Using the Data Reported by Member States Under Article 12

Assessing the population status of birds at EU level

using the data reported by Member States under Article 12

Background

To date, only one complete assessment of the population status of birds at European Union (EU25) level has been published (BirdLife International 2004a), using a subset of the national data sets collated for the second complete assessment of the population status of birds at European level (BirdLife International 2004b). It also applied a virtually identical set of quantitative criteria to that assessment, classifying each species into one of a small number of categories, according to their population status, as summarised in the table below:

Relative regional extinction risk / EU population status / Brief description of criteria and thresholds
High / Critically Endangered (CR) / Meets any of the IUCN Red List criteria for CR
Endangered (EN) / Meets any of the IUCN Red List criteria for EN
Vulnerable (VU) / Meets any of the IUCN Red List criteria for VU
Moderate / Declining (D) / Declined by >10% in 10 years or 3 generations
Rare (R) / EU population <5,000 pairs and not marginal
Localised (L) / >90% EU population concentrated at <10 sites
Depleted (H) / Has not yet recovered from earlier declines
Low / Secure (S) / Does not currently meet of the criteria above

The criteria were based on a regional application of the IUCN Red List criteria (IUCN 2001, 2003), extended in recognition of the fact that Article 2 of the Birds Directive demands much more than avoiding extinction:

“Member States shall take the requisite measures to maintain the population of the species referred to in Article 1 [i.e. all naturally occurring wild birds in the EU] at a level which corresponds in particular to ecological, scientific and cultural requirements, while taking account of economic and recreational requirements, or to adapt the population of these species to that level.”

Subsequently, the headline result of the 2004 EU-level assessment (specifically, that only 52% of species were ‘Secure’) was used as the basis of Target 1(ii) for birds under the EU’s biodiversity strategy for 2020:

“By 2020, 50% more species assessed under the Birds Directive show a secure or improved status.”

More detailed aspects of how progress towards that target should be measured are discussed in a separate paper. The most crucial point in this context is that the method used to perform the assessment should remain the same. This implies that the method and criteria applied by BirdLife International (2004a) should again be applied at EU level to the data reported by Member States under Article 12, both in 2014 and in 2020.

Method

First, the national data sets provided by each country are combined to produce one EU-level data set, which summarises the size and trend of each species’ population and range size at EU level. Second, these data are used to evaluate each species against the five well-established IUCN Red List criteria (IUCN 2001):

·  Reduction in population size (Criterion A)

·  Restricted geographic range and continuing decline (Criterion B)

·  Small population and continuing decline (Criterion C)

·  Very small or restricted population (Criterion D)

·  Quantitative analysis, e.g. population viability analysis (Criterion E)

There are three main categories for species with a relatively high risk of extinction: Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) and Vulnerable (VU). If a species exceeds the appropriate threshold and triggers at least one criterion, it is preliminarily assigned to one of these categories.

However, following the regional application guidelines (IUCN 2003), the results of this preliminary classification may then be adjusted if there are populations outside the EU that could affect the species’ regional extinction risk – for example, by exerting a ‘rescue effect’, whereby immigration into the region may prevent local extinction. In these cases, the preliminary threat category may be ‘downgraded’ to a level that more accurately reflects the species’ regional extinction risk.

Having made any such adjustments, those species whose status remains listed as CR, EN or VU together constitute the EU Red List of Threatened Birds. In 2004, this list comprised 54 species (12% of the total assessed). Under a service contract, the European Commission is funding a consortium led by BirdLife International to produce an updated EU Red List by 2014, so this output represents a core deliverable.

Having applied the Red List criteria, the next step is to evaluate all other species against the ‘additional’ criteria, to identify those that are Declining, Rare, Localised or Depleted at EU level. Species classified in any of these categories can be considered to have a moderate risk of regional extinction, and their population status gives cause for concern in relation to the requirements set out in Article 2 of the Birds Directive. In 2004, 162 species (36% of the total assessed) were classified in one or other of these categories.

Any species that passes through all of these stages without triggering any Red List or ‘additional’ criteria is classified as Secure, because it is currently considered to have a relatively low risk of regional extinction.

Relationship with Article 17 results

The criteria above are negatively oriented, in the sense that they revolve largely around the relative risk of regional extinction. Conversely, the criteria for assessing the conservation status of species and habitats under the Habitats Directive are more positively oriented. The results are therefore not directly comparable.

Relationship with ‘Birds in Europe 3’

BirdLife International has already published two European assessments of the population status of all birds (Tucker & Heath 1994, BirdLife International 2004b), and intends to publish the third one in 2014. That assessment will combine data from Article 12 reporting with similar data from non-EU countries. The criteria are virtually identical to those applied at EU level (indeed, they were first applied at European level), and the first step will again generate an updated European Red List of Threatened Birds. This is also a core deliverable under the service contract between the European Commission and BirdLife International.

Beyond this, however, the application of the ‘additional’ criteria, and the subsequent clustering of species into the well-known ‘SPEC’ categories (to identify species of European conservation concern – see below), are not covered by the service contract, and will be conducted as a separate exercise by BirdLife.

Category / Global threat status
(IUCN Red List) / European population status / Global population or range concentrated (>50%) in Europe?
SPEC 1 / CR, EN, VU, NT / n/a / n/a
SPEC 2 / Least Concern / CR, EN, VU, D, R, L, H / Yes
SPEC 3 / Least Concern / CR, EN, VU, D, R, L, H / No
Non-SPECE / Least Concern / Secure / Yes
Non-SPEC / Least Concern / Secure / No

References

BirdLife International (2004a) Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. BirdLife International (Conservation Series No. 12). Cambridge, U.K.

BirdLife International (2004b) Birds in the European Union: a status assessment. BirdLife International. Wageningen, The Netherlands.

IUCN (2001) IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria - version 3.1. IUCN - The World Conservation Union. Gland, Switzerland:

IUCN (2003) Guidelines for application of IUCN Red List Criteria at regional levels: Version 3.0. IUCN Species Survival Commission. Gland, Switzerland & Cambridge, U.K.

Tucker, G.M. & Heath, M.F. (1994) Birds in Europe: their conservation status. BirdLife International (Conservation Series No. 3). Cambridge, U.K.