The Conservation Status and Trends of Raptors and Owls in Europe

Transcription

1 The Conservation Status and Trends of Raptors and Owls in Europe Author(s): Ian J. Burfield Source: AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 37(6): Published By: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences URL: %5D2.0.CO%3B2 BioOne ( is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne s Terms of Use, available at Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.

2 Ian J. Burfield The Conservation Status and Trends of Raptors and Owls in Europe To conserve biodiversity efficiently, an international framework is needed to ensure that national priorities take into account regional and global priorities. BirdLife International has published five comprehensive assessments of the global status of the world s birds and two evaluations of the status of Europe s birds at a continental level. This paper analyzes the results of these assessments in relation to Europe s 56 species of raptors and owls, 18% of which are of global conservation concern, and 64% of which have an unfavorable conservation status in Europe. The European Union (EU) holds half of the total estimated European breeding population of raptors and owls, and European Russia supports another third, but every European country has a responsibility for at least two species of European conservation concern. During the 1990s, more raptors increased than decreased in most EU member states, but the opposite was true in eastern Europe, where many of the most threatened species are concentrated. Given the popularity of these species with the public, and the political commitment to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010, much more action is needed to monitor and conserve birds of prey. INTRODUCTION The main objective of conservation is to prevent global extinction, followed by the need to maintain existing populations and distributions, and hence diversity. To achieve this efficiently, it is necessary to identify those species that are threatened at global, regional, and national levels. Although lists of nationally threatened species have been produced for many countries, purely national conservation aims and speciesselection criteria often differ from those that are appropriate at global or regional scales. If national conservation priorities are to contribute to the conservation of continental and global biodiversity, then an international framework is needed. BirdLife International (formerly ICBP, the International Council for Bird Preservation) has been responsible for assessing the status of all of the world s birds (; species) for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List since To date, BirdLife has published five complete assessments of the global status of the world s birds (1 5) and two assessments of the conservation status of Europe s birds (;520 species) at a continental level (6, 7). At both scales, these assessments have included all species of raptors and owls that occur regularly in the wild in Europe. Given the important ecological role of these species, their high profile and popularity with the public, and the political commitment to halt biodiversity loss in Europe by 2010, it is timely to review their conservation status and trends. This paper summarizes the results of these various status assessments for birds of prey across Europe, highlights changes over the last two decades, and identifies the most urgent priorities for monitoring and conservation. MATERIALS AND METHODS At a global level, BirdLife is the official Red List Authority for birds for the IUCN Red List (8). After several revisions of the Ambio Vol. 37, No. 6, September 2008 Ural Owl Strix uralensis nest in nestbox (Photo: P. Saurola). criteria and categories, the IUCN Red List is now widely recognized as the most objective and authoritative system for classifying species by their risk of extinction. There are three principal categories for species with a relatively high risk of extinction: critically endangered (CR), endangered (EN), and vulnerable (VU). Species are assigned to a category if they meet the appropriate quantitative threshold for at least one of five criteria (9). Those close to meeting the thresholds for vulnerable are classified as near threatened (NT). All other extant species are classified as least concern (LC), unless there is inadequate Box 1. Categorizing Species of European Conservation Concern (SPECs) and Non-SPECs SPEC 1. European species of global conservation concern (i.e., classified as critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable, near threatened, or data deficient at a global level). SPEC 2. Species having global populations concentrated in Europe and an unfavorable conservation status in Europe (i.e., classified as critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable, declining, rare, depleted, localized, or data deficient at a European level). SPEC 3. Species having global populations not concentrated in Europe but an unfavorable conservation status in Europe (i.e., classified as critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable, declining, rare, depleted, localized, or data deficient at a European level). Non-SPECE. Species having global populations concentrated in Europe but a favorable conservation status in Europe (i.e., classified as secure at a European level). (Non-SPECE in BirdLife International [7] corresponds with SPEC 4 in Tucker and Heath [6]. The name of the category was changed because the species it contains are not SPECs.) Non-SPEC. Species having global populations not concentrated in Europe and a favorable conservation status in Europe (i.e., classified as secure at a European level). Ó Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

3 Table 1. Population estimates, trends, and conservation status of the 56 species of raptors and owls breeding in Europe. Scientific name European breeding population size (pairs) Global population in Europe (%) EU Birds Directive Annex I Species Action Plan 1988 (1) Global IUCN Red List threat status assessments 1994 (2) 2000 (3) 2004 (4) 2008 (5) Pernis apivorus Yes Elanus caeruleus ,5 Yes Milvus migrans Yes Milvus milvus Yes T NT Haliaeetus albicilla Yes Yes T NT NT NT Gypaetus barbatus Yes Yes NT Neophron percnopterus Yes EN Gyps fulvus Yes Aegypius monachus Yes Yes T NT NT NT NT Circaetus gallicus Yes Circus aeruginosus Yes Circus cyaneus Yes Circus macrourus Yes Yes NT NT NT NT Circus pygargus Yes Accipiter gentilis Yes 3 Yes 3 Accipiter nisus Yes 4 Yes 4 Accipiter badius 10 50,5 Accipiter brevipes Yes Buteo buteo Buteo rufinus Yes Buteo lagopus Aquila pomarina Yes Yes Aquila clanga Yes Yes VU VU VU VU Aquila nipalensis ,5 Aquila heliaca Yes Yes T VU VU VU VU Aquila adalberti Yes Yes T VU VU EN VU Aquila chrysaetos Yes Hieraaetus pennatus Yes Hieraaetus fasciatus Yes Yes Pandion haliaetus Yes Falco naumanni Yes Yes T VU VU VU VU Falco tinnunculus Falco vespertinus Yes NT Falco columbarius Yes Falco subbuteo Falco eleonorae Yes Yes Falco biarmicus ,5 Yes Yes Falco cherrug ,5 Yes Yes NT EN EN Falco rusticolus ,5 Yes Yes NT Falco peregrinus Yes Falco pelegrinoides 75 80,5 Tyto alba Otus brucei 10 50,5 Otus scops Bubo bubo Yes Bubo scandiaca Yes Ketupa zeylonensis 1 10,5 Surnia ulula Yes Glaucidium passerinum Yes Athene noctua Strix aluco Strix uralensis Yes Strix nebulosa Yes Asio otus Asio flammeus Yes Aegolius funereus Yes 1 Large increase (or decline): population increased (or declined) in size or range by 20% in 66% of the population, or by 50% in 25% of the population. Moderate increase (or decline): population increased (or declined) in size or range by 20% in 33 65% of the population, or by 50% in 12 24% of the population. Stable: population underwent neither a moderate nor large increase (or decline). 2 Large increase (or decline): 30% population change. Moderate increase (or decline): 10 29% population change. Small increase (or decline): 0 9% population change. Stable: population underwent neither a small nor moderate nor large increase (or decline). 3 A. g. arrigonii only (Corsica and Sardinia). 4 A. n. granti only (Canary Islands and Madeira). 5 Parentheses indicate that the status is provisional, reflecting data limitations at the time of the assessment. information to assess their extinction risk, in which case they are listed as data deficient (DD). At a European level, BirdLife s first review (6) collated national population estimates for each species from around 1990, presented population and range trends for the period , and then combined them to calculate each species European population size and trend. The geographical scope included Greenland and the Macaronesian islands, as well as European Russia (east to the Urals), Turkey, and the Caucasus. A set of quantitative criteria (developed from the provisions of the EU Birds Directive [10]) was then applied to these data to determine whether each species European threat status (ETS) was endangered (E), vulnerable (V), rare (R), declining (D), localized (L), secure (S), or insufficiently known (I). Finally, depending on its global status (2), its ETS, and the proportion of its global population or range in Europe, each species was assigned to one of five categories (Box 1), to identify whether it was a Species of European Conservation Concern (SPEC). 402 Ó Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2008 Ambio Vol. 37, No. 6, September 2008

4 Table 1. Extended. European conservation status assessments Tucker and Heath (6) BirdLife International (7) European breeding population trend SPEC category 1994 European threat status European breeding population trend SPEC category 2004 European threat status 5 Common name Stable 4 S Stable E (S) European honey-buzzard Large increase 3 V Small increase 3 R Black-winged kite Large decline 3 V Large decline 3 (VU) Black kite Stable 4 S Moderate decline 2 D Red kite Large increase 3 R Large increase 1 R White-tailed eagle Stable 3 E Moderate decline 3 (VU) Lammergeier Large decline 3 E Large decline 3 EN Egyptian vulture Large increase 3 R Large increase S Griffon vulture Moderate increase 3 V Large increase 1 R Cinereous vulture Stable 3 R Small decline 3 (R) Short-toed snake-eagle Large increase S Moderate increase S Western marsh harrier Large decline 3 V Small decline 3 H Northern harrier Large decline 3 E Large decline 1 (EN) Pallid harrier Large increase 4 S Moderate increase E S Montagu s harrier Large increase S Moderate increase S Northern goshawk Large increase S Small increase S Eurasian sparrowhawk Unknown (S) Stable (S) Shikra Stable 2 R Moderate decline 2 (VU) Levant sparrowhawk Moderate increase S Small increase S Common buzzard Large decline 3 (E) Large decline 3 (VU) Long-legged buzzard Stable S Stable (S) Rough-legged hawk Stable 3 R Moderate decline 2 (D) Lesser spotted eagle Large decline 1 E Large decline 1 EN Greater spotted eagle Large decline 3 V Large decline 3 (EN) Steppe eagle Large decline 1 E Stable 1 R Eastern imperial eagle Large increase 1 E Small increase 1 (EN) Spanish imperial eagle Stable 3 R Stable 3 R Golden eagle Stable 3 R Stable 3 (R) Booted eagle Large decline 3 E Large decline 3 EN Bonelli s eagle Moderate increase 3 R Moderate increase 3 R Osprey Large decline 1 (V) Small decline 1 H Lesser kestrel Moderate decline 3 D Moderate decline 3 D Common kestrel Large decline 3 V Large decline 3 (VU) Red-footed falcon Stable S Stable (S) Merlin Stable S Stable (S) Eurasian hobby Stable 2 R Moderate decline 2 D Eleonora s falcon Large decline 3 (E) Moderate decline 3 VU Lanner falcon Large decline 3 E Large decline 1 EN Saker falcon Stable 3 V Stable 3 (R) Gyr falcon Moderate increase 3 R Moderate increase S Peregrine falcon Stable S Moderate increase S Barbary falcon Moderate decline 3 D Moderate decline 3 (D) Barn owl Unknown (S) Large decline 3 CR Pallid scops-owl Moderate decline 2 (D) Unknown 2 (H) Common scops-owl Large decline 3 V Stable 3 (H) Eurasian eagle-owl Stable 3 V Stable 3 (R) Snowy owl Unknown (S) Large decline 3 CR Brown fish-owl Stable (S) Stable (S) Northern hawk-owl Stable (S) Stable S Eurasian pygmy owl Moderate decline 3 D Moderate decline 3 (D) Little owl Stable 4 S Stable E S Tawny owl Stable (S) Stable (S) Ural owl Stable S Unknown (S) Great grey owl Stable S Stable (S) Long-eared owl Large decline 3 (V) Stable 3 (H) Short-eared owl Stable (S) Stable (S) Boreal owl The methods used for the second European assessment (7) were virtually identical to the first and involved collating updated population estimates from around 2000 and trend data for the period Increased political stability in the Balkans and the Caucasus allowed data to be gathered from all the countries in these regions for the first time. The criteria applied to determine each species ETS were revised slightly, primarily to take into account the new guidelines for applying the IUCN Red List Criteria at a regional level (11). This involved replacing the criteria used to classify species as endangered or vulnerable in (6) with the IUCN Red List Criteria (9). The other ETS criteria were retained unchanged, except for the addition of a new depleted (H) criterion to highlight species that declined significantly during and did not recover during , even though their decline slowed or ceased. Regardless of their ETS, all species classified as CR, EN, VU, or NT at global level (4) were allocated to SPEC 1, to ensure that all European species of global conservation concern received equal recognition, and to ensure consistency with the criteria used to identify Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in Europe (12). For full details of these minor changes, and the method used to calculate each species overall European population size and trend, see the BirdLife International report Birds in Europe: Population Estimates, Trends and Conservation Status (7) and Table 1. Ambio Vol. 37, No. 6, September 2008 Ó Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

5 each of which has almost 6%, followed by Poland, Ukraine, and United Kingdom, each with 3%. Together, the 27 EU member states (EU27) hold 50% of the total European population of raptors and owls. Recent Trends Considering trends in breeding numbers of these species between 1990 and 2000, virtually every country held some species that declined, some that increased, and some that were stable (Fig. 1). Overall, the total number of national populations that declined was the same as that which increased (24%), while 43% were stable, and 9% had unknown trends. However, these trends varied markedly between countries. More than 40% of the species breeding in Turkey (72%), Albania (71%), Malta (67%), Croatia (46%), Moldova (43%), and Ukraine (40%) declined during the 1990s. At the same time, more than 40% of those breeding in Hungary (63%), France (55%), Poland (52%), Czech Republic (44%), United Kingdom (42%), and Iceland (40%) increased. Overall, 21 of the 29 countries that held more increasing than declining populations were EU member states (including 12 of the first 15 member states). Conversely, all but six of the 19 countries that held more declining than increasing populations are in eastern Europe and are not yet part of the European Union. Figure 1. The number and trends ( ) of raptors and owls breeding in each European country. * denotes EU member states. RESULTS Population Estimates Based on the data collected and published in the BirdLife International report (7), Europe holds 41 regularly breeding species of raptors with a total estimated population of million pairs, ranging from Shikra Accipiter badius (10 50 pairs; confined in Europe to Azerbaijan) to Common Buzzard Buteo buteo ( pairs), and 15 species of owls with a total estimated population of million pairs, ranging from Brown Fish-owl Ketupa zeylonensis (1 10 pairs, confined in Europe to Turkey) to Little Owl Athene noctua ( pairs). Table 1 summarizes all these data. The 27 EU member states hold 39 species of raptors with a total estimated population of million pairs, ranging from Pallid Harrier Circus macrourus (0 6 pairs) to Buteo buteo ( pairs), and 13 species of owls with a total estimated population of million pairs, ranging from Snowy Owl Bubo scandiaca (0 22 pairs) to Tawny Owl Strix aluco ( pairs). Every European country holds breeding populations of at least three species of raptor or owl (Fig. 1). Russia tops the list with 47 breeding species (84% of all those occurring in Europe), followed by Turkey (43; 77%), Spain (42; 75%), and Ukraine (40; 71%). However, there is no clear cutoff point, and no fewer than 25 countries hold breeding populations of at least half (28) of Europe s raptors and owls. Given its size, and the variety of the habitats it retains, it is hardly surprising that Russia harbors such a high diversity of breeding raptors and owls. This is also reflected in terms of population size (Fig. 2). If we sum the geometric means of the national population estimates in the BirdLife International report, we find that Russia supports 31% of the total European breeding population of these 56 species. France ranks second, with a slightly higher proportion (9.5%) than Turkey (9%); next come Spain, Romania, and Germany, Global Threat Status Based on BirdLife s latest assessment for the 2008 IUCN Red List (5, 8), 52 European bird species are of global conservation concern (CR ¼ 6, EN ¼ 7, VU ¼ 12, NT ¼ 26, DD ¼ 1). Ten (19%) of these species are raptors, which are therefore disproportionately threatened (only 8% of Europe s birds are raptors, so by chance, one would expect only four species to be globally threatened). However, no European owls are classified as being of global concern (Table 1). The number of European raptors on the IUCN Red List increased by almost half between 1994 and 2008 (from seven to ten), reflecting genuine reductions in species population sizes during the last decade. The European raptors most threatened globally are Saker falcon Falco cherrug and Egyptian vulture Neophron percnopterus, which are listed as endangered. Four species are listed as vulnerable: three Aquila eagles (greater spotted A. clanga, Eastern Imperial A. heliaca, and Spanish Imperial A. adalberti, the last of which is endemic to Iberia) and Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni. Finally, four species are listed as near threatened: Red Kite Milvus milvus (which is virtually endemic to Europe), Cinereous Vulture Aegypius monachus, Circus macrourus, and Red-footed Falcon Falco vespertinus. Thirty-nine (87%) European countries hold breeding populations of at least one of these 10 species (Fig. 3). Russia tops the list with nine (the only species it does not hold is Aquila adalberti); next come Moldova, Ukraine, and Turkey, followed by the two countries that have joined the EU most recently: Romania and Bulgaria. The only other EU member state in the top twelve is Spain, which is also the only country that is located outside eastern Europe. When considering the total population sizes of these 10 species in each country (Fig. 4), Russia heads the list, due mainly to its large population of Falco vespertinus (NT). Spain is second, reflecting its large population of Falco naumanni (VU), and Germany is third, due to its large population of Milvus milvus (NT). In fourth place is Turkey, which holds the largest population of raptors listed as endangered and (after Spain) the second largest population of species listed as vulnerable. Overall, seven of the top twelve countries are EU member states, and altogether the EU27 holds 52% of the total European population of raptors and owls of global conservation concern. 404 Ó Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2008 Ambio Vol. 37, No. 6, September 2008

6 Figure 2. The proportion of the total European population of raptors and owls breeding in each country. * denotes EU member states. In various earlier assessments, several other European raptors were also listed as being of global conservation concern. For example, Lammergeier Gypaetus barbatus and Gyr Falcon Falco rusticolus were both classified as near threatened in 1988, when White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla was listed as threatened. However, these earlier assessments applied different criteria to the more quantitative set developed by IUCN during the 1990s (9), which has been used in all assessments since Only H. albicilla met any of the current criteria and was classified as near threatened until the most recent assessment (5) showed that it had recovered sufficiently to be downlisted to least concern the only European raptor for which this has so far been possible. Unfortunately, most of the other European raptors currently listed on the global IUCN Red List are either still declining or remain heavily depleted across the continent (Table 1). European Conservation Status The results of the first European status assessment (6) revealed that 38% of the continent s avifauna were in unfavorable conservation status (SPEC 1 3) at European level. Reflecting the global pattern, the figure for raptors and owls was disproportionately high, at 62%. The situation had not improved by the time of the second assessment (7), when 43% of all European birds were in unfavorable conservation status, including 64% of raptors and owls (Fig. 5). Those most threatened at European level are Neophron percnopterus, Circus macrourus, Aquila clanga, Steppe Eagle Aquila nipalensis, Aquila adalberti, Bonelli s Eagle Hieraaetus fasciatus, Falco cherrug, Pallid Scops-owl Otus brucei, and Brown Fish-owl Ketupa zeylonensis. Every European country holds breeding populations of at least two of these 36 SPEC-listed species (Fig. 6). Turkey and Russia top the list, followed by Spain, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan. Apart from Spain, the top twelve countries are all located in eastern Europe, and most are currently outside the European Union. When considering the total population sizes of these 36 species in each country, Turkey and Russia again head the list, together holding 43% of the total European population (Fig. 7). However, seven of the other eight countries in the top ten are EU member states, and altogether the EU27 holds 49% of the total European population of SPEC-listed raptors and owls. Between the first and second European assessments, several species underwent sufficiently large changes that their European status changed from favorable to unfavorable, or vice versa (Table 1). The decline of Milvus milvus in west-central Europe Figure 3. The number of species of raptors and owls of global conservation concern (5) breeding in each country. * denotes EU member states. and Iberia led to its reclassification as SPEC 2 (and its subsequent uplisting to globally near threatened). Two owls with small European populations, Pallid Scops-owl Otus brucei and Brown Fish-owl Ketupa zeylonensis, were both reclassified as SPEC 3 on the basis of their rapid recent declines in Turkey. Over the same period, Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus and Figure 4. The total population of raptors and owls of global conservation concern (5) breeding in each country. * denotes EU member states. Ambio Vol. 37, No. 6, September 2008 Ó Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

7 Figure 5. The European conservation status of raptors and owls in relation to that of all European species in 1994 (6) and 2004 (7). Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus both continued to recover from earlier declines and staged dramatic recoveries across most of their European ranges (apart from the far southeast), to the extent that both were reclassified as non-spec. DISCUSSION The conservation status of raptors and owls in Europe is disproportionately poor and has deteriorated over the past two decades. Of the 56 species that breed regularly in Europe, 10 (18%) are of global conservation concern (5), and 36 (64%) have an unfavorable conservation status in Europe (7). Every European country holds breeding populations of at least two SPEC-listed species, and 87% support at least one species of global concern. Although not covered by this analysis, it should also be noted that some countries holding relatively few breeding species support important wintering populations of raptors and owls, while others (such as Malta and Cyprus) occupy crucial points on the flyways along which so many of these birds migrate on passage (13). This underlines the fact that every European country has a responsibility to monitor and conserve birds of prey, even though some are better endowed with breeding species than others. Some groups of raptors and owls are more threatened than others. For example, harriers Circus spp., hawks Accipiter spp., and buzzards Buteo spp. are relatively less endangered than kites Milvus spp., eagles Aquila spp., and falcons Falco spp. Similarly, owls occupying forested habitats in northern Europe are relatively less threatened than those using more open habitats in central and southern Europe. However, the three species added to the global IUCN Red List (8) most recently included a kite from west-central Europe, a vulture from southern Europe, and a falcon from eastern Europe, whilst the only species removed was an eagle concentrated in northern Europe. This variety illustrates the challenges involved in identifying generic solutions to benefit raptors and owls across Europe. One solution that does appear to work is the development and implementation of species action plans (SAPs). Over the last decade or so, SAPs for 16 European raptor species have been prepared and adopted under the various auspices of the EU Birds Directive (14), the Bern Convention, and the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). A comprehensive review of their implementation and effectiveness still needs to be conducted, but from this analysis, it is encouraging to note that, during the 1990s, more raptor populations increased than declined in 21 of the 27 EU member states, including 12 of the Figure 6. The number of species of raptors and owls of European conservation concern (7) breeding in each country. * denotes EU member states. first 15 member states. Although 12 of the current 27 member states acceded after 2000, many of them brought their national legislation into alignment with that of the EU over the last decade. That raptor trends were generally more positive in the EU than outside during the 1990s supports other evidence (15, 16) that the EU Birds Directive has played a significant role in improving the status of wild birds in member states. This finding also reinforces the need for urgent conservation action to arrest and reverse the decline of raptors and owls in eastern Europe, where they are not currently protected by such strong legislation. Russia holds almost one-third of Europe s total breeding population of raptors and owls, including populations of all but one of the species of global conservation concern, while Turkey holds almost one-quarter of the total European breeding population of SPEC-listed raptors and owls. A greater focus on monitoring and conserving birds of prey in such countries is essential if the overall decline of European raptors is to be halted and reversed. Experience from other raptor-rich countries, such as Spain and France, shows what is possible with sufficient awareness, motivation, and investment. However, as stated at the outset, maintaining species distributions is just as important as conserving their populations. All European countries with threatened raptors should therefore be encouraged to take urgent conservation action for them, before their condition deteriorates any further. The European threat status of many raptors (41%) and especially owls (73%) could be assigned only provisionally during the most recent European status assessment (7), reflecting the paucity of reliable monitoring data in many European countries. This is evident from the number of species showing unknown national trends during the 1990s (Fig. 1). The situation has improved slightly in recent years, partly through initiatives such as Monitoring Raptors and Owls of Europe (17) and the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (18). However, much remains to be done, particularly in eastern Europe, where many species are concentrated but where socioeconomic and land-use changes are likely to be most dramatic in the coming years. It should therefore be a priority to establish a 406 Ó Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2008 Ambio Vol. 37, No. 6, September 2008

8 Figure 7. The total population of raptors and owls of European conservation concern (5) breeding in each country. * denotes EU member states. more coherent network for monitoring raptors and owls across Europe, to share best practice, and add value to national data by combining and analyzing them at larger spatial scales. National governments and the EU have pledged to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010 (19). Given the current rapid decline in biodiversity, and the ever-increasing extent and intensity of many human activities, meeting this target will require unprecedented efforts with limited resources in the immediate future. As flagship species for conservation worldwide, raptors and owls are a talismanic group that the public is keen to see maintained in, or returned to, favorable conservation status. There are clear precedents from Europe showing how this is possible: for example, the removal of Haliaeetus albicilla from the IUCN Red List, and the dramatic recoveries of Gyps fulvus and Falco peregrinus. Unfortunately, many more European birds of prey declined than increased during the 1990s, which does not bode well for the 2010 target or future status assessments. If national governments, the EU, and other decision makers are serious about meeting the 2010 target by saving Europe s raptors and owls, as a unique and valuable component of the continent s biodiversity, then the time to act is now. References and Notes 1. Collar, N.J. and Andrew, P Birds to Watch: The ICBP World Checklist of Threatened Birds. Technical Publication No. 8. International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge, UK, 320 pp. 2. Collar, N.J., Crosby, M.J. and Stattersfield, A.J Birds to Watch 2: The World List of Threatened Birds. Conservation Series No. 4. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK, 407 pp. 3. BirdLife International Threatened Birds of the World. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain, and BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK, 852 pp. 4. BirdLife International Threatened Birds of the World BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK, CD-ROM. 5. BirdLife International Threatened Birds of the World BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK. CD-ROM. ( 6. Tucker, G.M. and Heath, M.F Birds in Europe: Their Conservation Status. Conservation Series No. 3. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK, 600 pp. 7. BirdLife International Birds in Europe: Population Estimates, Trends and Conservation Status. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK, 374 pp. ( birdsineurope.birdlife.org/) 8. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) The 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. ( 9. IUCN IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (version 3.1). IUCN Species Survival Commission, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK. ( iucnredlist.org/info/categories_criteria2001) 10. Council of the European Communities (CEC) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the Conservation of Wild Birds. ( legislation/birdsdirective/index_en.htm) 11. IUCN Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels (version 3.0). IUCN Species Survival Commission, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK. ( 12. Heath, M.F. and Evans, M.I Important Bird Areas in Europe: Priority Sites for Conservation. Conservation Series No. 8. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK, 1600 pp. ( 13. Convention on Migratory Species RAPTOR: A CMS Initiative to develop a Regional Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Owls and Raptors. ( 14. European Commission European Union Action Plans for Annex I bird species considered as Priority for funding under LIFE. ( nature/conservation/wildbirds/action_plans/index_en.htm) 15. Nagy, S.P. and Crockford, N.J Implementation in the European Union of Species Action Plans for 23 of Europe s Most Threatened Birds. BirdLife International, Wageningen, The Netherlands. ( wildbirds/action_plans/docs/action_plans_review.pdf) 16. Donald, P.F., Sanderson, F.J., Burfield, I.J., Bierman, S.M., Gregory, R.D. and Waliczky, Z International conservation policy delivers benefits for birds in Europe. Science 317, Mammen, U MEROS: Monitoring Raptors and Owls of Europe. ( greifvogelmonitoring.de/en/index.html) 18. European Census Council PECBMS: Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme. ( 19. IUCN Countdown 2010: Global Action for Biodiversity. ( countdown2010.org/) 20. For supplying the population and trend data on which this assessment is based, I thank all the national coordinators and contributors listed in Birds in Europe (6, 7) and the thousands of volunteers and professionals who monitor raptors and owls in the field across Europe. I am also grateful to Paola Movalli Duke for her encouragement and patience, and to Humphrey Crick, Boris Barov, András Kovacs, and Ubbo Mammen for their constructive comments on an earlier draft. Ian Burfield is the European Research Manager at BirdLife International, the world s leading authority on the status of birds and their habitats. BirdLife is a global partnership of conservation organizations active in more than 100 countries, including more than 40 in Europe. Through this network, Ian collates national population and trend data on all European bird species and assesses their conservation status. He also coordinates the identification and monitoring of Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in Europe. His address: Wellbrook Court, Girton Road, Cambridge CB3 0NA, United Kingdom. ian.burfield@birdlife.org Ambio Vol. 37, No. 6, September 2008 Ó Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences