monitored 2 0 –
4.1.1a Information Centre on the biotopes of the Park and on the species created 3 4 0.0
4.1.1.b Information material produced 3 3 1.0
National IS 3.1
39

40
Dark-tailed Laurel Pigeon Columba bollii
1 questionnaire sent, 1 reply
Significance: 100% of the population
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
The two species are endemic to the Canary Islands, and their
distribution is restricted to the laurel forests. The White-tailed
Laurel Pigeon is endemic to Tenerife, La Palma and La
Gomera, while the Dark-tailed Laurel Pigeon is found also on
El Hierro.
Since the two species face the same threats and thus need the
same conservation actions, the implementation of both their
Action Plans is summarised here.
The main threats are habitat loss, persecution (illegal hunting
and trapping), predation by rats, cats and dogs, and lack of water
since most of the springs have been artificially channelled for
human use.
The Canary Island Countryside Law (12/1994) has identified
and protected a number of sites, and following the identification
of other important areas for the species, a limited number of
reserves have been declared. Some areas are still missing any form
of protection and management plans for most protected areas
have not yet been approved. Only a very limited number of sites
have been acquired.
Both species are fully protected at national level, but at regional
level the Canary Island Wildlife Law, which should guarantee
further protection to the species has not yet been prepared and
approved.
The exploitation of the laurel forests by commercial forestry
has decreased in recent years, but is still damaging the forests, at
least in some areas. The laurel forests have been the main source
for poles and tool handles used in agriculture. The regional
government has produced and distributed a booklet among
Juan Varela
White-tailed Laurel Pigeon Columba junoniae
1 questionnaire sent, 1 reply
Significance: 100% of the population
farmers about the use of alternatives in vineyards, since the
cultivation of wine is increasing as a result of EU funding. The
regional government should fund and strongly promote the use
of alternatives.
The regional government is carrying out a plan to eradicate
the Monterey pines and to regenerate the laurel forest, and has
provided some new drinking facilities for the birds.
Illegal hunting and trapping is still present and in recent years
a number of people have been convicted.
The distribution and size of the population have been the
subject of research on La Palma, La Gomera and El Hierro, but
a regular monitoring system has not been established. On
Tenerife, the breeding success of both species was studied by the
Universidad de la Laguna in 1995, and the following year, the
regional government carried out an analysis of the socio-economic
importance of the forests on Tenerife. In 2000, a similar study
was carried out on La Palma.
SEO/BirdLife, in collaboration with the regional government,
has carried out awareness campaigns on both species, but there
is a need to continue such activities and to develop a specific
campaign targeted at the hunting community on La Palma.
Priority actions:
• Guide commercial forestry away from laurel forests to
alternative sites.
• Establish new hunting reserves, minimise human activities with
negative effects on the reserves
• Improve monitoring methods, continue monitoring.
Action
No. Target Priority ES API
1.1.1a The Canary Islands Countryside Law (1994) is an efficient tool to protect the species and its habitat 3 3 1.0
1.1.2 The Canary Islands wildlife law adequately protects the species 3 1 3.0
1.2.1a Commercial forestry is guided from laurel forests to alternative areas 4 1 4.0
1.2.1b Regeneration of degraded areas of laurel forest is favoured 4 2 2.7
1.2.1c Commercial forestry is no longer damaging laurel forests 4 2 2.7
1.2.2 Programme of alternatives to commercial forestry practices implemented 3 2 2.0
1.3a New Hunting Reserves established 3 1 3.0
1.3b Human activities likely to have negative effects in the new Hunting Reserves are minimised or removed 3 1 3.0
1.4 Health controls on imported birds are efficient 1 2 0.7
2.1 Illegal hunting is under control 4 2 2.7
2.2a Eradication of Monterrey pines completed 3 2 2.0
2.2b Forestry practices most beneficial for the environment are used 3 2 2.0
2.2c Re-afforestation with native plants on-going 3 2 2.0
Juan Varela

Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
Action
No. Target Priority ES API
2.3 Important areas for the species have been acquired from private owners 3 1 3.0
2.4 Additional drinking points are provided 2 2 1.3
2.5 Contact with zoological collection established in view of a captive-breeding programme 1 0 –
3.1 Full census of the species carried out 4 4 0.0
3.2 Monitoring methods improved through contact with experts in Madeira 3 1 3.0
3.3 Monitoring of the population on-going 3 1 3.0
3.4 Factors affecting the breeding success understood 4 3 1.3
3.5a Economic importance of forestry evaluated 2 3 0.7
3.5b Alternatives to current forestry practices identified 2 3 0.7
4.1a Public awareness campaign targeted at general public carried out 3 3 1.0
4.1b Awareness campaign targeted at hunters carried out in order to gain their support 3 2 2.0
4.2 Dialogue strengthened between the bodies involved in the conservation of the species and their habitat 3 3 1.0
4.3 Wardens are trained and motivated 3 2 2.0
Average IS 2.0
41

42
Aquatic Warbler Acrocephalus paludicola
12 questionnaires sent, 10 replies
Significance: the whole breeding population
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
The Aquatic Warbler breeds in a limited area across Belarus,
Poland, the Ukraine, Hungary, Lithuania, Germany and
Latvia, with a total population of some 13,500–21,000 singing
males.
The main cause of the continuing population decline, which
is still a problem in the Ukraine, Lithuania and Poland, is the
abandonment of low-intensity land-use, which is affecting
vegetation succession and further drainage of sites.
The Aquatic Warbler is fully protected in most countries,
except in the Russian Federation. Law enforcement should be
improved almost everywhere. Habitat protection needs to be
established and enforced in Lithuania, Poland and the Ukraine.
Most of the known population (86%) breeds within 37 IBAs, of
which 73% are protected areas, but most of these do not have
management plans. (Although within the key sites in Belarus,
which hold more than two-thirds of the world population, these
plans are being implemented). Other management plans do not
specifically address the conservation of the species.
Agricultural policies promoting abandonment of sedge
meadows in low-intensity use is one of the major threats, especially
in the Ukraine, Poland and Lithuania; in the Ukraine further
drainage campaigns are planned.
The use of pesticides is not properly regulated and represents
a further threat in most countries. The concept of
Environmentally Sensitive Areas has still not been developed in
most European countries, with the notable exception of Hungary.
National action plans have been produced in the United Kingdom
and in the Ukraine, where it was successfully launched with a
good representation of the various Ukrainian ministries
responsible, for species and site protection. In Belarus, Lithuania
and Poland, national action plans are being developed.
Environmental impact assessments are prescribed for the sites
holding breeding populations in most countries, except in Latvia
and Poland; although in the latter country, most of the population
is found within protected areas. National wetland strategies are
not yet in place, but are being developed in Belarus, the Ukraine
and the Russian Federation.
No special protection measures have been taken for the species
along its migration route; this is mainly due to the fact that the
species does not concentrate in significant numbers during
migration. National surveys have been carried out in most of the
breeding countries and knowledge of population figures and
breeding areas within Europe is adequate. The identification of
the wintering grounds, as well as distribution and population size
in western Siberia east of the Urals (although according to latest
survey results, a larger population is unlikely to exist there),
represent the biggest gaps in our knowledge. Ringing is being
carried out across Europe, and specific research is being
undertaken through the analysis of the chemical composition of
the feathers in spring.
Most research work has been carried out by the Aquatic
Warbler Conservation Team (AWCT), which was formed after
the compilation of the Action Plan with the aim of promoting
and coordinating research and conservation work across the
species’s range. Following intensive research carried out by the
AWCT, there is a very good and accurate understanding of the
breeding habitat structure. The knowledge of population size and
distribution has also increased dramatically in recent years, with
the discovery of new breeding areas, which almost doubled the
population figures from the estimate given in the Action Plan.
Further research in western Siberia, between the southern Urals
and the Ishym river, is planned.
Priority actions:
• Promote traditional farming systems at breeding sites by
changing agricultural policy.
• Develop a national wetland strategy that takes the ecological
needs of the species into account.
• Prevent any damaging development (water extraction, etc) at
important sites which have not yet been declared protected
areas.
• Assess the effect of burning at important sites.
Action
No. Target Priority BY BE DE HU LT NL PL RU GB UA API
1.1.1a Agricultural policy promotes and maintains the traditional farming systems at breeding sites 3 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 2.5
1.1.1b The Environmentally Sensitive Areas concept is developed in Eastern European countries 3 1 0 0 4 1 0 1 1 0 1 2.0
1.1.2a The species is fully protected 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 0.8
1.1.2b National action plan developed 3 1 1 3 1 2 0 2 1 4 3 1.5
1.1.2c The species’s breeding habitat is protected 3 3 0 4 4 2 0 3 0 0 1 1.1
1.1.2d All activities likely to damage the species’s habitat are subject to environmental impact assessment 3 3 2 4 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 1.5
1.1.2e Insecticide use in water catchments is regulated and limited 3 1 1 4 3 3 0 1 0 0 1 1.5
1.1.2f National wetland strategy developed, taking into consideration the species’s needs 3 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 2.6
1.1.2g Legislation providing for management agreements with landowners/managers developed 3 3 1 3 1 1 0 1 0 4 1 1.6
2.1.1a All sites regularly holding breeding Aquatic Warblers are protected 3 3 0 4 4 3 0 3 0 0 2 0.9
2.1.1b All protected areas have management plans taking the species into account 3 3 0 2 2 1 0 2 0 0 1 1.6
2.1.2a Legal protection of sites is enforced 3 3 0 4 4 3 0 3 0 0 2 0.9
2.1.2b Any damaging development (water extraction, etc) at important sites which are not yet declared
protected areas is avoided
3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 3.0
2.2.1 Traditional agricultural practices are maintained, preventing habitat succession 3 2 0 2 4 2 0 1 0 0 1 1.5
Tomasz Cofta

Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
Action
No. Target Priority BY BE DE HU LT NL PL RU GB UA API
2.2.2 Hand scything and mowing properly used to manage the habitat 3 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 1.7
2.2.3 Specially adapted cow breeds promoted and used for management 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2.5
2.2.4a Burning is used for management, according to the results of specific research 3 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 2.1
2.2.4b Uncontrolled fires are avoided by wardens 3 4 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 1.4
2.2.5 Natural water conditions are preserved or restored 2 2 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1.1
2.2.6 Land managers have been informed on the best management techniques for the conservation of
the species’s habitat
3 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 1.8
2.3.1 All sites in Europe used by the birds on passage are effectively protected 3 0 2 4 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 1.5
2.4.1 In areas no longer used for agriculture, habitat restoration carried out 3 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 2.6
3.1.1 Census methodology developed 3 4 0 4 4 2 0 4 0 0 1 0.9
3.1.2a National survey carried out 4 3 1 4 3 1 0 3 3 0 4 1.3
3.1.2b Potential breeding sites identified and surveyed 4 4 0 0 3 3 0 3 1 0 4 1.2
3.1.3a Major passage sites identified 2 2 3 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 1.0
3.1.3b Wintering sites identified 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0
3.1.4a Habitat characteristics studied at passage sites 2 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1.0
3.1.4b Habitat characteristics studied at wintering sites 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 –
3.2.1 Comparative studies on breeding biology carried out in different habitats 2 3 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1.4
3.2.2a Effect of burning on breeding populations assessed 3 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 2.5
3.2.2b Assess the effect of scything and mowing on breeding population 3 2 0 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1.8
3.2.2c Assess the effect of water conditions on breeding population 3 3 0 4 1 1 0 3 0 0 1 1.4
3.2.3 Collaborative research and monitoring developed 3 4 2 3 1 1 0 3 3 0 3 1.2
4.1 A strong network of committed organisations and individuals developed 4 4 1 3 1 3 0 3 3 0 1 1.5
4.2 The species is used as a flagship for the conservation of lowland marshes and wet meadows 3 4 1 3 1 2 0 1 1 0 3 1.5
4.3 Educational material on the species produced and distributed 3 3 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 2.4
National IS 2.6 1.5 3 2.1 1.6 4 1.8 1.8 3.1 1.7
43

44
Blue Chaffinch Fringilla teydea
1 questionnaire sent, 1 reply
Significance: 100% of the population
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
The Blue Chaffinch is restricted to Gran Canaria and Tenerife
(Canary Islands, Spain). The main threats are habitat loss and
fragmentation caused by forestry, fires, habitat degradation
caused by tourism, illegal trade, and predation by cats.
The species is fully protected by national and regional
legislation, and it is included in the regional official list of
endangered species, which is under approval. A recovery plan
has been produced and will be officially endorsed in due course.
In the meantime, a number of activities have been carried out:
the feral cat population has been brought under control and
tourist access to some areas has been restricted, but wardening
still has to be improved.
A large part of the habitat (Canary pine woods) is protected.
The species is still not listed in the CITES annex, and trade is still
a problem.
Habitat restoration and land acquisition have been carried
out in some areas and these activities are included in the Forestry
Plan.
The species is regularly monitored, allowing a better
assessment of the population, which is now considered to be
1,800–2,700 pairs. Research on habitat selection and limiting
factors has been carried out, but more research is still needed,
especially on the Tenerife population.
A public awareness campaign, promoting the plantation of
Canary pines, will be a useful tool for the conservation of the
species.
Priority actions:
• Include the species in CITES.
• Stop the illegal trade of the species, in collaboration with Italy,
Germany and Belgium.
• Study the ecology of the species on Tenerife.
Action
No. Target Priority ES API
1.1 Management plan prepared under national legislation 3 3 1.0
1.2 The revised National Endangered Species List includes the species in the appropriate category 3 4 0.0
1.3 The regional wildlife law protects the species outside protected areas 3 3 1.0
1.4 The species’s habitat is fully protected under the Canary Islands Countryside Law 3 3 1.0
1.5 The species is listed in CITES 3 1 3.0
2.1a Illegal trapping and trade eradicated 3 1 3.0
2.1b Collaboration with Italy, Germany and Belgium effective in reducing the trade 3 1 3.0
2.2 Habitat recovery programme carried out 4 2 2.7
2.3a Fire prevention programme developed and running 4 3 1.3
2.3b Suitable means to fight fires available 4 0 –
2.4 Recreation and leisure areas provided in sites that do not require integral habitat protection 1 2 0.7
2.5a Access restriction to Ojeda, Inagua and Pajanale pinewoods enforced and monitored 2 3 0.7
2.5b Monitoring access to woods on-going 2 2 1.3
2.6 Feral cat population controlled 1 4 0.0
3.1, 3.3 Population regularly monitored 3 4 0.0
3.2 Detailed studies on the biology and ecology of the species carried out in Tenerife 2 1 2.0
3.4 Studies on limiting factors in Gran Canaria continued 4 4 0.0
3.5 Studies on habitat selection completed in Gran Canaria 3 4 0.0
3.6 Captive breeding programme implemented 1 3 0.3
4.1, 4.2 Public awareness and education campaign carried out 2 3 0.7
Average IS 2.7
Juan Varela

Azores Bullfinch Pyrrhula murina
1 questionnaire sent, 1 reply
Significance: 100% of the population
The species is classified as Endangered (BirdLife International
2000) because its extremely small population (157–296
individuals) is restricted to São Miguel (Azores, Portugal). It is
threatened by the spreading of exotic flora, which is changing its
natural habitat.
The species and its habitat is fully protected, but the law is
not enforced efficiently. The Natural Forest Reserve covers most
of the laurel patches and the SPA covers most of these areas,
although the Natural Forest Reserve and the SPA do not have
the same boundaries. It is still possible to introduce exotic plants
to São Miguel, and exotic plants are still spreading. A national
action plan has not yet been prepared, but most of the actions
required are being implemented under a LIFE project. The project
includes experimental removal of exotic plants, provision of food
and a captive-breeding programme. Aviaries have been built, and
there are plans to capture birds in October 2000. Surveys were
carried out in 1994–1996 and 1999–2000, but none are planned
for 2001. A study on the exotic plants is on-going, but further
research is needed on this issue. Public awareness needs to be
improved: a booklet was written on the species and distributed
in the past, but a new one should be produced.
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
Priority actions:
• Develop a management body, management plans and
regulations and provide funds for the Natural Forest Reserve.
• Protect native plants that provide food for the species.
• Continue monitoring and studying the population dynamics
of the species.
Action
No. Target Priority PT API
1.1a The species is protected 2 3 0.7
1.1b The habitat is protected 2 3 0.7
1.1.1a All laurel forest patches are designated Natural Forest Reserve 2 3 0.7
1.1.1b All laurel forest patches are designated as SPAs 2 3 0.7
1.1.2 The legislation on planting exotic species efficiently protects the species’s habitat 3 1 3.0
1.1.3 The Action Plan for the species is incorporated into regional and national legislation 1 1 1.0
1.2 The Natural Forest Reserve has an appropriate management body, management plans, regulations and funds 3 1 3.0
2.1a Expansion of exotic flora stopped 4 2 2.7
2.1b Regeneration of laurel forest on-going 4 2 2.7
2.2 Native plants which provide food are protected and their population increased 4 1 4.0
2.3 Supplementary food is provided between February and April 3 2 2.0
2.4 Captive breeding attempted (only if the wild population decreases dramatically) 1 1 1.0
3.1a Monitoring scheme continued 3 3 1.0
3.1b Studies on mortality carried out 3 1 3.0
3.2 Invasion of laurel forest by exotic plants studied 2 2 1.3
3.3 Taxonomic position of the species, in relation to the continental P. pyrrhula, fully understood 2 2 1.3
4.1a Booklet on the species produced and distributed 2 1 2.0
4.1b Information placards placed at the main entrances of the Natural Forest Reserve 2 1 2.0
National IS 1.8
Jose Projecto
45

46
CONCLUSIONS
Saving Europe‘s most threatened birds
The present report shows that monitoring a SAP can be carried
out quite efficiently by means of carefully prepared and detailed
questionnaires sent to individuals and organisations which are
fully involved in their implementation. Moreover, the full
involvement of governments is essential to achieve several
objectives set out in the SAPs, and they must be clearly involved
in any monitoring or reviewing/updating of these documents.
Governments have already been involved twice in the SAP
process: directly, during the compilation of the documents, and
also through their representatives on the relevant international
treaty committees which have approved and endorsed the SAPs.
The present report represents a first step towards the
monitoring and updating of the SAPs. Therefore, the results in
terms of APIs (Action Priority Indexes) should be considered as
indications, rather than definitive and exhaustive re-assessments,
of the priority of each objective.
Significant goals have been achieved, but the struggle to
preserve the increasing number of threatened bird species for
future generations is far from over.
For each species, several actions that should urgently be taken
are highlighted, on the basis of their priority and level of
implementation to date.
Some general recommendations are:
• A clear and common monitoring and updating system has to
be developed between the European Commission and the Bern
and Bonn Conventions, in order to harmonise their efforts
and make the best use of the available resources
• All land-use and development programmes and policies should
take into consideration the conservation of threatened species
for which detailed information on threats and actions are
described in the SAPs.
There is a need to work more intensively at national or
regional (sub-national) level, to influence the establishment
and implementation of land-use and development programmes,
and policies which can affect the conservation status of
Europe’s biodiversity. The inventory of IBAs is a useful tool
to target special agricultural, forestry and fishery measures to
areas which are internationally significant for the action plan
species.
• This study revealed that there is a clear gap between policy
development at the Community level and the national
implementation measures within the EU. Likewise, more
attention should be paid to integrating conservation
objectives into national sectoral policies in countries outside
the EU.
International conventions, and particularly those that provide a
list of priority bird species, should increase their efforts to promote
conservation at a national level, through making expertise and
means available to national agencies and NGOs.
• The identification, protection and appropriate management
of sites important for one or more of the bird species covered
by the SAPs should be improved.
• The establishment/enhancement of networks (working groups,
e-groups, etc) of researchers and conservationists working
together will result in better circulation of information and
exchange of experiences which will make conservation and
research activities more effective.
• Public awareness activities should be continued and specific
training courses and advocacy campaigns should be carefully
targeted at specific groups (landowners or users, fishermen,
local communities, etc).

This publication analyses the implementation of the 23 Species Action Plans published in 1996 in
the volume “Globally threatened birds in Europe. Action Plans”.
Edited by Borja Heredia, Laurence Rose and Mary Painter, and published by the Council of Europe.
ISBN 92-871-3066 3
The book is available from:
Council of Europe Publishing, F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex.
Fax: + 33 3 88 41 3910
The Action Plans are also available on the internet at the following addresses:
http://www.birdlife.net
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/directive/birdspriority.htm
The BirdLife International European Partnership
ALBANIA AUSTRIA ANDORRA BELARUS BELGIUM BULGARIA CROATIA CZECH REPUBLIC
DENMARK ESTONIA FAROE ISLANDS FINLAND FRANCE GERMANY GIBRALTAR GREECE
HUNGARY ICELAND IRELAND ITALY LATVIA LIECHTENSTEIN LITHUANIA LUXEMBOURG
Vogelbescherming
V lb h i
N E D E R L A N D
MACEDONIA MALTA NETHERLANDS NORWAY POLAND PORTUGAL ROMANIA RUSSIA
SLOVAKIA SLOVENIA SPAIN SWEDEN SWITZERLAND TURKEY UKRAINE UNITED
KINGDOM
BirdLife
INTERNATIONAL