Natura 2000. Issue 18, October 2004.
Date: 2001-04-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment
Subjects: biodiversity, environmental policy, environmental protection, information, serial publication

natura
2000

ISSN 1026-6151

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG ENV NATURE NEWSLETTER

Issue 18 • October 2004

CONTENTS

THE SPA NETWORK:
Safeguarding Europe’s
most valuable bird areas
pages 2–5

SPECIES ACTION
PLANS: 
European action plans
for the EU’s most
threatened birds
pages 6–9

SPA BAROMETER: 
as  of  15  October  2004
pages 10–11

WORKING IN
PARTNERSHIP: 
The Birds Directive:
working in partnership
pages 12–15

LIFE FOR BIRDS: 
Breathing LIFE into bird
conservation
pages 16–18

BIODIVERSITY:
Birds in the wider
biodiversity context
pages 19–20

The NATURA 2000 Newsletter
is produced by the LIFE and
Nature Conservation Units of
the Environment Directorate
General (DG ENV) of the
European Commission.
This newsletter is produced
twice a year and is available
in English, French, German,
Spanish and Italian.

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus. Photo: Andy Hay

25 YEARS OF THE BIRDS DIRECTIVE

The  approval  of   the  Birds  Directive  in
1979  marked  the  first  significant
commitment  of  the  European  Community
to  nature  conservation.  This  was  a
response  to  the  recognition  that  effective
bird  conservation  especially  for  migratory
species,  requires  international
collaboration  and  common  standards
across  countries.  The  25th  anniversary  of
the  directive  is  an  occasion  not  only  to
celebrate  positive  achievements  but  also
to  highlight  remaining  gaps  in
implementation  which  need  to  be
addressed  and  to  consider  the  future
challenges  for  bird  conservation  in  an
enlarged  European  Union.

There  is  much  to  celebrate.  Targeted

conservation  actions  within  the
framework  of   the  directive,  including
many  projects  supported  by  the  EU  LIFE
Nature  programme,  have  improved
significantly  the  status  of  many  of
Europe’s  most  threatened  bird  species.
The  protection  of  vital  habitats,  in
particular  wetlands,  has  been  promoted
by  the  creation  of   an  impressive  network
of   Special  Protection  Areas  (SPAs).  The
implementation  of   this  directive  has  also

contributed  to  the  debate  on  the  need
for  wider  measures  for  the  conservation
and  sustainable  use  of  biodiversity.
The  picture  is  however  not  all
positive.  A  number  of  Member  States
have  yet  to  complete  implementation,
particularly  in  the  designation  of   SPAs.
More  widely  the  latest  statistics  compiled
by  BirdLife  International  on  bird  trends
in  Europe  show  that  there  are  continuing
serious  declines  of   formerly  common
species,  especially  farmland  birds.  The
clear  challenge  for  the  future  is  to  find
ways  to  halt  and  reverse  these  worrying
trends.  Recognising  this,  the  EU  Heads
of   State  and  Government  set  themselves
the  objective  at  the  Göteburg  Summit  of
2001  of  halting  the  decline  of
biodiversity  by  2010.

Commitment  and  support  is  required
across  European  society  to  achieve  this.
Europe’s  citizens  recognise  birds  as  a
powerful  symbol  for  our  natural  heritage
and  expect  us  to  succeed  in  this  task.

Nicholas  Hanley
Head  of   Nature  and  Biodiversity  Unit
DG  Environment,  European  Commission

THE SPA NETWORK

Safeguarding Europe’s most valuable bird areas

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

For a quarter of a century, the Birds
Directive has set the standard for bird
conservation across the Community
of then 9, now 25, Member States. It
was also the first piece of legislation
to create a coherent network of
special protection areas for birds in
the EU. To mark its 25th anniversary,
the European Environment Agency’s
Topic Centre for Nature and
Biodiversity recently completed a
detailed review of the SPA network.
This provides a valuable insight into
the nature of the network and the
extent to which it has achieved its
objectives.

Obligations under the Birds
Directive
Article  4  of   the  Birds  Directive
requires  Member  States  to  classify
the  most  suitable  territories,  in
number  and  surface  area,  for  194
species  (listed  in  Annex  I)
considered  to  be  threatened  within
the  EU.  It  imposes  similar  measures
on  the  habitats  of  migratory  bird
species  not  listed  in  Annex  I,
particularly  regarding  wetlands  of
international  importance.
In  the  early  stages  of

implementation,  the  term  ‘most

2 NATURA 2000 18 • OCTOBER 2004

suitable  areas’  raised  many
questions  as  no  specific  criteria
were  given  in  the  Directive  to  help
identify  these.

To  facilitate  this  task,  experts
from  the  Member  States,  European
Commission  and  BirdLife  gathered
in  the  early  1980s  to  work  out  a  set
of  criteria  for  identifying  sites  of
great  importance  for  conserving
birds  in  the  EU.

Out  of   this  was  born  the
Important  Bird  Areas  Inventory
(most  recently  updated  in  2000)
which  is  used  by  the  Commission,
in  the  absence  of  any  similar
national  reviews,  to  assess  if
Member  States  have  classified  all  the
most  suitable  territories  as  SPAs.  (an
approach  which  has  since  been
endorsed  by  four  Court  of  Justice
rulings).

Evolution of the network
Progress  in  classifying  sites  was
initially  very  slow.  By  1986,  a  mere
309  sites  had  been  designated  but,
as  Member  States  duties  became
clearer,  so  the  process  began  to
take  on  momentum.  By  1991,  the
number  of   SPAs  had  doubled  to
667.  Nevertheless,  this  was  still  well
below  expectations,  and  it  is  now
evident  that  significant  progress  was
only  really  made  in  the  last  eight
years  (actually,  the  coverage  in
terms  of   surface  area  has  increased
by  62%  just  in  the  last  five  years).
These  late  developments  are
probably  due  to  a  combination  of
factors:

By  1989  there  had  been  a
substantial  increase  in  our
knowledge  of  birds  in  the  EU
and  an  improved  reference  list  of

SPAs classification over time in surface area (km²)

300000

250000

200000

150000

100000

50000

0

1986

1991

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

NB: the graph is based
on availability of
databases from
Member States; actual
designation years may
be different –
databases provided one
or two years later.

➤
Important  Bird  Areas  (IBAs)
upon  which  to  base  the  selection
of  sites;
In  1992,  the  adoption  of  the
Habitats  Directive  gave  renewed
political  impetus  to  the
designation  of  key  sites  to
safeguard  Europe’s  most
vulnerable  wildlife  and  habitats
by  introducing  a  new  all
encompassing  Natura  2000
network,  which  would  integrate
all  existing  and  future  SPAs;
Successive  enlargements  of   the
EU  meant  that  the  Birds  Directive
was  being  implemented  over  an
increasingly  large  area  (in  fact
the  EU  has  more  than  doubled  in
size  since  the  adoption  of  the
Birds  Directive).  It  also  brought
in  a  number  of  biologically  rich
countries  who  would  be  able  to
make  a  substantial  contribution
to  bird  conservation  in  Europe;
By  the  mid  1990s,  the
Commission  had  begun  to  take
Member  States  to  court  for  their
failure  to  classify  the  most
suitable  areas  under  the  Birds
Directive.

Monetary  issues  also  played  an
important  role.  For  the  first  time  in
1992;  significant  financial  resources
were  made  available,  through  a  fund
dedicated  to  conservation  (LIFE-
Nature)  to  carry  out  practical
conservation  work  within  SPAs.  Five
years  later,  the  Commission  started
to  use  the  threat  of   withholding  EU
regional  and  rural  development
funding  from  Member  States  who
failed  to  adequately  implement  EU
nature  conservation  policy.

The nature of the network
Today,  the  whole  SPA  network  is
made  up  of  over  3,600  sites
covering  an  area  of   land  and  water
greater  than  280,000  km²  (about  the
size  of  the  United  Kingdom!).  The
individual  sites  range  from  1  ha  to
over  500,000  ha,  with  the  majority
being  around  100–10,000  ha  (73%).
This  variation  in  size  may  reflect  the
types  of  habitats  involved,  such  as
tundra  and  steppes  which  are  more
extensive  in  nature,  or  it  may  result
from  a  more  holistic  approach,
adopted  by  some  countries,  to
including  wider  elements  of  the
landscape  in  the  designation  of  their
sites.

The  network  does  indeed  cover

a  wide  range  of   different  habitats.
Not  surprisingly  wetlands  feature
prominently  but  others  are  also  well
represented  such  as  forests,  heaths
and  extensive  grasslands…even
marine  areas.  Regularly  cultivated
agricultural  land,  on  the  other  hand,
only  represents  some  8%  of   the
areas  within  the  Network.

This  diversity  is  indicative  of  the

fact  that  many  SPAs  are  important
for  a  whole  range  of  species  and
habitats.  Over  half  of  them  have
been  designated,  in  total  or  in  part,
as  sites  under  the  Habitats  Directive
as  well.

Is the network complete?
The  scale  of   the  SPA  network  is  now
impressive,  but  is  it  complete?  This
is  a  difficult  question  to  answer  as
the  Birds  Directive  does  not  set
quantifiable  objectives,  nor  does  it
provide  any  detailed  ornithological
criteria  to  enable  comparisons  to  be

Merlin chicks. Photo: Jorma Luhta

J (3%)

I (8%)

A (14%)

H (4%)

G (25%)

B (5%)

C (5%)

D (7%)

E (13%)

F (16%)

A Marine habitats
B Coastal habitats
C Inland surface water habitats
D Mire, bogs and fen habitats
E Grassland and tall forb habitats
F Heathland, scrub and tundra habitats
G Woodland and forest habitats and other

wooded land

H Inland unvegetated and sparsely vegetated

habitats

I Regularly or recent cultivated agriculture,

horticultural and domestic habitats

J Constructed, industrial and other artificial

habitats

made  between  the  requirements  of
Article  4  and  the  SPAs  designated
by  the  Member  States.

Comparison  between  Member
States  is  further  complicated  by  the
very  heterogeneous  distribution  and
abundance  of  bird  species  across
the  EU.  As  a  result,  some  Member
States  have  a  heavier  burden  than
others  in  implementing  the  Birds
Directive.  Nevertheless,  there  are
already  some  clear  signs  emerging
from  the  present  list  of   sites  (see  the
SPA  Barometer  pages  10–11)

The  first  is  that,  despite  recent
progress,  there  is  still  a  deficit  for
most  Member  States.  Only  Belgium,
Denmark  and  the  Netherlands  can
be  considered  to  have  largely
completed  their  SPA  classification.
The  Network  for  France,  on  the
other  hand,  is  the  most
disappointing,  covering  only  2%  of
the  country,  and  cannot  be  justified
on  biological  grounds.

So  far,  four  Member  States  have

been  condemned  for  insufficient
designation  of   SPAs.  The
Netherlands  which  was  the  first  to
have  such  a  ruling  has  since  put  in
place  a  substantial  network.
However,  Italy,  Finland  and  France,
who  have  each  received  similar
rulings,  have  yet  to  fully  comply.

The  relatively  poor  performance

of  some  of  these  older  Member
States  has  not  set  a  good  example
for  the  ten  newcomers.
Nevertheless,  there  are  encouraging
signs  that  the  new  Member  States

NATURA 2000 18 (cid:127) OCTOBER 2004 3

➤
➤
➤
THE SPA NETWORK
continued

recognise  the  importance  of   SPA
designation,  many  have  already
proposed,  or  are  in  advanced
stages  of  proposing,  sites  for  the
Network.  Slovakia  and  Slovenia,  for
instance,  designated  between  a  fifth
and  a  quarter  of  their  territory  as
SPAs  within  six  months  of   joining
the  EU.

A species perspective
An  alternative  approach  to  assessing
the  completeness  of  the  network  on
a  country-by-country  basis  is  to  look
at  it  from  the  perspective  of  the
different  species  in  Annex  I.  Again,
the  issue  is  complex  as  different
species  vary  according  to  the  extent
to  which  they  aggregate  at  sites.
This  is  reflected  in  the  site  selection
criteria  which  tend  to  focus  on  areas
where  concentrations  of   birds  can
be  readily  identified,  such  as  in
wetlands.

Indeed,  for  many  wetland  birds,
site  protection  is  the  most  important
mechanism  to  ensure  their
conservation.  This  is  reflected  in  the
SPA  network.  The  Bittern,  for
instance,  is  largely  restricted  to
reedbeds  in  the  EU  and  has  a
relatively  high  level  of   site
protection  –  up  to  80%  of  its  EU  15
breeding  population  is  included  in
SPAs.

In  this  respect,  the  SPA  network
is  widely  recognised  to  have  made
a  major  contribution  towards  the
conservation  of  wetlands  within  the

Photo: EGS-Österreich, N. Roth-Callies

EU.  Had  the  alarming  trends  of   the
early  1980s  been  allowed  to
continue  unabated,  it  is  quite  likely
that  many  of  the  key  sites  would
have  been  destroyed  or  damaged
by  now,  were  it  not  for  the  Birds
Directive.  This  is  reflected  also  in
the  conservation  status  of  many
wetland  birds.  Again,  in  the  early
1980s,  their  populations  were  in
serious  decline,  but  now,  thanks  to
the  SPA  designation  process,  most
appear  to  have  stabilised  and  some
are  even  showing  signs  of   a  slight
recovery.

The  role  of   the  SPA  network  in
the  international  arena  is  also  clear.
It  has  been  the  key  tool  in  the  EU’s
delivery  of  the  Ramsar  Convention
and  has  contributed  significantly
towards  international  flyway
conservation  objectives  such  as
those  of  the  African-Eurasian
Waterbird  Agreement  (AEWA).

When  it  comes  to  species  that
are  endemic  or  very  restricted  in  the
EU  distribution,  the  network  can
again  be  considered  to  be  largely
complete.  This  is  the  case,  for
instance,  for  the  main  breeding
areas  of   the  globally  threatened
species  of   the  Macaronesian  region:
Fea’s  Petrel,  Zino’s  Petrel,  and  the
Madeira  Laurel  Pigeon  as  well  as  for
species  like  the  Bearded  Vulture
whose  breeding  population  is
restricted  to  a  relatively  small
number  of   sites.  For  the  latter,  all  of
the  EU  breeding  population  is  now
within  SPAs.

The  situation  for  threatened
farmland  birds  is  however  not  so

clear.  The  range  of   farmland  birds  in
Annex  I  of   the  Birds  Directive  is
now  so  restricted  that  site  protection
has  become  an  increasingly
important  mechanism  for  ensuring
their  survival,  yet,  despite  this,
progress  in  designating  SPAs  for
these  species  has  been  rather
piecemeal.  The  Little  Bustard,  for
instance,  has  only  30%  of  the  EU
population  currently  included  in  the
SPAs.

There  may  be  a  number  of

reasons  for  this:  the  first  is  no  doubt
related  to  the  notable  lack  of
designation  of   agricultural  areas
(only  8%  of   SPA  network),  the
second  may  be  a  result  of
difficulties  in  integrating  species
conservation  needs  into  current
farming  practices,  despite  the
potential  for  using  adapted  agri-
environment  schemes  for  this
purpose.  These  problems  are  all  the
more  worrying  now  that  the  EU  has
been  enlarged.  Many  of   the  new
Member  States  have  still  relatively
healthy  farmland  bird  populations
yet  these  too  could  decline  very
rapidly  if   the  above  issues  are  not
addressed  early  on.

The  implementation  of   the  SPA
network  in  the  marine  environment
is  also  not  very  advanced.  Whilst
13%  of   the  habitats  in  the  SPA
network  are  marine,  this  is
essentially  due  to  the  inclusion  of  a
few  very  large  sites  in  Denmark  and
the  Netherlands,  such  as  the
Wadden  sea.  SPA  designation  for
seabirds  tends  to  focus  on  their
breeding  colonies,  (e.g.  100%  of   the

Bearded Vulture, Gypaetus barbatus
Percentage of population in the SPA's

100

n
o
i
t
a
l
u
p
o
p

f

o
%

80

60

40

20

0

**

AT

EUR

ES

*
FR

GR

*
IT

1999

2004

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

4 NATURA 2000 18 (cid:127) OCTOBER 2004
4 NATURA 2000 18 (cid:127) OCTOBER 2004

 
 
Little Bustard,  Tetrax tetrax
Percentage of population in the SPA's

100

n
o
i
t
a
l
u
p
o
p

f

o
%

80

60

40

20

0

EU15

ES

FR

*
IT

PT

1999

2004

* IT - not mentioned as breeding

EU  population  of   the  Roseate  Tern
is  within  SPAs)  but  protection  is  not
extended  to  any  significant  degree
to  their  marine  feeding  habitats.

This  has  prompted  the
Commission  to  set  up  a  marine
expert  working  group  to  look  at  the
application  of  Natura  2000  (and
SPAs)  into  the  marine  environment,
including  offshore  areas,  and  to  help
develop  guidelines  on  this  issue.

Future challenges
In  conclusion  therefore,  the  SPA
Network,  though  not  fully  complete,
has  already  shown  its  merits  in
terms  of   safeguarding  species  listed
in  annex  I  of   the  Birds  Directive  and
migratory  species.  This  is  borne  out
by  BirdLife’s  recent  survey  of   the
state  of  birds  in  the  EU.  According
to  their  results,  26%  of   species  (i.e.
46  species)  listed  in  annex  I  are
now  in  a  favourable  conservation
state  at  EU  level  compared  to  18%
(32  species)  ten  years  ago.  The
impact  is  all  the  more  significant
when  one  considers  that  the  overall
situation  for  wild  birds  in  Europe
continues  to  decline.

So  what  are  the  future
challenges?  Today,  we  have  a
relatively  good  understanding  of   the
species  habitat  requirements  and
sites  that  need  protecting  (except  in
the  marine  areas)  but  efforts  are  still
required  to  complete  the  network.
This  is  true  not  only  for  the  ten  new

Photo: Louis-Marie Préau/LPO

information,  it  should  become
possible  to  link  SPA  conservation
needs  with  other  land  use
information  to  determine  potential
threats  or  damaging  activities  from
development  projects  and  facilitate
positive  management  activities.
One  of  the  challenges  will  be  to
put  this  into  place,  particularly
now  that  the  new  Rural
Development  Policy  mentions,  for
the  first  time,  the  need  for  cross
compliance  with  the  Habitats  and
Birds  Directives.

So  whilst  there  been  good
progress  so  far,  there  is  still  plenty
to  do  to  turn  the  SPA  network  into
a  coherent  well  functioning
network  which  offers  a  safe  haven
for  vulnerable  bird  species  both
within  the  EU  and  beyond  its
frontiers.

Photo: M. Bolton, ImagDOP

Member  States  who  have  recently
joined  the  EU  but  also  for  some  of
the  older  Member  States,  especially
France.  Where  progress  is  not
made,  the  Commission  may  have  to
resort  to  further  legal  action  against
those  countries  who  fail  to
designate  sufficient  SPAs.

Greater  attention  will  also  need

to  be  paid  to  the  subsequent
management  of   the  SPAs.  This
brings  into  focus  the  need  for
effective  management  planning  for
SPAs.  Having  developed  over  200
plans  for  SPAs  in  consultation  with
different  stakeholder  groups,  the
LIFE-Nature  fund  can  provide  a
wealth  of   practical  real-life
examples  of  how  this  can  be
achieved  successfully.

Moreover,  with  the  recent

advances  in  GIS  and  spatial

Roseate Tern, Sterna dougallii
Percentage of population in the SPA's

100

n
o
i
t
a
l
u
p
o
p

f

o
%

80

60

40

20

0

*
EU15 BE

**
ES

FR

IE

***
PT UK

1999

2004

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

since implementing the species action plan

NATURA 2000 18 (cid:127) OCTOBER 2004 5

 
 
 
 
SPECIES ACTION PLANS

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

European action plans for the EU’s
most threatened birds

In 1993, the European Commission
co-financed BirdLife’s initiative to
develop European Action plans for
23 globally threatened bird species
listed in Annex I of the Birds
Directive. Ten years on, it is time to
take stock: have the action plans
been implemented? Have they
helped improve the conservation
status of the species concerned? Is
there a need to update them? These
are some of the questions analysed
in a new Birdlife report
commissioned by DG Environment.
As  nearly  half  of  the  bird  species

in  Europe  are  now  with  an
unfavourable  conservation  status,
the  need  for  focused  conservation
actions  has  never  been  clearer.  It  is
the  best  way  to  ensure  that  limited
resources  are  used  where  they  are
most  needed  and  avoids  activities
being  dissipated  or  piecemeal.

European  Action  Plans  provide

an  ideal  framework  in  which  to
develop  such  a  coordinated
strategy.  They  help  establish
international  priorities  for
conservation  action  over  much  of  a
species  natural  range  and,  crucially,
build  a  consensus  on  objectives
and  targets  amongst  those
organisations,  experts  and

authorities  who  are  in  a  position  to
influence  the  outcome.

The  process  also  facilitates  an
exchange  of  experience  between
countries,  encourages  the  develop-
ment  of  best  practices  and  draws
public  attention  to  the  conservation
needs  of  individual  species.

Background
With  this  in  mind,  Birdlife  set  out,  in
1993,  to  develop  European  Species
Action  plans  for  23  of  the  most
threatened  birds  listed  in  the  Birds
Directive.  Having  received  co-
financing  from  the  EU’s  LIFE-Nature
instrument,  up-to-date  information
was  collected  on  the  species  from
an  extensive  network  of  experts
(over  370)  across  Europe  and  written
up  as  draft  action  plans.  These  were
then  widely  circulated  for  comments
and  subsequently  discussed  at  a
series  of  workshops  involving,
amongst  others,  public  authorities
from  different  Member  States  who
would  be  largely  responsible  for
their  implementation.

By  1996,  all  23  final  action  plans

had  been  approved  by  the  Ornis
Committee  (set  up  under  the  Birds
Directive  and  representing  all
Member  State  authorities).

A review of progress
ten years on
It  is  now  a  decade  since  starting  the
action  planning  process.  To  mark
the  occasion,  DG  Environment
commissioned  BirdLife  to  review
their  state  of  implementation  in  the
25  countries  of  the  EU.  The  aim  is
to  determine  how  successfully  these
plans  have  been  delivered  in
different  Member  States,  especially
as  regards  priority  actions,  and  to
identify  any  major  gaps,  including
those  relating  to  the  completion  of
the  SPA  network.

For  this  purpose,  BirdLife

developed  a  simple  scoring  system
to  measure  the  level  of   progress  in
implementing  the  plans  for  each  of
the  species  in  question.  Scores  were
allocated  from  0–4:
0: action  was  not  needed
1:
2: some  worked  started  but  not
significant  yet  (11–50%)

little  or  no  work  done  (0–10%)

3: significant  progress  but  target

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

This  made  it  possible  to  assess
the  ‘distance  to  target’  in  terms  of
overall  progress  on  implementing
the  recommended  actions  and  their

6 NATURA 2000 18 (cid:127) OCTOBER 2004

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

their  cause  which  helped  to  provide
a  focus  for  taking  the  action  plans
forward.

Have the action plans been
implemented?
On  the  whole,  the  results  are  very
encouraging.  BirdLife’s  report
concludes  that  significant  progress
has  been  made  in  implementing  18
of   the  23  Action  plans  (with  Scores
of  2  but  less  than  3).

For  a  further  three  species,  the
implementation  has  been  substantial
(scores  of   over  3).  These  include
two  of   the  most  threatened  species
in  Europe,  the  Zino’s  Petrel  and  the
Slender-billed  Curlew,  as  well  as
the  Dalmatian  Pelican.  It  is
interesting  to  note  that  these  species
all  had  the  advantage  of  having
different  organisations  ‘champion’

Progress  has  been  limited  in
only  two  cases:  the  White-headed
Duck  and  the  Lesser  Kestrel.  In  the
case  of   the  former,  the  main
breeding  and  wintering  countries
have  made  good  progress  on  the
implementation  of  the  actions
(leading  to  a  tenfold  increase  in
population  in  Spain!),  but  the
eradication  of  the  introduced
Ruddy  Duck  has  not  been  given
enough  attention  in  the  EU  to  date,
except  in  the  UK  where  a
successful  trial  was  undertaken.  In
the  case  of   the  Lesser  Kestrel,  the
short-term  objective  of   maintaining
all  known  colonies  at  1994  levels
was  achieved  but  the  population
has  yet  to  expand  in  range.

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

Zino’s Petrel

Pterodroma madeira

Dalmatian  Pelican

Pelecanus crispus

Imperial  Eagle

Aquila heliaca

Pygmy  Cormorant

Phalacrocorax pygmeus

Cinereous Vulture

Aegypius monachus

Audouin’s  Gull

Larus audouinii

White-headed Duck

Oxyura leucocephala

Spanish  Imperial  Eagle

Aquila adalberti

Madeira Laurel Pigeon

Columba trocaz

Corncrake

Crex crex

Dark-tailed Laurel Pigeon

Columba bollii

Lesser Kestrel

Falco naumanni

Red-breasted Goose

Branta ruficollis

Fea’s Petrel

Blue  Chaffinch

Great  Bustard

Pterodroma feae

Fringilla teydea

Otis tarda

Slender-billed  Curlew

Numenius tenuirostris

Azores  Bullfinch

Pyrrhula murina

Lesser White-fronted Goose

Anser erythropus

Marbled Teal

Marmaronetta angustirostris

Aquatic Warbler

Acrocephalus paludicola

Status
change

Score

Targets
met

3.31

3.05

2.39

2.44

2.80

2.01

1.87

2.19

2.94

2.14

2.38

1.84

2.47

2.27

2.51

2.55

3.21

2.00

2.82

2.75

2.39

Long

Long

Long

Long

Long

Long

Med

Med

Med

Med

Short

Short

Med

Short

Short

None

None

None

None

None

None

Population  status

Population has doubled – new colony found

EU population has increased by 20%

Increased in strongholds – Hungary and Slovakia
– but now extinct in Cyprus and Greece

Stable population, expanding in range

Stable and increasing

Increasing  and  expanding

Massive population increase in Spain
Eradication of ruddy duck still a problem across EU
although a successful trial was done in the UK

Population has increased and expanded to Portugal

Population  slightly  increased

Variable trends, generally upwards but small
populations continue to decline

Slight increase assumed, but poor data quality

Overall stable, slight increase in some countries

EU contribution to species conservation limited
 as occurs only marginally in EU

Population  maintained

Stable

Population size is generally stable but range
is  shrinking

Declined – breeds outside EU

Decreasing

Continued decline, probably affected by problems
outside EU – main staging wintering quarters are
in Russia and Kazakhstan

Overall negative trend

General decline except in Hungary little progress
Poland has 77% of pop but so far in implementing
the plan nationally

White-tailed Laurel Pigeon

Columba junoniae

Houbara  Bustard

Chlamydotis undulata

2.38

2.04

Not known

Not known

?
?

NATURA 2000 18 (cid:127) OCTOBER 2004 7

SPECIES ACTION PLANS continued

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

Average NIS

No. of species

4.00

S
I
N
e
g
a
r
e
v
A

3.00

2.00

1.00

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

m
u
i
g
l
e
B

s
u
r
p
y
C

c
i
l

b
u
p
e
R
h
c
e
z
C

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

a
i
n
o
t
s
E

d
n
a
l
n
F

i

e
c
n
a
r
F

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

e
c
e
e
r
G

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

d
n
a
l
e
r
I

y
l
a
t
I

a
i
v
t
a
L

a
t
l
a
M

a
i
n
a
u
h
t
i
L

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

d
n
a
l
o
P

l
a
g
u
t
r
o
P

a
i
k
a
v
o
S

l

a
i
n
e
v
o
S

l

n
i
a
p
S

n
e
d
e
w
S

K
U

Birdlife report: Average National Implementation Score by Member States.

s
e
i
c
e
p
s

f
o

.

o
N

13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Behind  the  average

implementation  scores,  however,
lies  a  rather  more  uneven  state  of
progress  within  the  different
Member  States.  The  UK,  although
concerned  with  relatively  few  of
these  species,  has  achieved  the
highest  level  of  implementation
indicating  the  benefits  of  the  UK
Biodiversity  Action  Plan  process.  It
is  followed  by  a  number  of  other
countries  where  the  species  are  the
subject  of   targeted  actions,  such  as
the  Netherlands,  Hungary,  Portugal,
Austria,  France  and  Sweden.

Spain  has  the  highest  number  of

action  plans  (12)  but,  according  to
the  BirdLife  report,  the  level  of
implementation  is  very  varied.
Some  regions  have  carried  out
significant  conservation  work,
whilst  others  have  been  less

effective,  bringing  down  the  overall
national  score.  Lower
implementation  scores  are  also
noticeable  in  some  new  Member
States  such  as  Poland  and  Slovenia.
Improvements  will  be  needed  in
these  countries  too  in  the  future.

Are targets being met?
In  addition  to  the  prioritised  set  of
actions,  every  European  action  plan
also  set  short,  medium  and  long
term  goals  for  the  conservation  of
the  species.  These  were  devised  as
realistic  and  measurable  targets
which  could  be  achieved  within  a
specified  time  frame  (1–3  yrs,  4–5
yrs  and  6–10  yrs).  The  review
analysed  whether  these  targets  have
been  met  and,  if  so,  whether  they
have  had  an  impact  on  the  species
overall  conservation  state.

8 NATURA 2000 18 (cid:127) OCTOBER 2004

  Here,  too,  the  results  are
generally  positive.  According  to
Birdlife’s  findings,  long  and  medium
term  targets  have  been  achieved  for
11  of   the  species  and  short  term
goals  have  been  met  for  a  further
four.  In  all  cases  the  populations  of
the  species  in  question  has,  either
increased,  for  instance  for
Audouin’s  Gull  or  Cinereous
Vulture,  or  at  least  remained  stable
over  most  of  its  range.

The  reasons  behind  these  trends

are  explored  fully  in  the  review  of
each  action  plan  but  already  a
number  of   general  concerns  are
emerging.  The  first  relates  to  the
extent  to  which  the  key  breeding,
staging  and  wintering  sites  are
protected  as  SPAs.  It  is  interesting  to
note  that  75%  of  the  European
breeding  populations  for  the  12
species  with  improved  conservation
status  are  within  protected  SPAs.
The  other  limiting  factors  all
appear  to  be  strongly  linked  to  the
degree  of   management  within  the
protected  sites  and  the  level  of
success  in  integrating  the  species
requirements  into  other  policies
such  as  agriculture,  forestry  and
water  management.  For  farmland
species,  such  as  the  Great  Bustard
and  Corncrake,  such  policy
integration  is  vital,  yet  it  remains
one  of   the  weakest  areas  within  the
action  plans  in  terms  of
implementation.

Finally,  the  review  also
concludes  that  the  conservation
status  of  six  species  has
unfortunately  continued  to  decline
over  the  last  ten  years.  The  reasons
for  this  vary  according  to  the
species  in  question.  In  the  case  of
the  Slender-billed  Curlew,  for
instance,  the  European  action  plan
has  been  fully  implemented  but  this
has  not  been  enough  to  prevent  the
demise  of  the  population  migrating
through  the  EU.  This  is  most
probably  due  to  the  fact  that  its
conservation  is  highly  dependent
on  what  happens  to  the  species
outside  the  EU.  The  same  goes  for
the  Lesser  White-fronted  Goose
whose  main  staging  and  wintering
quarters  are  in  Russia  and
Kazakhstan.

In  the  case  of  the  Aquatic
Warbler,  the  situation  is  somewhat
different.  The  low  level  of

 
 
 
 
implementation  of  the  action  plan
is  essentially  due  to  the  fact  that
little  has  been  achieved  so  far  in
Poland,  yet  this  country  hosts  77%
of  the  total  European  population.
With  its  recent  accession  to  the  EU
it  is  expected  that  many  of  the
important  sites  will  now  be
protected  as  SPAs  and  renewed
efforts  will  be  made  to  address  the
species’  complex  management
issues,  which  are  again  dependent
upon  other  land  uses  such  as
agriculture  and  water
management.

The EU’s role: sustained
support through LIFE
The  report  also  concludes  that  the
decision  to  accord  priority  to  the
funding  of  projects  focusing  on  the
actions  recommended  in  the
European  Action  plans  has  played
a  very  significant  role  in  the
implementation  of  these  plans  and
the  subsequent  recovery  of   the
species.  All  23  species  have  been
targeted  to  a  greater  or  lesser
extent  by  almost  half  of  the  LIFE-
Nature  projects  (ca  300)  funded
since  1992.  LIFE  contributions
have  also  gone  up  from  10  million
a  year  in  the  early  1990s  to  over
40  million  a  year  at  present.

LIFE-Nature  has,  in  particular,
been  the  main  driving  force  in  the
conservation  of  island  endemics  in
Spain  and  Portugal  and  has  played
a  strategic  role  in  the  conservation
of  many  other  species  such  as  the
Spanish  Imperial  Eagle,  Cinereous
Vulture,  Audouin’s  Gull  and
Dalmatian  Pelican  (see  article
15–17).

Not  only  have  these  projects

considerably  advanced  the
understanding  of  the  conservation
needs  of  the  species  and  helped  to
develop  best  practices,  but  they
have  also  provided  an  all  important
source  of  funding  for  initial  heavy
investment  costs  aimed  to  secure  a
key  site,  pump  prime  longer-term
management  actions  and  stimulate
local  support  for  the  conservation  of
the  species.

Conclusions
The  overall  verdict  of  this  new
review  is  clearly  a  positive  one.
Significant  efforts  have  been  made
to  implement  the  European  Action
Plans  for  the  majority  of  the  species
in  the  ten  years  since  they  were  first
adopted,  aided  considerably  by
targeted  funding  through  the  LIFE
instrument.  This  has  resulted  in  a
marked  improvement  of  the
conservation  status  of  at  least  12
species,  which  is  all  the  more
noticeable  when  one  considers  that
the  overall  trend  for  Europe’s  bird
species  remains  alarmingly
negative.

It  also  clearly  demonstrates  the
advantages  of  having  a  coordinated
strategy  for  individual  threatened
species  and  a  focused  funding
mechanism  to  help  put  these  in
place.  Recognising  this,  the
Commission  has  since  funded  the
elaboration  of  a  further  24
European  Species  Action  plans  for
threatened  species  under  the  Birds
Directive.  These  too  receive  priority
attention  for  LIFE  funding.

This  does  not  however  mean  the

process  is  over.  There  is  still  a

considerable  amount  of  work  to  be
done  if   these  initial  successes  are  to
be  maintained  and  built  upon.  The
first  step  will  be  to  update  the
action  plans  and,  where  necessary,
to  set  new  conservation  goals  and
targets  for  the  species.  The  second
will  be  to  adapt  the  prioritised  list
of   recommended  actions  in  function
of   the  review  results  (e.g.  greater
SPA  designation)  and  new  threats
(climate  change).

Certain  Member  States  will  also

need  to  step  up  their  activities  in
implementing  the  Action  plans  on
their  territory.  The  development  of
more  detailed  national  action  plans
seems  to  be  a  particularly  effective
way  of  taking  this  process  forward
and  should  be  explored  further.

Finally,  greater  efforts  will  need
to  be  made  to  integrate  the  species
conservation  requirements  into
other  land  use  activities.  In  this
respect,  particular  attention  should
be  paid  to  finding  ways  of
developing  funding  mechanisms
through  the  new  Rural
Development  Programmes  in  order
to  secure  the  long-term
management  of  certain  species’  key
habitats.  There  are  a  handful  of
good  examples  of  how  agri-
environmental  measures  have  been
used  in  the  past  but,  according  to
BirdLife’s  findings,  these  have,  on
the  whole  been  poorly  targeted  and
pursued  only  generic  objectives.
Now  with  the  new  funding
mechanisms  in  place,  further
opportunities  are  emerging,  the
challenge  will  be  to  find  ways  of
accessing  these  for  the  benefit  of
Europe’s  most  threatened  birds.

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

NATURA 2000 18 (cid:127) OCTOBER 2004 9
NATURA 2000 18 (cid:127) OCTOBER 2004 9

Member State

BELGIË/BELGIQUE

CESKÁ REPUBLIKA

DANMARK

DEUTSCHLAND

EESTI

ELLAS

ESPAÑA

FRANCE

IRELAND

ITALIA

KYPROS

LATVIJA

LIETUVA

LUXEMBOURG

MAGYARORSZÁG

MALTA

NEDERLAND

ÖSTERREICH

POLSKA

PORTUGAL

SLOVENIJA

SLOVENSKO

SUOMI

SVERIGE

UNITED KINGDOM

SPA BAROMETER  (as of 15/10/04)

Number
of sites

Total area
(km2)

Terrestrial

Number of
 area (%) marine sites

Marine
area (km2)

Progress

Member State

229

0

112

497

66

151

442

153

131

503

0

97

39

12

0

0

77

94

72

50

26

38

452

509

252

2,964

0

12,246

32,080

12,368

13,703

81,719

12,415

2,815

24,865

0

6,751

3,570

139

0

0

10,109

9,275

33,156

9,956

4,618

12,365

28,373

28,648

14,511

9.7

0

5.9

6.4

12.3

10.1

16.1

1.9

2.9

8.1

0

9.7

5.5

5.4

0

0

12.5

11.1

7.3

10.1

22.8

25.2

6.8

6.2

5.8

0

—

58

17

26

4

20

50

66

13

0

4

4

—

—

0

7

—

6

10

1

—

65

0

BELGIË/BELGIQUE

— TBE

CESKÁ REPUBLIKA

9,710

9,171

6,811

TBE

405

574

2,110

810

396

0

TBE

520

TBE

TBE

?

—

DANMARK

DEUTSCHLAND

EESTI

ELLAS

ESPAÑA

FRANCE

IRELAND

ITALIA

KYPROS

LATVIJA

LIETUVA

LUXEMBOURG

— TBE

MAGYARORSZÁG

0

TBE

MALTA

4,913

—

10,201

TBE

622

2.6

TBE

— TBE

5,511

NEDERLAND

ÖSTERREICH

POLSKA

PORTUGAL

SLOVENIJA

SLOVENSKO

SUOMI

SVERIGE

107

3,017

2

377

UNITED KINGDOM

EU

4,002

356,646

460

55,151

EU

Nota  Bene:
(cid:127)
(cid:127)

The  SPA  Bar ometer  is  based  on  the  information  officially  transmitted  by  Member  States.
The  %  surface  area  relates  only  to  the  terrestrial  area  that  has  been  designated;  which  is  the  overall  SPA
area  minus  the  total  marine  area.
Some  Member  States  have  designated  substantial  portions  of  their  marine  waters  (e.g.  Deutschland,  Nederland).
The  global  assessment  of   national  lists  may  be  revised,  upwards  or  downwards,  following  more  complete
scientific  analysis  of  the  data.
The  ten  new  Member  States  had  a  duty  to  classify  SPAs  from  the  date  of   their  Accession  on  1  May  2004.
Six  countries  have  transmitted  their  national  lists.  An  evaluation  of  their  completeness  is  underway.

(cid:127)
(cid:127)

(cid:127)

notably  insufficient

incomplete

largely  complete

TBE

To  be  evaluated

10 NATURA 2000 18 (cid:127) OCTOBER 2004

à
ve
ntr

e
c
l
a
i
r

W
d
n
a
l
n
e
e
r
G

25 years, 25 birds, 25 countries
BrentGooseBrantabernicla hrotaBernachecravant

WhiteStorkCiconia ciconiaCigogneblanche

PartridgePerdix perdixPerdrixgrise

Steller’sEiderPolysticta stelleriEiderdeSteller

Pink-footedGooseAnser brachyrhynchusOieàbec

court

ellied

b
-
t
h
g
i
L

BELGIË/BELGIQUE
Ambassador of the polders
Les ambassadeurs des polders

CESKÁ REPUBLIKA
Indicator of healthy farming
Le baromètre de l’agriculture

DANMARK
Living with the tides
Vivre selon les marées

DEUTSCHLAND
Who’s bringing the babies?
Qui apporte les bébés?

EESTI
Hardy diver of the cold seas
L’audacieux plongeur des mers froides

LammergeierGypaetus barbatusGypaètebarbu

(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:13)(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6) (cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:6)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:10)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:16)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:17)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:5)(cid:18)(cid:19)

(cid:10)

(cid:1)

LittleBustardTetrax tetraxOutardecanepetière

hite-frontedGooseAnseralbifronsflavirostrisOierieuse

Eleonora’sFalconFalco eleonoraeFaucond’Eléonore

d
u
G
r
o
e
n
l
a
n
d

ELLAS
Ruler of the mountains
La montagne est son royaume

CyprusWarblerSylviamelanothoraxFauvettedeChypre

ESPAÑA
Imperial view from the tallest trees
Vue impériale du haut des cimes

CorncrakeCrex crexRâledegenêts

FRANCE
Sexy males and choosy females
Mâles sexy et femelles difficiles

IRELAND
Wary goose from the bog
L’oie prudente des tourbières

ITALIA
Agile wings of Mediterranean coasts
Haute voltige au large des côtes méditerranéennes

GreatSnipeGallinago mediaBécassinedouble

BlackStorkCiconia nigraCigognenoire

SakerFalco cherrugFauconsacré

KYPROS
Too shy to travel
Trop timide pour voyager

Cory’sShearwaterCalonectris diomedeaPuffincendré

LATVIJA
Cracky voice from the long grass
Une voix rauque dans les hautes herbes

SpoonbillPlatalea leucorodiaSpatuleblanche

LIETUVA
The hidden drummer
Le tambour caché

LUXEMBOURG
A large bird in a small country
Un grand oiseau d’un petit pays

MAGYARORSZÁG
Noble falcon of the steppes
Le noble faucon des steppes

BluethroatLuscinia svecicaGorge-bleue

WarblerAcrocephalus paludicolaPhragmite
aquatiq

u
e

uatic

q
A

MadeiranPetrelOceanodroma castroPétreldeCastro

MALTA
Who is uttering these wailing cries?
Cris et gémissements

NEDERLAND
Spooning through the mud
L’art de trouver sa nourriture dans la vase

ÖSTERREICH
A thousand voices from one blue throat
Les mille et une voix d’une gorge-bleue

POLSKA
Casanova of the sunset
Le Casanova du soleil couchant

PORTUGAL
Made for life on the high seas
Taillé pour la vie en haute mer

Red-backedShrikeLanius collurioPie-griècheécorcheur

GoldenEagleAquila chrysaetosAigleroyal

WhooperSwanCygnus cygnusCygnechanteur

SLOVENIJA
Masked bushranger
Le ranger masqué

CraneGrus grus Gruecendrée

SLOVENSKO
King of the highlands
Le roi des ‘highlands’

SUOMI
Symbol of light, beauty and purity
Symbole de lumière, de beauté et de pureté

BitternBotaurus stellarisButorétoilé

SVERIGE
The dancing birds
Les oiseaux danseurs

UNITED KINGDOM
Booming from the reedbeds
Rugissement dans les roseaux

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

NATURA 2000 18 (cid:127) OCTOBER 2004 11

WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP

Photo:  Archiv der Abteilung Umweltschutz, Amt der Tiroler Landesregierung

The Birds Directive: working
in partnership

The overall objective of the Birds
Directive is to conserve all birds at
a favourable conservation status
across the EU, taking into account
human activities. This means we
have to ensure that these human
activities are carried out in a
sustainable and responsible manner
that safeguards Europe’s varied but
increasingly vulnerable bird life.
At  the  heart  of   the  Directive
lies  the  establishment  of  a  network
of   protected  sites  (SPAs)  which
now  forms  part  of   the  Natura  2000
Network.  The  sheer  scale  of  this
network,  which  is  set  to  cover
almost  a  fifth  of  the  EU  territory,
means  that  it  must  remain  an
integral  part  of  our  living
landscape  in  which  people  are  at
the  heart  of  the  process  rather  than
on  its  periphery.  This  implies  the
active  participation  of   all  interest
groups.

To  achieve  this  ambitious
target,  nature  conservationists,
authorities,  land  owners  and  users
need  to  work  together  to  find  the
right  balance  in  securing  the
conservation  of  wild  birds  whilst
taking  economic  and  recreational

requirements  into  account.  This  is
by  no  means  an  easy  task  and,  it
has,  unfortunately,  resulted  in  some
confusion  and  emotive  reactions
from  all  sides  during  the  early
stages  of  implementation  of  the
Birds  Directive.

Much  of  this  can  be  put  down  to
an  initial  lack  of  understanding  and
experience  in  implementing  the
provisions  of   the  Directive  which
has  since  considerably  improved,
but  there  is  another  underlying
cause  which  has  still  to  be  fully
addressed.  This  concerns  the  lack  of
effective  communication  between
the  different  interest  groups,  be
they  public,  private  or  NGO,  on  the
aims  of   the  Directive.

Yet,  such  communication  is
essential  if   interest  groups  are  to  be
fully  informed  about  what  the
Directives  mean  in  practice  for  them
and  actively  involved  in  decisions
over  the  future  management  of   their
sites.  Once  a  sufficient  level  of   trust
and  mutual  understanding  has  been
built  up  between  the  different
groups,  it  will  be  much  easier  to
find  practical  management  solutions
on  the  ground.

The El Teide Declaration
It  was  with  this  in  mind  that,  in  May
2002,  all  25  countries  of  the
European  Union  signed  the  El  Teide
Declaration  to  re-affirm  their
commitment  to  promoting  a  greater
awareness  and  understanding  of   the
two  EU  Nature  Directives  and  the
Natura  2000  network,  and  to
encouraging  the  active  participation
of  stakeholders  in  decisions  over  the
long-term  management  of   the  sites.
Since  then,  the  Commission  has

launched  the  Natura  Networking
Initiative2   which  aims  to  build  local
partnerships  on  Natura  2000  sites
across  the  EU.

Inspiration  for  this  initiative  can

be  sought  from  the  LIFE-Nature
projects²  .  They  have  provided  a
useful  test  bed  for  gauging  people’s
reaction  to  SPA  designation  and
generated  a  wealth  of  experience  in
engaging  local  stakeholders  in  the
management  of  the  sites.

Their  overwhelming  conclusion
is  that  attitudes  can,  and  really  do,
change  once  a  concerted  effort  is
made  to  explain  the  nature
Directives  to  local  interest  groups
and  actively  involve  them  in  the

12 NATURA 2000 18 (cid:127) OCTOBER 2004

decision  making  process.  This  is  not
to  say  the  process  is  without
difficulties,  or  doesn’t  suffer  from
the  occasional  impasse,  but  the
level  of   success  clearly  increases  in
proportion  to  the  time  and  effort
spent  in  planning  these
communication  activities.

The  onus  is  therefore  on  all  of
us  –  authorities,  conservationists,
NGOs,  land  owners  and  users  or
individual  members  of  the  public  –
to  dedicate  the  necessary  time  and
resources  to  make  this  happen.
Once  this  has  been  achieved  Natura
2000  can  become  a  truly  effective

Network  that  works  both  for  its
people  and  for  our  rich  and  diverse
natural  heritage.

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

infoproducts/index.htm

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

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

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

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

The environment and human activities are interdependent. Environmental protection, secured biodiversity and sustainable development do

not compete with each other with proper management in place. Environmental protection in practice often means restrictions of use, which
requires prior negotiations at a local level and fair compensations when needed. The question of the funding of Natura 2000 is still under
analysis. Production of environmental services beneficial to the whole of society should be supported, and if needed also financed through
subsidies or the economic market. On the technical aspects, certain specific provisions of the “Bird” Directive would need further interpretation in
order to be more workable on land, particularly on the special protection areas, the concepts of “significant disturbance” or “complete
protection” ... etc.

Industrial activities, sustainable farming, sustainable forest management, sustainable hunting and fishing (both commercial and recreational)

all play an important role in environmental protection and more specifically in the protection conservation of Birds. Examples of these activities
include quarries, ports, salt flats and marshes and wetlands. These environmental improvements often go unreported in the media.

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

conservation.

Thierry de l’Escaille, ELO Secretary General

* The present position was drawn up by the European Landowners’ Organization (ELO), the

Bureau of Nordic Family Forestry, the Confederation Européenne des Propriétaires
Forestiers (CEPF), the European Anglers’ Alliance (EAA), the Fédération des Associations de
Chasse et Conservation de la Faune sauvage de l’UE (FACE) within the Natura 2000 Users
Forum which also includes the Comité des Organisations Professionnelles Agricoles de l’UE –
Comité Général de la Coopération Agricole de l’UE (COPA-COGECA), the Fédération
Européenne des Communes Forestières (FECOF), the Gîtes d’Europe (EuroGites), the Union
des Sylviculteurs du Sud de l’Europe (USSE), and as observers, the Council of European
Producers of Materials for Construction (CEPMC).

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

Engaging stakeholders.
Photo: UK limestone pavements LIFE project

NATURA 2000 18 (cid:127) OCTOBER 2004 13

WORKING IN
PARTNERSHIP
continued

Involving volunteers.
Photo: UK limestone pavements LIFE project

VIEWS OF BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL

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

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

Looking into the future, the full implementation of all provisions of the Directive and the

integration of its objectives into other EU policies, continues to be as pertinent as ever in
order to meet the target of halting biodiversity decline by 2010, and at the
same time it is becoming clear that the EU will have to consider action
for its migratory species beyond its the geographical
boundaries in places such as
Africa, as well as consider how
to deal with the effects of
climate change.

Clairie Papazoglou,
BirdLife International

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

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

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

If certain key principles, such as the concepts of ‘full protection’, ‘confusion’ and ‘disturbance’ have now been clarified in

the Hunting Guide, there is a need to apply these on the ground in a reasonable
and proportionate manner so as to avoid unnecessary conflicts in the future.
FACE’s message that ‘hunting is not part of the problem but is, on the
contrary, an integral part of the solution when it comes to conserving birds’ is
more than just a slogan. It can be illustrated by numerous concrete actions and
case study on the ground.

 Dr. Yves Lecocq, Secretary General, FACE

VIEWS FROM EUROSITE – professionals working for nature

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

The Directive helped many site managers to explain to their local stakeholders the European importance of their sites, which require

protection and management measures.

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

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

Nicole Nowicki-Caupin, Déléguée Générale, Eurosite

14
14 NATURA 2000 18 (cid:127) OCTOBER 2004

FROM CONFRONTATION
TO COOPERATION:
Agreement between BirdLife
and FACE

When  it  comes  to  birds,  the  issue  of
hunting  has  always  been  a  rather
emotive  one  and,  it  has  to  be  said,
the  climate  of  mistrust  between  the
different  protagonists  probably
worsened  during  the  early  years  of
the  Birds  Directive,  for  lack  of   good
information  on  hunting  practices
and  successive  legal  cases  in  front
of  the  European  Court  of  Justice.
Yet,  the  Birds  Directive  fully
recognises  the  legitimacy  of   hunting
and  endorses  the  concept  of  wise
use  and  good  management  of  bird
populations.  Indeed,  the
Commission  has  always  considered
that  hunters  and  bird
conservationists  have  much  in
common.  They  each  have  a  sound
knowledge  of   nature  and  a  vested
interest  in  ensuring  the  continued
survival  of  the  species.

This  prompted  the  Commission

to  start  up  a  Sustainable  Hunting
Initiative  in  2001  to  try  to  create  a
constructive  dialogue  between
hunters  and  bird  conservationists.
Three  years  on,  the  key  partners  –
BirdLife  International  and  FACE  –
have  reached  an  agreement  on  ten
points  which  will  enable  hunting  to

Commissioner Margot Wallström with Gilbert de Turckheim, President of FACE and Michael
Rands, Director and Chief Executive of BirdLife International at Signing of Agreement on
hunting under the Birds Directive. Photo: Micheal O’Briain

continue  within  a  well-regulated
framework,  whilst  fully  respecting
the  provisions  of   the  Directive.  This
was  signed  at  a  high  profile  event
on  the  12th  October  2004  and  marks
the  beginning  of   the  end  of   more
than  a  decade  of  emotive  conflict.
Having  played  the  role  of
facilitator  in  this  process,  DG
Environment  is  keen  to  see  similar
initiatives  being  launched  with

other  key  stakeholders,  such  as
farmers,  fishermen,  foresters,
tourism  operators….  and  to  see
these  agreements  put  into  practice
at  the  level  of  the  sites,  for  instance,
through  the  Natura  Networking
initiative  (NNi).  The  Hunting
agreement  is,  after  all,  living  proof
that  such  cooperation  can  work,
even  if  the  partners  have  very
different  views  at  the  outset.

LESSONS LEARNT FROM THE SUSTAINABLE HUNTING INITIATIVE

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

Photo: LIFE-Nature Project Biosphärenreservat Flusslandschaft Mittlere Elbe

the two organisations, mainly as a result of misunderstandings and
strong feelings on both sides. In BirdLife International on a number of
occasions it was thought this initiative was not going to go anywhere.
So how did it all happen in the end? Well, firstly the European
Commission played an important role because its officials didn’t give
up. They continued to press and insist on bringing the two
organisations together. They also insisted strongly on us having
bilateral meetings. We think the real breakthrough happened after
we started having bilateral meetings without the Commission, as this
helped the two organisations build the trust between them and it was
only then that the real progress could be made. Trust is indeed
essential for achieving respect between the organisations, without
which no constructive dialogue can take place. Of course people’s
personalities matter too.

So to summarise, it’s important to have a mediator who doesn’t

give up, especially in the face of slow process. Old foes can never
become new friends overnight but trust helps to build respect that
leads to success.

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

NATURA 2000 18 (cid:127) OCTOBER 2004 15

LIFE FOR BIRDS

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

Breathing LIFE into
bird conservation

Since its inception in 1992, LIFE-
Nature has played a key role in the
EU’s strategy for bird conservation
by supporting many targeted
conservation actions for Europe’s
most threatened bird species. Its’
very focused project-based approach
has proven to be highly efficient in
promoting a better practical
understanding not only of the
conservation needs of many bird
species but also of the requirements
of the Directive on the ground. It has
also made a significant contribution
to the Natura 2000 Network by
catalyzing the management of
around 13% of the SPAs included in
this Network, in close collaboration
with the stakeholders concerned.

Through  this  comes  a  wealth  of

best  practice  experiences,  for

LIFE project: surveying seabirds in coastal
and marine SPAs in the Azores.
Photo: Universidade dos Açores, ImagDOP

instance,  in  winning  support  and
engaging  stakeholders,  applying
practical  management  techniques
and  integrating  bird  conservation
needs  into  other  land-use  policies
which  can  be  of  use  to  others
involved  in  implementing  the  Birds
Directive  across  Europe.

As  a  direct  result  of   these  actions,

LIFE-Nature  projects  have
contributed  significantly  to
improving  the  conservation  status  of
Europe’s  most  vulnerable  bird
species.  The  Spanish  imperial  eagle
population  has,  for  instance,  shown
a  notable  increase  in  its  population
since  the  completion  of  a  series  of
LIFE-Nature  projects  targeting  its
entire  range.  Similar  trends  are
emerging  for  many  other
endangered  birds,  such  as  the  Great
Bustard,  waterbird  communities,
endemic  species  from  the  Canaries
and  Azores,  to  name  but  a  few.

Much  of  this  success  is  down  to
the  strategy,  adopted  early  on  in  the
programme,  of  focusing  the  limited
funds  available  on  priority  actions
and  projects  for  the  most
endangered  bird  species  in  the  EU.
Also  important  is  the  ability  of  LIFE
projects  to,  either  collectively  or
individually,  tackle  the  conservation
of  species  over  a  significant
proportion  of  their  population  or
range.  This  is  something  no  other
EU  fund  has  achieved,  yet  it  remains
central  to  the  success  of  the  Birds

16 NATURA 2000 18 (cid:127) OCTOBER 2004

Directive  and  the  overall  coherence
of   the  SPA  Network.

This  article  examines  the  strategy

that  lies  behind  the  use  of  LIFE
funds  for  bird  conservation  and
highlights  some  of  the  actions  and
achievements  of  the  projects  funded
so  far.  These  are  explored  further  in
a  new  publication  ‘LIFE  for  the  Birds
Directive’1

The strategy behind LIFE
From  the  outset  LIFE-Nature’s  key
objectives  included  the  co-financing
of   projects  that  target  the
conservation  of   one  or  more  of   the
SPAs  included  in  the  Natura  2000
Network  or  that  aim  to  address
specific  problems  for  endangered
species  listed  in  Annex  I  of  the  Birds
Directive.

To  be  selected  for  funding,

projects  also  need  to  be  well
prepared,  able  to  demonstrate  a
clear  added  value  and  potentially
significant  conservation  impact  and
be  fully  aware  of   the  socio-
economic  circumstances  in  which
they  operate.  This  is  to  ensure  that
LIFE’s  limited  funds  are  put  to
maximum  use.

Support  is  usually  limited  to  3–5

years  so  that  the  projects  have  a
pump  priming  and  catalytic  role  and
do  not  pay  for  ‘business  as  usual’
activities.  The  normal  co-financing
rate  is  set  at  50%  to  encourage  a  real
partnership  and  sense  of  ownership
amongst  the  project  beneficiaries.
Co-financing  rates  of  up  to  75%

are  nevertheless  also  available  to
projects  that  target  highly  endangered
bird  species.  This  was  a  deliberate
strategy  on  the  part  of  the  Commission
to  further  channel  the  limited
resources  towards  those  actions  and
species  considered  to  be  in  most
urgent  need  of   support.  Altogether
49  so  called  ‘priority’  bird  species,
including  all  globally  threatened  bird
species  in  the  EU,  were  earmarked
for  this  higher  co-financing  rate.
Species  action  plans  were  subsequently
developed  for  each,  partly  with  LIFE-
Nature  funding,  to  further  guide  the
choice  of  conservation  actions  (see
article  pages  4–6).

Despite  this  very  narrow  and

highly  focused  approach,  LIFE-
Nature  continues  to  this  day  to  be

1 http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/

infoproducts/index.htm

Each  project  will  include  any

combination  of  these  activities
depending  on  the  conservation
needs  of  a  particular  species,  the
habitats  involved  and  the  socio
economic  conditions  of   the  area  in
question.  It  is,  however,  the
combined  effect  of   these  activities
and  their  long-term  durability  that
determines  their  real  impact.

For  the  majority  of  projects  this

impact  is  felt  at  the  level  of
individual  SPAs  but  in  some  cases  it
has  wider  reaching  effects  that  go
beyond  the  scope  of  the  project.
The  following  illustrates  some
examples  of   how  LIFE-Nature
projects  have  played  a  strategic  role
in  the  conservation  of   threatened
bird  species  and  their  habitats.

Informing policy
Whilst  the  LIFE-Instrument  focuses
first  and  foremost  on  practical  on-
site  conservation  actions  on  the
ground,  a  number  of  projects  have
involved  preparatory  actions  of
strategic  value  to  the
implementation  of  the  Birds
Directive.  The  co-financing  of   the
species  action  plans  for  23  of  the
most  threatened  bird  species  in  the
EU  is  one  example  of  this.

The  inventorying  of  important
marine  bird  areas  in  offshore  waters
is  another.  Whereas  terrestrial
breeding  colonies  for  marine  birds
are  generally  well  protected,  this  is
not  the  case  for  the  offshore  marine
sites,  principally  because  of  the
overall  lack  of  detailed  scientific
knowledge  of   their  whereabouts
and  conservation  threats.  This
remains  a  significant  gap  in  the  SPA
Network.  Two  LIFE-Nature  projects
in  Spain  and  Portugal  are  currently

attempting  to  address  this  by
undertaking  detailed  marine  surveys
in  their  own  territorial  waters.  The
aim  is  to  identify  sites  for  the  SPA
network  and  make  recommendations
on  the  management  actions  required
for  these  sites.

Catalyser effect
Many  LIFE-Nature  projects  have  also
been  recognised  for  their  significant
catalytic  effect  in  initiating  the  long-
term  conservation  management  of
SPAs.  This,  they  have  achieved
through  a  range  of   different
approaches  in  engaging  local
stakeholders,  demonstrating  what  the
conservation  actions  mean  in  practice
and  identifying  additional  long-term
sources  of   revenue,  for  instance,
through  the  Rural  Development
Programme.  Some  projects  have
done  this  at  the  level  of  the
individual  sites  themselves,  others
have  been  more  strategic  in  nature.

In  the  west  of   Ireland  for

instance,  a  LIFE-Nature  project  has
set  out  to  demonstrate  how
conservation  friendly  practices  for
key  bird  species  such  as  the
corncrake  can  be  integrated  into  the
national  agri-environment  schemes.
Contact  was  made  with  all  farmers  in
the  Termoncarragh  SPA  to  persuade
them  to  test  different  techniques  on
their  land  in  exchange  for  an  annual
management  fee.  Eventually,  with
the  help  of   its  partner,  Teagasc,  the
national  farm  advisory  body  in
Ireland,  it  managed  to  sign  up  87%
of   the  farmers.

Once  this  was  done,  the  project
set  out  to  demonstrate  these  adapted
farming  techniques  to  a  wider
audience.  It  organised  regular  field
visits  to  Termoncarragh  for  farmers  in

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

LIFE-Nature expenditure,
species-oriented projects

Steppe birds
(6%)

Meadow birds
(3%)

Forest birds
(8%)

Endemics
(4%)

Marine birds
(25%)

Raptors
(33%)

Water birds
(34%)

heavily  over-subscribed,  demonstrat-
ing  the  value  of   such  targeted
sources  of   funding  to  help  inform
and  implement  the  Birds  Directive.

Coverage of LIFE-Nature
projects
By  2003,  over  300  LIFE-Nature
projects  had  been  funded  on
threatened  bird  species  and  their
habitats  across  the  EU.  Collectively
these  projects  contributed  around
€350  million  to  bird  conservation,
€200  million  of  which  came  from
LIFE.  As  a  result,  the  majority  of   the
194  species  listed  in  Annex  I  of  the
Birds  Directive  and  all  except  seven
of  the  priority  species  have  been
targeted  by  at  least  one  or  more  LIFE
projects.

The  projects  also  kick  started  the

conservation  management  and
restoration  of   over  400  SPAs,
representing  close  to  13%  of   the  SPA
network.  Amongst  the  most  common
habitats  to  be  featured  in  the  LIFE-
Nature  projects  are,  unsurprisingly,
wetlands.  In  Spain  alone,  21  of  the
39  Spanish  Ramsar  sites  have  been
included  in  a  LIFE-Nature  project  so
far.  Other  habitats  such  as  forests,
steppic  areas,  coastal  and  marine
communities  are  nevertheless  also
well  represented.

Type of actions funded under
LIFE-Nature projects
The  range  of  activities  funded  under
LIFE-Nature  projects  is  very  wide
indeed.  It  has  involved,  amongst
others,  scientific  research,
management  planning,  habitat
restoration,  land  acquisition,
initiation  of   recurring  management,
reintroduction  of   bird  species,  testing
of  new  techniques,  monitoring,
stakeholder  dialogue  and  public
awareness.

NATURA 2000 18 (cid:127) OCTOBER 2004 17
NATURA 2000 18 (cid:127) OCTOBER 2004 17

LIFE FOR BIRDS
continued

neighbouring  regions  (around  200
so  far)  and  training  courses  for
planners  and  ecologists  from
different  farming  associations  and
authorities.

This  demonstration  area  is  now
well  known  across  Ireland.  Thanks
to  its  high  profile  and  the  success  of
the  demonstration  training  days,
decision-makers  are  now  actively
discussing  the  inclusion  of
conservation  orientated  measures  in
the  new  Agri-environment  schemes
as  of  2006.

Taking a strategic approach
Another  notable  feature  of   LIFE-
Nature  projects  is  that  they  have  the
unique  advantage  of  being  able  to
support  actions  that  address  a
particular  conservation  problem
facing  certain  species  across  a
significant  proportion  of  their
population  or  range.

Many  large  birds  of   prey  have

been  targeted  in  this  way.  One
project  in  Aragon  Spain,  for
instance,  is  addressing  the  problem
of  electric  power  lines  which  run
across  significant  parts  of   the  SPA
network  and  are  a  major  cause  of
mortality  for  raptor  species,  such  as
a  the  Spanish  Imperial  Eagle  or
Bonelli’s  Eagle.  Focusing  on  16  of

these  SPAs  the  project  is  working
with  the  electricity  companies  to
adapt  the  existing  power  lines  over
350  km  in  order  to  remove  the  risk
of  electrocution  and  collision.
Similar  projects  have  been  funded
elsewhere  in  Spain  and  now  also  in
Italy  and  have,  collectively,  had  a
significant  effect  on  the  survival  rate
of   some  of   Europe’s  rarest  birds  of
prey.

This  strategic  approach  can  also
work  at  the  level  of  individual  sites
which  have  different  conservation
threats  and  multifunctional  uses,  yet
harbour  the  same  species.  In  the
UK,  two  LIFE-Nature  projects  have
targeted  the  entire  national
population  of   bittern.  Working  in
partnership  with  a  range  of  public
authorities,  water  companies  and
NGOs,  the  project  aims  not  only  to
optimise  the  breeding  potential  for
bittern  in  existing  SPAs  which
already  harbour  the  species  but  also
to  create  the  right  conditions  for  the
recolonisation  of   a  further  11  sites.
The  ultimate  aim  is  to  establish  a
more  extensive  network  of
strategically  located  and  self
sustaining  sites  across  the  UK.

Passing  on  best  practice
experiences
Finally,  the  very  practical  and
‘hands-on’  nature  of   the  LIFE
projects  has  generated  a  wealth  of

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

18 NATURA 2000 18 (cid:127) OCTOBER 2004

Black Grouse. Photo: Jorma Luhta

good  management  practices  and
techniques  which  can  be  very  useful
for  site  managers  dealing  with
similar  conservation  issues
elsewhere.  To  promote  greater
networking  and  exchange  of  project
experiences,  the  Commission
introduced  in  2002  a  new  type  of
project  called  ‘co-op’.

So  far  3  Coop  projects  have  been
approved  for  birds.  The  first  aims  to
produce  a  handbook  for  actions  to
promote  Bittern  conservation  in
Europe,  the  second  is  examining  the
issues  surrounding  grouse
conservation  and  tourism  in  Natura
2000  sites  and  the  third  is  evaluating
best  practices  for  Little  Bustard
conservation  in  Western  Europe.  All
will  use  the  practical  experiences  of
selected  LIFE-Nature  projects  to  feed
into  this  process  and  will
disseminate  the  results  to  a  wider
audience.

Conclusions
These  projects  illustrate  some  of  the
achievements  of   LIFE-Nature
projects  in  supporting  the
implementation  of  the  Birds
Directive  and  in  improving  the
conservation  status  of  Europe’s  most
vulnerable  species.  Whether
working  at  the  level  of  an
individual  site  or  a  whole  suite  of
sites,  or  at  the  level  of  the  species
across  a  significant  part  of  its
natural  range,  the  actions  funded
under  LIFE  remain  unique  in  that
they  focus  on  the  all-important  gap
between  policy  and  practice.  There
is  a  need  to  now  build  on  the
experience  of  LIFE  as  we  work  to
halt  the  decline  of  Europe’s  bird
species  by  2010.

BIODIVERSITY

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

of  birds  in  the  European  Union,  the
number  of   threatened  bird  species,
most  of   which  are  listed  in  Annex  I
of   the  Directive,  has  increased  by
10%  in  the  last  ten  years  alone.

Birds in a wider biodiversity context
In 2001, European leaders set
themselves an ambitious target to
halt biodiversity decline by the year
2010. This objective is now
enshrined in both the EU’s
Sustainable Development Strategy
and its 6th Environment Action
Programme. The Birds Directive is
one of the key delivery mechanisms
for achieving this target, particularly
for vulnerable and threatened
species. However, with most of
Europe’s biodiversity located in the
wider countryside, there is also an
increasingly urgent need to look
beyond site protection in order to
find ways of better integrating nature
conservation requirements into other
EU land-use policies and practices.

The  Directive  has  not,  however,
been  effective  in  conserving  birds  in
the  wider  countryside.  Yet,  one  of
their  main  threats,  today,  comes
from  the  continued  unsustainable
land-use  practices  and  developments
across  much  of  rural  Europe,  a  fact
borne  out  by  the  alarming  rate  of
decline  of   many  of   Europe’s  more
familiar  birds.  Recent  surveys  by
BirdLife  have  shown  that  the  overall
decline  outside  protected  areas  is
now  at  record  levels,  with  46%  of
the  524  birds  in  Europe  in  trouble
up  from  38%  just  ten  years  ago.  As
birds  are  valuable  indicators  of   what
is  happening  to  biodiversity,  the
problems  and  pressures  they  are
facing  are  symptomatic  of   what  is
happening  to  other  forms  of   wildlife
in  Europe.

What’s happening to
Europe’s birds
The  Birds  Directive  places  a  general
duty  on  Member  States  to  maintain
populations  of  all  naturally
occurring  birds  in  the  wild  within
the  EU.  As  the  previous  articles
illustrate,  this  has  proven  to  be
effective  in  many  ways.  It  has  led  to
the  establishment  of   an  already
extensive  network  of  Special
Protection  Areas  across  the  EU  to
conserve  Europe’s  most  vulnerable
as  well  as  migratory  birds.  It  has
also  inspired  the  development  of
International  Species  Action  Plans
for  Europe’s  most  critically
endangered  species,  which  have,  in
turn,  benefited  from  targeted  funds
such as LIFE.

The  results  speak  for  themselves.

According  to  a  new  report  by
BirdLife  International  on  the  status

Farmland  birds  are  amongst  the

worst  hit,  especially  in  countries
with  a  higher  proportion  of  intensive
agricultural  use.  There  is  also  the
problem  of  land  abandonment  in
some  regions  of   Europe.  Long
distance  migrants  and  some  waders

30

20

10

0

-10

-20

-30

-40

Woodland birds

Farmland birds

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

have  also  suffered  badly.  As  a  result,
many  of   the  species  that  were  once
a  common  sight  in  our  countryside,
such  as  the  Lapwing,  Swallows,
Common  Snipe,  Tree  Sparrow  or
Skylark,  are  becoming  increasingly
scarce.

The need for greater
integration
If   the  target  of   halting  biodiversity
decline  by  2010  is  to  be  achieved,  it
is  clear  that  efforts  need  to  be
redoubled  to  ensure  that  current
rural  land-use  practices  in  Europe
become  more  environmentally
sustainable.  This  can  only  be  achieved
if   conservation  requirements  are
taken  fully  into  account  during  the
development  and  implementation  of
the  different  policies  and  practices
that  define  Europe’s  rural  land  uses,
be  it  in  the  farming,  fishing,  forestry,
water  resource  management  or
tourism  sectors.

Some  efforts  have  already  been
made  in  this  direction,  for  instance
with  the  targeted  use  of   agri-
environment  schemes.  There  are
now  several  examples  of  these
schemes  which  have  been
demonstrated  to  deliver  significant
benefits  for  birds  and  biodiversity.

Wetland birds

Pan-European wild bird
indicator.1

1  From  DG  Environment’s
2004  “EU  environment
related  indicators”  and
based  on  data  from
BirdLife  International,
the  European  Bird
Census  Council  and
Wetlands  International.

NATURA 2000 18 (cid:127) OCTOBER 2004 19

BIODIVERSITY
continued

However,  these  generally  remain  the
exception  rather  than  the  rule.

Nevertheless,  with  the  adoption

(cid:127)

of  the  EU’s  Sustainable
Development  Strategy  and  recent
reforms  in  Europe’s  rural
development  policies,  new
opportunities  are  emerging  for
securing  better  integration.  The
recent  reform  of   the  Common
Agricultural  Policy  has,  for  instance:
introduced  agricultural  support  in
(cid:127)
the  form  of   a  Single  Farm
Payment  which  is  decoupled
from  production  levels.
placed  greater  emphasis  on
cross-compliance  by  ensuring
that  the  Single  Farm  Payment  is
linked  to  the  respect  of   the  Birds
and  Habitats  Directives,
increased  the  amount  of   money
available  for  the  Rural
Development  Programme,  by
shifting  of   funds  within  the  CAP,
which  is  expected  to  add  €1.3
billion  a  year  to  Rural
Development  funds  .  This  will
now  allow  for  enhanced  agri-
environmental  schemes  and  a
specific  support  scheme  destined
to  agricultural  and  forest  sites
within  Natura  2000.
continued  the  application  of
good  farming  practice,  that  all
recipients  of   support  under  rural
development  measures  need  to
apply

(cid:127)

(cid:127)

The  challenge  will  be  to  ensure

that  these  opportunities  are  fully
exploited  for  the  benefit  of  Europe’s
biodiversity.  This  will  only  be
possible  if  it  has  the  active
involvement  and  support  of
European  farmers,  fishermen,
foresters,  etc.  who  are  after  all  the

K
H

-
A
A
-
0
4
-
0
0
2
-
E
N
-
C

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

main  managers  of  these  natural
resources.  Recent  examples  of
effective  stakeholder  dialogue  and
partnerships,  such  as  the  Sustainable
Hunting  Initiative,  or  through  LIFE-
Nature  projects,  provide  invaluable
advice  and  in  how  to  achieve  this.
We  need  to  build  upon  these
experiences.

The international context
The  decline  in  many  long  distance
migrants  brings  to  attention  another
important  factor  of  bird  conservation.
As  factors  operating  outside  the  EU
also  determine  the  conservation
status  of   these  species  there  is  a
need  for  international  cooperation
and  coordination  to  secure  their
conservation  across  their  entire
flyway.  The  African-Eurasian
Migratory  Waterbird  Agreement
(AEWA),  is  a  good  example  of   such
international  collaboration.  It
establishes  a  framework  in  which
117  countries  can  work  together  to
save  235  migratory  waterbird
species  across  their  entire  range.
Many  Member  States  have  already
ratified  this  important  agreement.
The  Commission  has  recently
proposed  that  the  Community  does
likewise,  giving  greater  effect  to
the  role  and  commitment  of  the  EU
in  international  waterbird
conservation.

Meeting the 2010 target and
beyond
So,  in  conclusion,  much  has  clearly
been  achieved  for  bird  conservation
in  Europe  thanks  to  the  Birds
Directive.  But  there  is  still  a  lot  to  do
to  halt  the  continuing  decline  of
Europe’s  birds  and  biodiversity  by
2010.  Renewed  efforts  will  be  required
to  complete  the  SPA  network  and  to
secure  the  long  term  management  of
these  areas.  Species  protection
provisions  will  also  need  to  be  re-
enforced  and  extended  to  beyond  the
EU  frontiers  through  international
cooperation  and  collaboration.

Moreover,  the  implementation  of

the  Birds  Directive  in  the  wider
countryside  also  now  needs  to  move
centre  stage.  With  the  recent
enlargement  of   the  European  Union
and  changes  in  EU  rural  policies,
there  are  more  opportunities  than
ever  to  better  integrate  bird
conservation  requirements  into  wider
rural  land-uses.  The  onus  is  now  on
all  of  us  to  seize  these  opportunities
and  work  in  close  partnership  with
the  different  land  users  to  secure
more  sustainable  land-use  practices
across  Europe.  Only  then  will
Europe’s  biodiversity  be  recognised
as  a  truly  integral  part  of  our  rich
and  diverse  living  landscape,  and  the
shared  responsibility  of   all.  Here’s  to
the  next  25  years….!

NATURA 2000 NEWSLETTER
Editors: Kerstin Sundseth (Ecosystems LTD., Brussels) and Nicholas Hanley (DG ENV B2)
The following contributed to this issue: Micheal O’Briain, Anne Teller, Thierry de l’Escaille,
Szabolcs  Nagy,  Yves  Lecocq,  Nicole  Nowicki,  Clairie  Papazoglou,  Carlos  Romao,  Zoltan
Waliczky, Andras Demeter, Frank Vassen, Simon Goss, Konstantin Kreiser.
This newsletter is produced twice a year and is available in English, French, German, Spanish
and  Italian.  To  be  included  in  the  mailing  list  just  log  on  to  http://europa.eu.int/comm/
environment/news/natura/index_en
Alternatively you can consult DG ENV’s homepage: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/
nature/home.htm where you will find this newsletter and other documents relating to the
EU’s conservation policy.
For details on LIFE projects go to http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/home.htm

The  Natura  2000  newsletter  does  not
necessarily  reflect  the  official  views  of  the
European  Commission.  Reproduction  is
authorised, except for commercial purposes,
provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed  on  Cyclus®Print  115gr/m 2 100%
recycled paper.

Design: Nature Conservation Bureau, UK.

20 NATURA 2000 18 (cid:127) OCTOBER 2004