Assessing status and trends of birds in the European Union:

1. Assessing status and trends of birds in the European Union: Reviewing methods and experience at supranational and national levels, and evaluating their feasibility for use at the EU level A scoping study for the Expert Group on Reporting under the Nature Directives Presentation of draft, for the meeting 7th November 2008 THE N2K GROUP European Economic Interest Group

2. Assessing status and trends of birds in the European Union The scoping study is a first step under WP 2, “Alignment and synchronisation of implementation reporting under Art. 12 of Birds Directive with reporting under Art. 17 of Habitats Directive”. The draft has been prepared by The N2K Group ... within a framework contract on “Technical and scientific support in relation to the Habitats and Birds Directives”. THE N2K GROUP European Economic Interest Group

3. Questions to be addressed • To review and compare existing methods on supranational (European and EU) level to assess status and trends of birds (incl. the conservation status method under the Habitats Directive). • Review some national examples – any experiences and lessons learned. • Extent and scope of reporting on birds (all species or selections, ref. e.g. Annexes I, II, III of Birds Directive etc). • What data / concrete information on birds is needed. • THE N2K GROUP • European Economic Interest Group

4. 1. Review / comparisons of methods on supranational level  IUCN Red List categories - International level - All birds assessed at global level every 4 years by BirdLife International (Red List authority for birds) - Down-scaling to lower geographical levels  European Threat Status (ETS) - 2 assessments by BirdLife International (1994 and 2004) - Assesses all European bird species, as being in FCS or UCS.  EU Level - 1 assessment by BirdLife International (2004) - Assesses all EU25 species as being in FCS or UCS  Conservation status assessment under HD, Art. 17 • THE N2K GROUP • European Economic Interest Group

5. Article 17 method  Partly applicable to birds: - “Population” and “range” are relevant and should be manageable.  “Available habitat” needs further consideration - Many birds are habitat generalists. - Some species use different habitats during breeding, migration and wintering.  Doubtful wheather to relate to biogeographical regions - Is it more relevant to consider distinct populations or subspecies for a limited number of species? - Specify distinct flyways for some species? • THE N2K GROUP • European Economic Interest Group

6. 2. National examples  Six Member States: - Austria, Denmark, United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands, Slovakia  Two examples from North America: - Partners in Flight (PIF) - NatureServe Conservation Status  Main findings - Different approaches in various MSs, but most of them provide data that could be included in an EU assessment system. - Some additional parameters in national systems might provide useful additional information (cf. ETS), but incorporating them in an EU-based system should involve work not in proportion to expected additional benefit. • THE N2K GROUP • European Economic Interest Group

7. 3. Scope of reporting Should the reporting system include all naturally occurring bird species in wild state......? – ......or a sub-set of them? - More than 50% of all bird species in EU are listed in Annexes I, II and/or III of the Birds Directive. - c. 80 % of non-listed species are “migratory”, ref. Art. 4. - Covering all species is consistent with the general text of Article 1. - Most MSs have already established monitoring programmes (often run by NGO volunteers) that cover most species. - Thus, reporting only on species listed in Annexes would not substantially reduce in work-load. - However, omitting some species creates risk of late detection of problem areas, such as farmland bird declines. • THE N2K GROUP • European Economic Interest Group

8. 4. Data requirements  Most supranational and national systems rely on the same few pieces of key information - Population size - Population trend (past, current, future) - Range size - Range trend (past, current, future) - Threats (linked to trends) - Additional variables in some methods • Thus, most systems collect basic information for assessments of “population” and “range”  Most systems also consider “quality of data” • THE N2K GROUP • European Economic Interest Group

9. 4. Data requirements • Data from existing national bird monitoring programmes and atlas projects should satisfy the basic requirements for reporting on “population” and “ranges” in analogy with Article 17 of Habitats Directive (although room and need for refinements). • Quality differs between species and countries, information about “quality of data” is necessary. • But for inclusion of “threats” and “quality/extent of habitats” further considerations are needed. • THE N2K GROUP • European Economic Interest Group

10. Monitoring and Reporting – some recommendations and aspects • To continue on-going national monitoring of common and wide-spread birds (breeding, midwinter counts etc) by skilled volunteers. • To consider that a there is a time-lag of 2-3 years between data collection, analyses and interpretation before actual publication of results. • To co-ordinate surveys of rare and localised birds between MSs, to add value and reduce costs (e.g shared training workshops). • Atlases can hardly be updated more frequently than on 10-year basis (at the very best) – co-ordination and timing between MSs needed. • THE N2K GROUP • European Economic Interest Group

11. Issues arrising: • Is reporting related to “biogeographical regions” relevant for birds.......? - .... or should rather well-defined populations, sub-species or distinct flyways be considered for a limited number of species? • Which aspects of Article 17 reporting are appropriate for further consideration? - population size - range - quality / extent of habitat - pressures / threats • To cover all wild-living bird species, or a sub-set? • THE N2K GROUP • European Economic Interest Group