Transcript Birds as a tool for protection of nature in Europe

Birds as a tool for the protection of
nature in Europe
Borut Rubinič, BirdLife International
DOPPS BirdLife Slovenia
Outline
• Why birds?
• BirdLife International - standards in research
and conservation – IBA
• Birds Directive and Natura 2000 – legal issues
• Case work
Why birds?
Because they are good indicators!
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Widespread & mobile - all habitats, worldwide
High diversity, but easy to identify & survey
Long time series of surveys & lots of information
High in food chains & sensitive to change
Better known than any other group
Can faithfully reflect trends in other biodiversity
Generally well accepted by the public & decision makers
Useful to raise awareness of biodiversity issues
*All this after R.Gregory
Birds have led the way in
delivering the first operational
biodiversity indicators in Europe
European Union has adopted a
wild bird index as a Structural
and Sustainable Development
Indicator
Population index (1980 = 100)
110
100
90
80
70
Farmland birds
60
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
Year
Wild bird indicator for Europe
(based on breeding bird data from 18 countries, 1980-2003 *EBCC and BLI)
140
Population Index (1980=100)
Other common birds (25)
+28%
120
100
Common forest birds (33)
-13%
80
-28%
Common farmland birds (19)
60
40
1980
1985
1990
1995
Year
2000
2005
Birds across the World
• 9600 species
• In the last 200 years 76
have been extinct
• Of 526 species recorded
in Europe, 195 are
threatened
• 35 European bird
species are threatened
with extinction
Birds across the World
• We can assure survival
of most threatened
species by protecting
their habitats
• BirdLife International
established Important
Bird Areas (IBA) which
are the basis for Special
Protected Areas (SPA)
within the Natura 2000
network
Birds Directive (79/409/EEC)
• One of the oldest and most important
directives for nature protection in EU
• Basic goal of the Directive is protection of all
the wild bird species within EU
• Birds from the Annex I are treated specially
Birds Directive (79/409/EEC)
• Article 4 of the Directive – identification of the
geographical areas for protection of birds (followed
in practice by IBA and SPA)
• Obligative for the EU. EC encourages /demands the
implementation and incorporation of the Directive in
national legislation before the accession into EU.
BirdLife International
•
•
•
•
•
Currently 106 countries
> 1 million members in Europe
RSPB > 1 million members
Mission: protection of birds and their habitats
1989 BLI launches the IBA programme
BirdLife International
IBA
• A: globally important IBA
• B: regionaly (continental level) important IBA
• C: IBA important in EU
Legal basis
BIRDS DIRECTIVE
HABITAT DIRECTIVE
Article 4.1.
Article 6.1.
The species mentioned in Annex I shall be the subject
of special conservation measures concerning their
habitat in order to ensure their survival and
reproduction in their area of distribution. In this
connection, account shall be taken of:
(a) species in danger of extinction;
 C1
…
Member States shall classify in particular the most
suitable territories in number and size as special
protection areas for the conservation of these species
in the geographical sea and land area where this
Directive applies.  C6
Article 4.2.
Member States shall take similar measures for
regularly occurring migratory species not listed in
Annex I C3, bearing in mind their need for
protection in the geographical sea and land area
where this Directive applies, as regards their breeding,
moulting and wintering areas and staging posts along
their migration routes. To this end, Member States
shall pay particular attention to the protection of
wetlands and particularly to wetlands of international
importance.  C4
“For special areas of conservation, Member States
shall establish the necessary conservation
measures…
…which correspond to the ecological requirements
of the natural habitat types in Annex I and the
species in Annex II present on the sites.
Article 6.2.
Member States shall take appropriate steps to
avoid, in the special areas of conservation, the
deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of
species as we11 as disturbance of the species for
which the areas have been designated…
Article 6.3.
Any plan or project not directly connected with or
necessary to the management of the site but likely
to have a significant effect thereon, either
individually or in combination with other plans or
projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment
of its implications for the site in view of the site's
conservation objectives…”
NATURA 2000 scheme
BIRDS DIRECTIVE
ANNEX I: species
ANNEX II: species
HABITAT DIRECTIVE
Special protected areas
(SPA)
ANNEX I: habitat types
ANNEX II: species
Special areas of
conservation (SAC)
NATURA 2000
C IBA categories and criteria:
European Union
C1. Species of global conservation concern
The site regularly holds significant numbers of a globally threatened species, or other species of global conservation concern.
C2. Concentrations of a species threatened at the European Union level
The site is known to regularly hold at least 1% of a flyway population or of the EU population of a species threatened at the EU level (listed on
Annex I and referred to in Article 4.1 of the EC Birds Directive).
C3. Congregations of migratory species not threatened at the EU level
The site is known to regularly hold at least 1% of a flyway population of a migratory species not considered threatened at the EU level (as referred
to in Article 4.2 of the EC Birds Directive) (not listed on Annex I).
C4. Congregatory – large congregations
The site is known to regularly hold at least 20,000 migratory waterbirds and/or 10,000 pairs of migratory seabirds of one or more species.
C5. Congregatory – bottleneck sites
The site is a ‘bottleneck’ site where at least 5,000 storks (Ciconiidae) and/or at least 3,000 raptors (Accipitriformes and Falconiformes) and/or
3,000 cranes (Gruidae) regularly pass on spring or autumn migration.
C6. Species threatened at the European Union level
The site is one of the five most important in the European region (NUTS region) in question for a species or subspecies considered threatened in
the European Union (i.e. listed in Annex I of the EC Birds Directive).
C7. Other ornithological criteria
The site has been designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA) or selected as a candidate SPA based on ornithological criteria (similar to but not
equal to C1–C6) in recognized use for identifying SPAs.
IBA’s and Natura 2000 in Slovenia
The Volovja reber case
The Volovja reber case
Foto: Aleš Jagodnik,
www.ajo.si
Tomaž Mihelič
The Volovja reber case
80 m
40 m
The Volovja reber case
The Volovja reber case
Golden Eagle flight lines in 2003 to 2007 period (155 lines)
The Volovja reber case
Golden Eagle flight lines on NW part of the planned wind-farm during survey on 8th November
2007 between 6.48 and 7.47 a.m. (15 lines)
The Volovja reber case
SPA Snežnik-Pivka (blue line) with potential hunting grounds of Golden Eagles (green areas).
Numbered are relatively continuous and thus appropriate complexes for GE hunting. After
Trontelj (2006).
The Volovja reber case
Comparison between suitable Golden Eagle hunting grounds (after the model by Trontelj 2006)
with the eagle flight lines collected during DOPPS surveys. White – suitable hunting grounds. The
rest are grounds not suitable for hunting: dark grey – open areas which are less than 1km away
from human settlements; light grey – open areas under 700 m a.s.l.; green – forests and
settlements.
The Volovja reber case
Lump sum of the Golden Eagle fly-overs through the planned individual wind turbines for the year
2007. (PL): PO – number of identified fly-overs during 2007 autumn survey; f – correcting factors of
the collected data due to different errors.
PL = PO * fa * fb * fc * fd * fe * ff = 74 * 2 * 2 * 1,3 * 1,3 * 1,3 * 20 = 13.0001
The calculation of Golden Eagle wind-turbine annual collisions on Volovja reber (PL Lump sum of
the Golden Eagle fly-overs through the planned individual wind turbines;
Stt – collision risk level for Golden Eagle for wind turbine of type V52; Fr – factor considering the
areas out od rotors reach; Su – level of collision avoiding in Golden Eagle; Sv –
percentage of wind turbines operation time)
TL = PL * Stt * Fr * (1-Su) * Sv = 13.000 * 0,132 * 0,6 * 0,02 * 0,26 = 5,4
Via Baltica case
International road corridor between Warsaw and Helsinki
Via Baltica case
Via Baltica case
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In 2007 BirdLife (OTOP – BirdLife in Poland) and a other environmental NGOs in Poland adopted decision
that Strategic Environmental Assessment is needed to minimize the effect on protected areas
In early 2006, a coalition of Polish NGOs, including OTOP submitted a complaint to the European
Commission about very serious concerns that planning for seven road projects in north-east Poland,
including Augustow Bypass, did not comply with the requirements of EU nature laws
The Commission investigated the case and sent Poland a ‘first written warning’ about eight road projects –
new roads, bypasses and upgrades all linked to the Via Baltica corridor.
Poland failed to provide a satisfactory response and in February 2007 gave contractors the green light for
forest clearance work for the Augustow and Wasilkow Bypasses.
The Commission sent Poland a ‘final written warning’. Unfortunately, Poland remained unmoved and
construction work on the two projects continued.
In response in March 2007, the Commission referred the case to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and
asked for an urgent order to stop damage which would be caused by part of the project (a compensatory
program affecting another Natura 2000 site).
An order was made in April 2007 – the first time such an order was made to protect a Natura 2000 site
from imminent damage by development – a new precedent!
Via Baltica case
Based on the results of a new study, in March 2009 the Polish Prime Minister announced that his
Government would avoid building a highway through the Rospuda Valley Natura 2000 site. Instead,
they will solve the traffic problems by building the road on an alternative route that avoids the Valley.
This decision is a great victory for Europe’s natural heritage and for all who care for it!
It clearly shows how infrastructure development and Natura 2000 can go together, provided that
there is political will and respect for the EU legislation. In recognition of this decision in April 2009 the
European Commission closed its legal case against Poland on the Rospuda Valley.