COMPOSITE EUROPEAN COMMISSION REPORT ON DEROGATIONS IN 2007 ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 9 OF DIRECTIVE 79/409/EEC ON THE CONSERVATION OF WILD BIRDS

Transcription

1 COMPOSITE EUROPEAN COMMISSION REPORT ON DEROGATIONS IN 2007 ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 9 OF DIRECTIVE 79/409/EEC ON THE CONSERVATION OF WILD BIRDS DECEMBER

2 CONTENTS Introduction Methodology Overview of derogations across the EU Member State reports Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom ANNEX A ANNEX B

3 Introduction According to Article 9 of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC), the EU Member States (MS) may derogate from the provisions of Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8. Derogations may be issued provided that there are no other satisfactory solutions. Every year Member States (ref Art. 9.3) forward to the European Commission a specific report on the implementation of Art.9. This composite report provides an analysis of the EU Member States annual reports covering the year 2007 and an assessment of the conformity of the derogations issued with the protection measures of the Birds Directive. The report is based on the national reports submitted to the EC Commission from all of the 27 EU Member States. 3

4 1 Methodology Twenty-seven national reports on derogations issued in 2007, according to Art. 9 of the Birds Directive, have been assessed. All derogations have been systematically scrutinised looking for high numbers of licenses, species, country specific reasons or methods, allowed activities. The evaluation has been carried out in different steps: a) checking of the completeness of the national reports submitted A formal check of the reports has been carried out in order to verify whether all the needed information, specified in Art. 9.2, was provided. b) checking of the number of derogations and of licenses issued The control has been carried out to evaluate how often each MS has used this prerogative. The historical trend of the derogations issued has also been taken into consideration. When a national report does not include information on the number of licenses issued per derogation, it was assumed that only 1 license is covered by each derogation (i.e. 1 derogation = 1 license). c) checking of the reasons for which the derogations have been issued Derogations under art. 9 of the Birds Directive can be granted only for specific reasons, listed in table 1 and, more in detail, in annex A. The consistency with provisions of the Birds Directive has been verified. Derogations issued for scientific research and educational purposes and to protect wild flora and fauna and natural habitats were a priori considered as compatible with the Directive since they usually do not affect the conservation status of the species population. Only in very few cases, when the derogation included killing of individuals, they were analysed in more detail. Table 1. Main standardised codes for derogation reasons Code Reasons reported in art. 9.1 of the Birds Directive 10 (a) in the interests of public health and safety 20 (a) in the interests of air safety 30 (a) to prevent serious damage, in particular to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water 40 (a) for the protection of flora and fauna 50 (b) for the purposes of research and teaching, of re-population, of reintroduction and for the breeding necessary for these purposes 60 (c) to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers d) checking of the alternative solutions Derogation may be granted provided that no alternative solutions exist. When the national report does not provide this information, it was assumed that no alternative solutions exist. e) checking activities and methods permitted Derogations can allow only some activities, specified in arts. 5 and 6.1, listed in table 2 and, more in detail, in annex B. Derogations allowing impacting activities, such as killing of individuals, destruction of breeding sites places, were analysed in more detail in order to establish the eventual impact on the conservation status of the species concerned. 4

5 Table 2. Main standardised codes for authorized activities. Code Main permitted activity 10 Sale 20 Deliberate capture by any method 30 Deliberate killing by any method 40 Hunting 50 Keeping 80 Deliberate disturbance of these birds, particularly during the period of breeding and rearing 100 Taking of eggs in the wild and keeping these eggs even if empty 120 Deliberate destruction of, or damage to, birds nests and eggs or removal of birds nests 130 Transport for sale, keeping for sale and the offering for sale of live or dead birds and of any readily recognizable parts or derivatives of such birds Table 3. Standardised codes for methods. Codes Method BTH 1 BTH BTH BTH BD 2 BD BD BD BD BD BD BD BD BD BD BD BD BD BD BD BD BD BD BD BD BD BD Firearms Traps Nets By hand Lime Cages Snares Poison and poisoned or anesthetic bait Pricking of eggs Decoys Falconry Tape recording Bird calls Ringing Scaring devices Electrical devices capable of killing or stunning Artificial light sources Mirrors and other dazzling devices Devices for illuminating targets Sighting devices for night shooting comprising an electronic image magnifier or image converter Explosives Gassing and smoking out Semi-automatic or automatic weapons with a magazine capable of holding more than two rounds of ammunition Aircraft Motor vehicles in motion Hooks Boats driven in excess of five kilometers per hour 1 BTH means that the activity can be used for derogations under the Birds and Habitats Directives. 2 BD means that the activity can only be used under the Birds Directive. 5

6 Article 9.2 of the Birds Directive requires a derogation report to specify the means, arrangements or methods authorised for capture or killing. Member States may derogate from the provisions of prohibited methods listed in the Birds Directive (Annex IV) and reported in table 3. f) checking the species and the number of individuals affected All the species affected by derogations have been analysed in order to establish the eventual impact on their conservation status. Where significant areas of concern were identified, risking that the species conservation status might be put into question, for instance exceptionally large number of derogations for one particular species, detailed analysis of the dimension of the population, of its numerical trend and of the area of distribution at national and EU level has been carried out. For this analysis, recognised sources of information (IUCN database, Member State population assessments and action plans, scientific publications) have been used. Derogations on species for which a MS has been already warned have been examined with greater detail. In some cases there is an ambiguity on whether the data provided relate to the number of individuals actually taken, or to the maximum numbers allowed for taking. In these cases, it was assumed that data referred to individuals actually taken. 6

7 2 Overview of derogations across the EU A comparison of derogations across the EU has been made in order to draw an overall picture of the derogations granted. However, this overview should be interpreted in close connection with the analysis of the individual MS reports as often special national conditions strongly affect the overall picture and/or information on specific issues is not provided precisely. The Member States reports are very variable both in terms of the ease of understanding of the reports (format, language and readability) and the quality of the data provided. For example, an official standard model is not always used, the different standard codes for reasons, activity and method are in some cases not applied but explained in sentences of varying precision and often information on the number of individuals affected is missing. In a number of cases data provided on the species are too generic to allow for a sound assessment of the derogation. For instance, it is not uncommon that a single derogation covers several species and in some cases even a whole taxonomic group vaguely defined as e.g. Aves, or songbirds, or crows. In other cases the species are not indicated using the Latin name but with common national names. Finally some derogations concern species that are not covered by the Directive or even alien species. In total derogations were issued at EU level in 2007, an average of 187 derogations per country. The distribution of the derogations issued by the Member States is shown in Chart 1. As evident their number varies considerably country by country, from less than 10 derogations, as in the case of Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Luxemburg, Malta and Slovenia, to several hundreds in others, such as Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain. With derogations the United Kingdom is the country that issued the highest number of derogations in 2007, as in the previous biennial. On the contrary Romania did not grant derogations in the year of reference. Chart 1. Number of derogations issued by each MS in 2007 in comparison with the average of derogations issued at EU level (EU). Number of derogations AT BE BUCYCZDEDKEE EL ES FI FRHU IE IT LTLULVMTNLPL PTRO SE SI SKUK EU 7

8 The number of derogations granted by MS from 2001 to 2007 varies considerably (Charts 2 and 3). Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg and Slovenia, issued almost the same number of derogations, while other countries show very different numbers. Italy gradually increased the number of derogations during the seven years period and slightly decreased this number in last biennial. Spain follows a similar trend until 2004 and then it decreased significantly the number of derogations issued from 657 to about 300 in the last three years. Germany shows a pattern wave, maintaining an average of 518 derogations per year. A similar trend with very different numbers is shown by the United Kingdom. It follows an increasing trend until 2002, when it granted 716 derogations, then decreased significantly the number of derogations issued to 205 in 2004, re-increased substantially the number of derogations to about in 2005 and in Chart 2. Number of derogations issued by old 15 MS during the period Derogations trend old 15 MS AT BE DE DK EL ES FI FR IE IT LU NL PT SE UK No information is available on the Italian 2004 number of derogations, therefore the datum reported is an estimation. France in 2005 and 2006 increased ten times the number of derogations: from an average of 26 derogations issued each year until 2004, to 249 derogations in 2005 and 280 in 2006, then drastically decreased the number of derogations in 2007 to 81. The Netherlands substantially increase the number of derogations from 1 issued in 2001 to 270 issued in

9 Austria gradually decreased the number of derogations from 2001 to 2006/2007. On the contrary, Finland, Portugal and Sweden slightly increased the number of derogations from 2001, with a peak in Slovakia gradually increased the number of derogations during the four years period. Hungary and Poland follow a similar trend but whit higher number of derogations issued per year. The Czech Republic, after an initial increasing of derogations from 2004 to 2005, drastically reduced the number of derogations granted in the last biennial. Malta granted a relatively high number of derogations only in 2004 (96) and afterward it grant an average of 3 derogations per year. Chart 3. Number of derogations issued by new 10 MS during the period Derogations trend new 10 MS CY CZ EE HU LT LV MT PL SI SK The MS that acceded to the EU in 2007, Bulgaria and Romania, have not been considered due to the lack of information relative to the period There is a considerable difference between the number of derogations and the number of licenses issued per derogation and sometimes a single derogation covers several licenses. The main difference between the two indicators is evident in the Belgian, Cypriot, Italian, Maltese and Spanish reports. Moreover, some countries do not provide the number of licenses issued per derogation. For instance, Cyprus states individuals that were holders of a renewed hunting license for the period , or Greece states that licenses were granted to two rehabilitation centres for keeping and caring for more than wounded birds and this activity requires derogations (how many? One for each animal or one for each rehabilitation centre?). Other countries, 9

10 such as Hungary and Poland seem to indicate, even though never stated clearly, that one license per derogation has been issued. A great part of derogations was issued in the interest of protecting wild fauna and flora (code 40), allowing killing or scaring away of different species all over Europe. According to the data provided by the national reports, the derogations issued for research and education purposes, of repopulating and re-introducing these species and for the breeding operations necessary for these purposes (code 50) mostly concern inventories or study on population dynamics to increase the knowledge on species listed in the Birds Directive. The main activity carried out in the framework of this reason is the ringing of birds, carried out, for instance by Belgium, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Finland, Italy, Malta, etc. The derogations connected with the prevention of serious damage, in particular to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water (code 30) were issued for species with significant impact on different sectors, such as Phalacrocorax carbo selectively eliminated by shooting and scared away, in order to prevent damages to fish farms in some countries such as France, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, etc. Another substantial number of derogations was issued in the interests of public health and public safety (code 10). This reason is mainly used by Poland and Germany to destroy bird nests. Derogations to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers (code 60) have been issued in Belgium to the holders of 16 species of songbirds among which Fringilla coelebs and in Spain to develop canary breeding and to guarantee the feasibility of recreational activities such as traditional training in singing and participation in competitions of different passerine songbirds. Only a minor part of derogations has been issued in the interests of air safety (code 20), mainly to scare away birds, in particular Larus species from the fly fields. Among the reasons listed above, there are some derogations in a number of Member States, which seems issued with the purpose of extending the hunting season during sensitive periods for the survival of birds populations (i.e. breeding season, prenuptial migration, etc.). For instance, Malta allowed the spring hunting of Streptopelia turtur and Coturnix coturnix, Cyprus of Streptopelia turtur and Finland of Somateria mollissima, Fuligula clangula (Bucephala clangula), Mergus serrator, Mergus merganser, Melanitta fusca and Aythya fuligula. They seem to be inconsistent with Art 9 according to the European Court of Justice and the Commission has further investigated these derogations. The use of reason 50 (for research and education) is broadly distributed among the MS whereas the use of reason 10 (in the interests of public health and public safety) is more country specific and especially used in Poland. Most of the derogations issued for research and education purposes allow capture of specimens followed by immediate release for species identification and ringing activity, but also DNA analysis, taking of blood samplings and other studies have been carried out. Germany includes a very high number of derogations, which allow stuffing of birds found dead. 10

11 Non-destructive and/or reversible activities such as capture, disturbance, keeping, and transport are broadly applied among the five main reasons for derogation. Killing of specimens is mainly applied to prevent serious damage, in particular to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water. A great part of the derogations granted for killing all over Europe concerns the so called pest species and, in particular, crow species such as Corvus corone, C. frugilegus, C. monedula, Pica pica and Garrulus glandarius, as well as Turdus ssp., Sturnus vulgaris, Phalacrocorax carbo, Larus ridibundus and L. argentatus. 11

12 3 Member State reports A summary of the analysis of the Member States derogation reports is provided below. 3.1 Austria In 2007, the nine Austrian Landers have granted a total of 41 derogations. However it is to be noted that sometimes the number of derogations is not indicated. In these cases, it is assumed that each derogation covers only one species (i.e. 1 derogation = 1 species). The reasons for granting derogations most frequently used are: - to prevent important damages to crops, livestock, forests and water (21 derogations). For the most part the activity connected with this reason is killing, hunting and scaring away of different species: Ardea cinerea, Phalacrocorax carbo, Corvus corone, Pica pica, Garrulus glandarius, Columba palumbus, Streptopelia decaocto, Accipiter gentilis, Cygnus olor, Anser anser. - for the purpose of research and teaching (10 derogations). For this reason the activities allowed are ringing, capture and killing. 6 derogations do not indicate the reason. In some cases the number of licences is not indicated; and when it is, each derogation often grants more than one license. Most of the derogations affect several bird species. According to the data provided a total of individuals were killed, a number greater than the previous biennial (8.312 in 2005 and in 2006). Moreover this figure remains partial, since two derogations do not provide the number of individuals killed. In particular: - a total of 27 derogations were granted for killing or hunting individuals of several species to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fishery and water: individuals of Corvus Corone and C. corone cornix (3 derogations), individuals of Columba palumbus (1 derogations), of Garrulus glandarius (2 derogations), 830 of Ardea cinerea (7 derogations), 614 of Streptopelia decaocto (1 derogation), 553 of Pica pica (4 derogations), 339 of Phalacrocorax carbo (7 derogations); 16 of Anser anser (1 derogation), 4 of Cygnus olor (1 derogation); - One derogation was granted for killing 10 individuals of Acrocephalus melanopogon for the purposes of research; - 4 derogations were issued for hunting for undefined reasons 171 individuals of Tetrao urogallus, 872 individuals of Tetrao tetrix, 53 individuals of Mergus merganser and 16 individuals of Anser anser. According to the report the figure of 171 shot individuals of Tetrao urogallus represents 64% of the authorized shootings and about 9% of the population in the Lander (1994 individuals); similarly the figure of 827 shot individuals of Tetrao tetrix corresponds to 64% of the authorized shootings and around 10% of the respective population (8585 individuals). - One derogation was granted for hunting an undefined number of specimens of Anser albifrons for undefined reason for eight years (from 2007 to 2015) from 1 st August until 15 th January; 12

13 - One derogation is given to allow the spring hunting of 110 individuals of Scolopax rusticola under the reason to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on selective basis, other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers ; One derogation was granted in the Federal State of Carinthia for the capture of 3 individuals of Accipiter gentilis to prevent serious damage to domestic chicken flocks that are kept in free-range for eggs production. The Federal State of Vienna reports that one derogation was granted for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, which is a reason listed in the Habitats directive, but not in the Birds Directive. The derogation specifies that such a reason relates to the construction of the highway S2 Umfahrung Süßenbrunn and gives a list of the seven species affected, but no indication is given about the activities permitted and the number of affected specimens. Another derogation was granted to allow in the Federal State of Lower Austria the capture and for keeping in captivity of 11 specimens of the songbirds Linaria cannabina, Carduelis carduelis, Fringilla coelebes, Coccothraustes coccothraustes, Carduelis spinus, Pyrrhula pyrrhula, Sylvia atricapilla, in order to preserve traditional customs. Furthermore, as in the previous biennial one derogation was given in the Federal State of Upper Austria for the traditional bird-catching of 457 individuals of the songbirds Carduelis carduelis, Carduelis spinus, Pyrrhula pyrrhula and Loxia curvirosta. The number of individuals captured is slightly decreasing compared with the 2005 and 2006 years (respectively 494 and 462 individuals). Not all the sections of the Austrian report follow the EU Commission format, as the different Landers have compiled different derogations forms in different ways. The degree of detail in providing information varies from Lander to Lander and, at level of Lander, from district to district. Moreover, different categories are given in words and not by mean of standard codes, increasing the risk of misinterpretations. However, the report is quite complete, excepting some Landers, which do not provide all information needed. None of the Austrian derogations is in conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive, with possible exception of the following derogations: - The derogation granted in the Federal State of Burgenland for hunting Anser albifrons, which is listed in the Annex II/2 of the Birds Directive as not huntable in Austria. The derogation covers five years and does not give any indication about the reasons and the number of individuals affected; - The derogations given in the Federal State of Salzburg to allow the hunting of 110 individuals of Scolopax rusticola to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on selective basis, other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers. The hunting of woodcocks is allowed during the spring season, which corresponds with the period of reproduction and the period of return to the rearing grounds (prenuptial migration) of the species. The number of hunted individuals represents approximately 2/3 of the individuals totally hunted during 2007 (167). 13

14 The Salzburg s report does not make clear the need to allow hunting during periods in which the Directive aims to provide particular protection, and moreover for hunting a number of individuals which is grater than during the rest of the year; nor explains whether alternative solutions were sought, nor indicates whether the number of hunted individuals doesn t exceed more than 1% of the yearly death of the species, neither the annual rate of increase in population size. This lack of information, in combination with other missing data (the strictly supervised conditions, the circumstances of time and place), makes it difficult to judge whether there is a risk for the concerned birds population status and whether derogations are adequately justified. 3.2 Belgium A total of 49 derogations were issued in 2007 (in line with those granted in the previous year), mainly to prevent serious damages to crops, in the interest of air safety, for the protection of flora and fauna and for the purpose of research and education. The most frequent permitted activity is killing. The most derogated species, which are killed, are Corvus corone ( specimens), Pica pica (64.830) and Garrulus glandarius (8.316). According to the Flemish report, the three species are subject to regular suppression/control inside the Flemish district, while in the Walloon district they were killed in order to prevent damages to crops. The number of killed birds is substantially higher in comparison with the previous year. The derogation on Garrulus glandarius seems not to have an impact on its population, which is of pairs. Other 8 species are subject to regular suppression in the Flemish district. They are Anas platyrhynchos, Anser anser, Branta canadensis, Columba palumbus and Sturnus vulgaris, for the protection of flora and fauna, and Vanellus vanellus, Larus ridibundus and L. argentatus, to guarantee air safety inside airports and in the interest of public health. For all these species no information on the number of individuals killed are provided and no specific request of permits are needed, according to Flemish authorities. Only reporting on the activity to the competent authority is required. For all these species it is not possible to evaluate the impact of the actions on the birds populations. Other permitted activities are keeping in captivity birds (more than ), capture for ringing (about birds belonging to all species), capture of wounded birds and successive releasing ( birds). Each derogation concerns only one species, with only five exceptions: four derogations, which cover all/various bird species and one derogation covering three bird species. Often the derogations cover more than one license. For instance, one derogation grants more than licenses to the holders of the songbird Fringilla coelebs. The following species were object of derogations: Annex I: Fringilla coelebs, Buteo buteo, Sterna hirundo, Pelecanus onocratulus, Grus grus, Phoenicopterus ruber roseus Annex II/1 Anas platyrhynchos, Branta canadensis, Anser anser, Columba palumbus 14

15 Annex II/2 which may not be hunted in Belgium Sturnus vulgaris, Larus fuscus, Corvus monedula, Haematopus ostralegus, Numenius arquata, Turdus philomelos, T. pilaris, T. viscivorus Annex II/2, which may be hunted in Belgium Corvus corone, Pica pica, Garrulus glandarius, Larus ridibundus, L. argentatus, Vanellus vanellus Not listed in the Birds Directive: Parus major, Falco tinnunculus, Phalacrocorax carbo, Ardea cinerea, Tyto alba, Accipiter gentilis The Belgian Federal authorities have granted the Flemish Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) a derogation for the collection and transport of deceased marine protected bird species in view of scientific research in the Belgian part of the North Sea, which is under federal jurisprudence, from 2004 to During the last three years derogations from Belgium are aimed at the same species, with very few differences among the years. The derogation report is composed of two different documents: one relative to derogations issued by the Walloon Authority (20) and the second relative to those issued by the Flemish Authority (28). The two documents do not follow the EU format and they are very different in terms of format and information provided. Moreover, both reports do not include the standard codes for reasons, activities and method: this increases the risk of misinterpretations. Several fields are missing in both Flemish and Walloon the reports, e.g. specific allowed activity (it is confused and mixed with the methods used), number of derogated individuals, number of individuals affected, number of licenses granted, alternative solutions. In conclusion according to the information provided, it seems that the derogations granted are not as a whole in conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive. However high numbers of some species need further investigation. 3.3 Bulgaria Only seven derogations have been issued in 2007 for research and education purposes. The means (activity) allowed are mainly capture of birds for ringing or placing radiotransmitters. Only in one case is the destruction and relocation of nests of Ciconia ciconia permitted while in another case the collection of dead birds and abandoned eggs are permitted. The derogations concern the following species: Aquila chrysaetos, Aquila heliaca (6 individuals), Buteo rufinus, Ciconia ciconia (2 individuals), Falco cherrug (10 individuals), Falco peregrinus, Gyps fulvus and Neophron percnopterus, all listed in the Annex 1 of the Birds directive. None of the individuals derogated has been killed. The report does not follow the European Commission s format, but is structured as a table, which does not include all the foreseen fields. The missing information is: - in two derogations the species is not specified as Aves and Passeriformes spp. are indicated. 15

16 - number of licenses issued: it seems that there is a confusion between derogation and license. - permitted activity: there is a confusion between means and authorised activity. - follow up. Moreover, the reasons are indicated in words and not using the standard codes, increasing the risk of misunderstanding. In conclusions, based on the information provided by the report from Bulgaria, none of the derogations granted seems to be in conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive. 3.4 Cyprus Only three derogations have been issued in Two derogations allow hunting with firearms of Pica pica, Corvus corone cornix and Streptotelia turtur to prevent serious damage to crops and to livestock and for the protection of wild fauna. Hunting took place in areas/regions where the highest densities of these species occur. All three species are listed in Annex II of the Birds Directive and may be hunted in Cyprus. Hunting of Pica pica, Corvus corone cornix was permitted on June 3 and 10, during the nesting period. These species have been recorded as secure by Birdlife (2008) and are considered as pest species. According to a 2002 study 3, magpies and hooded crows are common residents and shooting them poses no real threat to their current population. However, the study shows that old nests of magpies and hooded crows are used for nesting by the long-eared owl Asio otus, which is a rare resident breeder. The shooting of magpie and hooded crow nests in Cyprus has most probably contributed to the reduced numbers of breeding long-eared owls on Cyprus, and also to the reduction of the populations of other species such as the Cyprus scops owl Otus scops cyprius and the kestrel Falco tinnunculus, which also nest in old nests of Corvidae. Hunting of Streptopelia turtur has been allowed on May 6 and 9, during the prenuptial migration period and at the start of the reproductive season in Cyprus. The turtle dove has been recorded as a declining species by Birdlife (2008). According to the European management plan of the species 1. Cyprus is one of the most important areas for the migration of the species, 2. the prenuptial migration in Europe [.] reaches its climax during the first 20 days of May, 3. Cyprus is a reproductive area of the turtle dove: the first active nests have been recorded at the beginning of May. The impact on bird numbers is therefore more significant in this period than it would be in autumn or winter, after the breeding season (when the hunting season is open). The two derogations allow an unspecified number of licenses, i.e. individuals that were holders of a renewed hunting license for the period (Birdlife estimates that there are more than licensed hunters in southern Cyprus), and do not indicate how many birds have been killed. In the field remarks, the report states that the hunting of the specific species was not permitted in Wildlife Conservation Areas. 3 E. Hadjisterkotis (2003) The effect of corvid shooting on the populations of owls, kestrels and cuckoos in Cyprus, with notes on corvid diet. Z. Jagdwiss. Blackwell Verlag, Berlin 49:

17 On controls carried out, it states that the staff of the Game Fund Service exercised regular checks in all areas where hunters were allowed to shoot the specified species. The report does not clear whether alternative solutions were sought to derogations, nor does the report clear the connections between the need to derogate and the activity allowed. Given the lack of the total amounts of licenses granted and number of individuals affected it is not possible to assess if the derogations are consistent with the objectives of the Birds directive. In June 2007 the Commission sent a first written warning to Cyprus regarding the two days derogation to hunt the turtle dove and warned that any future derogation would constitute a generalized practice of bad application of the Birds Directive. The Cypriot authorities agreed not to renew the derogation, and the Commission has decided to close the case, although it will continue to monitor the situation in the future to ensure that any derogation comply fully with the Birds Directive. The third derogation allows the scaring away with firearms of Merops apiaster, to prevent serious damage to agricultural stockbreeding of bees. Licenses (number not specified) have been granted to all registered beekeepers from the records of the Agriculture Department who are also holders of hunting licence for According to the introduction to the report, research activity on birds is usually carried out. However, no derogations have been issued for this reason. The report from Cyprus uses the Commission s format, and all the fields requested have been filled. The derogations have been further investigated by the Commission. 3.5 Czech Republic A total of 69 derogations were submitted in the year 2007, a figure lower than the one in the previous years, showing a decreasing trend from the 365 derogations issued in The most frequent reasons are: - for the protection of wild fauna - for the purposes of research and teaching - to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers - to prevent serious damage to water The reason for the protection of wild fauna is often used together with the reason for the purposes of research and teaching, both of which are frequently related to the activities of keeping in captivity and breeding. When the reason is to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers the most frequent permitted activity is the deterioration of the breeding sites, while when the reason is to prevent serious damage to water the permitted activities are mostly hunting and falconry. 17

18 Each derogation grants one single license, with the exception of two derogations, which grant respectively 3 licenses and unspecified persons with authorisation for ringing. Frequently derogations cover more than one species, up to at least 38 (it seems that the report does not show all the species present in this specific cell, probably due to a not correct transposition from an excel file). The most derogated species are: - Accipiter gentilis: 7 derogations concern this species frequently kept and cared for wounded birds or kept in captivity for falconry - Apus apus: 7 derogations, six of which permitting the destruction of the nesting sites (the number is not indicated) outside the breeding season in the city of Prague - Ardea cinerea: 7 derogations granted for killing mainly to prevent serious damage to water - Phalacrocorax carbo: 6 derogations, granted for killing a maximum of 210 birds mainly to prevent serious damage to water Many derogations were issued for an unlimited period of time or for more than one year. The report does not use the official reporting format, but a table that does not include information relative to the alternatives assessed. Furthermore, it is not clear whether the number of individuals refers to the number licensed or taken and the validity is often not precise. On the other hand the table includes the Time conditions and The controls which have been carried out fields in addition to the requested ones. In conclusion, the report from Czech Republic is quite complete and none of the derogations granted seem to be in apparent conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive. 3.6 Denmark The derogations granted for 2007 are 61; each one is linked to a license issued from January 1 st to December 31 st. The reasons furnished are: Art. 9.1a - in the interest of air safety - in the interest of public health and safety - to prevent serious damage to fisheries - to prevent serious damage to livestock - to prevent serious damage to crops - for the protection of wild fauna Art. 9.1b - for the purposes of restocking The activity allowed is almost always killing with firearms. The most affected species are Pica pica and Corvus corone (listed in Annex II/2 among the species which may be hunted in Denmark) and Phalacrocorax carbo (not listed in any Annex). Other affected species belong to the so called pest species, such as Larus argentatus, Corvus monedula and Corvus frugilegus. Also raptors species, Falco tinnunculus (48 individuals), Buteo buteo (68 individuals), Buteo lagopus (42 individuals), Accipiter nisus (3 individuals), etc, were killed with firearms in the interest of air safety. All these derogations do not include information on alternatives assessed. Therefore it is not clear 18

19 whether, for instance, devices to scare away the birds have been tested and with which results. Only in two cases the activity allowed is taking of eggs by hand followed with the release, for the purposes of restocking: the total of eggs collected amounts to all belonging to Phasianus colchicus (listed in Annex II/1, as species which may be hunted in the European territory, and in Annex III/1). This type of derogation is present each year. Each derogation allows only one license and covers only one species. The derogation report from Denmark uses a format similar to the Commission s one, but without some fields such as the derogation number and alternative solutions. Moreover all information relative to the conditions of risk considered, the circumstances of time and places, under which the derogation was granted and the controls carried out are missing. Even though some information is missing, none of the Danish derogations seem to be in apparent conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive. 3.7 Estonia The total number of derogations granted is four. The report for 2007 seems to be similar to those relative to the preceding two years in reasons, activity, method and species affected. The reasons for derogation are to prevent serious damage to crops and to fishery and water and, in one case, in the interest of public health. The activity allowed is in all cases killing with firearms. The total number of killed individuals amounts to 972: Species listed in annex I: - Branta leucopsis: 462 individuals Species not listed in the annexes: - Phalacrocorax carbo: 345 individuals - Ardea cinerea: 27 individuals - Corvus corax: 209 individuals A total of 24 licenses were granted. The report from Estonia uses the Commission s reporting format but some information is missing, such as derogation number and the remarks. Moreover, the information provided does not cover the conditions of risk, the circumstances of time and place under which derogations were granted. On the base of the information provided, the derogations granted in Estonia do not seem to be in contradiction with the conservation of the species. 19

20 3.8 Finland In Finland 141 derogations were issued in 2007, showing an increasing trend from 2005, when 67 derogations were issued. The Finnish derogation report is composed of two parts: one by the Ministry of the Environment, is related to the Protected species under the Nature Conservation Act, while the other one, by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MMM), concerns the game species and unprotected species under the Hunting Act. The Nature Conservation Act protects all species of birds and mammals not specifically listed as game species or unprotected species in the Hunting Act. 126 derogations involve the species legally protected in Finland, while the remaining 15 derogations concern the game and unprotected species. All derogations issued by the Ministry of the Environment cover only one licence, while those issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry cover up to 366 licenses. The great part of derogation aimed at the protected species is granted for the purposes of research and education and in the interest of public health and safety. The most frequent activities for these reasons are killing and capture. The capture for ringing concerns the following species: Grus grus, Bubo bubo, Pandion haliaetus, Falco subbuteo, Pernis apivorus, Accipiter gentilis, Accipiter nisus, Buteo buteo and Stix aluco. Only one derogation was granted for the protection of wild fauna to allow the destruction of one nest of Pandion haliaetus which was then replaced by a new one. The reasons for granting derogations aimed at the game species are mainly in the interest of public health and safety, to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water and in the interests of protecting wild fauna and flora and conserving natural habitats. The most frequent activities are killing and destruction of nests. Only one derogation grants the capture using traps of 56 individuals of Phasianus colchicus, for research and education reasons. All derogations cover a single species. A total of individuals were killed, of which 157 belonging to the protected species and belonging to the game and unprotected species. To be noted that the number of protected species killed could be underestimated due to lack of data in the national report. The protected species more frequently killed are Passer domesticus (concerned by 34 derogations), Parus major (30 derogations) and Corvus monedula (8 derogations). A total of birds belonging to the game and unprotected species have been killed (to be noted that the numbers are quite the same of the two previous years). The reiterated recourse to derogation for killing these species could mean that this kind of activity is not effective and durable for their control. The correct use of derogations, which should be used as an exception, will be further monitored. 20

21 The affected game and unprotected species are reported in the following table: Species Killed Individuals Turdus pilaris Corvus cornix Larus argentatus Clangula hyemalis Pica pica Larus marinus Columba livia domestica Columba palumbus Anser anser Tetrao tetrix Branta canadensis Anas platyrhynchos * *In 2007, also 1 individual of Anas crecca has been killed. One derogation was given to allow the capture through shooting of individuals of Clangula hyemalis during the spring (mainly between April and May), under the reason to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in a small number. The derogation includes an incongruity: it seems that it allows the capture of dead (shot) animals. It is repetitive : the same permission was given in 2005 and in 2006 (see the table). For the same type of derogations issued in 2005 and earlier, the European Court of Justice in case C-344/03 had ruled that Finland had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Wild Birds Directive because the hunting of Eider (Somateria mollissima), golden-eye (Fuligula clangula), red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), goosander (Mergus merganser), velvet scoter (Melanitta fusca) and tufted duck (Aythya fuligula) is allowed in Finland during spring, i.e. prior to their breeding season. Apparently the same problem is still present in spite of the fact that in December 2007, Finland has informed the Commission that legislation complying with the directive had been adopted. The report by the Ministry of the Environment does not use the Commission s format, but a database form, which follows a clear and easy tabular structure. Reason and activity are given in words and not by mean of standard codes, increasing the risk of misunderstanding. The report does not include all the requested information, in particular no data are provided in relation to the Region concerned, the controls carried out and the alternatives assessed. Moreover, the Ministry of the Environment did not include information on the number of individuals affected in some of derogations. In conclusion the Finnish report is quite complete and none of the derogations seem to be in apparent conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive, with the possible exception of the derogation given to capture/kill individuals of Clangula hyemalis. Furthermore, this derogation is similar in reason, activity, region concerned, period and species to derogations given in the previous years. The derogation is further investigated by the Commission. 21

22 3.9 France In France 81 derogations were issued in 2007, about 1/3 of the number issued in the previous two years, when 249 (in 2005) and 280 (in 2006) derogations were granted. Each derogation concerns a single species and it is granted under a single reason. The most frequent motivations are: - to permit under strictly supervised conditions and on selective basis, other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers (45 derogations) - for the purposes of research and teaching (27 derogations) - in the interest of public safety (3 derogations) - for the protection of wild fauna (3 derogations) - to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the keeping of certain birds in small numbers (2 derogations) - to prevent serious damage to fisheries (1 derogations) The great part of derogations has authorized capture (56 derogations) of different bird species. The 45 derogations granted to permit under strictly supervised conditions and on selective basis, other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers have been issued during the hunting season. A total of individuals (mainly passerine birds listed in Annex II/2, as species which may be hunted in France) were caught (hunted) under this reason by different methods (hunting with traps, nets, snares and, lime). Species Captured individuals Alauda arvensis Turdus iliacus Turdus philomelos Turdus pilaris Turdus merula Turdus viscivorus Vanellus vanellus Pluvialis apricaria 9 Total Five derogations were issued for killing a not specified number of Buteo buteo, Falco tinninculus and Milvus migrans. Two derogations were granted for killing a total of specimens of Phalacrocorax carbo of which in order to prevent serious damage to fishery and water and the remnant for the protection of wild fauna. This number falls within the annual harvesting quota, which corresponds to and individuals for and , respectively, decided on the base of the dimension of the cormorants wintering population. 18 derogations were issued to transport birds by different means for research purposes. Most of derogations cover only one licence, but in more than half of the derogations the number of licences issued is not indicated at all and in only one case one derogation grants 97 licences to kill cormorants. 22

23 The French report does not follow the EU Commission format, but a tabular form which does not include some of the requested fields (the region concerned and the remarks are missing), while some of the present fields (i.e. number of license granted or authorized persons, authorized method, etc.) were often left empty. Information about the number of individuals affected is often missing. Moreover, reasons and activities are given in words and not by mean of standard codes and this increases the risk of misinterpretations. The validity of some derogations is extended over more than one calendar year. In some cases, only the date for the beginning of the licence validity or only the end of the validity is stated. In other cases only the number of months covered by the licence is indicated. Since in these latter cases the dates of beginning and end for implementing the licence is omitted, it is not possible identify whether those periods overlap with the migration/breeding ones. In conclusion, even though the report provides only part of the information needed, none of the French derogations seem to be in obvious conflict with the provisions of the Birds Directive. However, few derogations (in particular those granted to kill prey birds without any indication of number and those granted regularly each year to kill passerines) should be better documented Germany A total of 618 derogations were issued in 2007 from different authorising local authorities in Germany. This figure is slightly higher than the previous biennial. The great part of derogations were issued for the purpose of research and education and in most cases to allow stuffing of animals found dead, in particular Tyto alba, Accipiter nisus, Alcedo atthis, Falco tinnunculus, Ciconia ciconia, Asio otus and Strix aluco. One derogation allows the reintroduction of an unspecified number of individuals of Strix uralensis in Freyung-Grafenau. Another reason frequently used is in the interest of public health and safety, followed by the prevention of serious damage, in particular to crops and fisheries. In most cases derogation grants a single licence, with few exceptions. The duration of the licenses is often more than one year, in some cases five or six years. Some licenses were granted for an unlimited period of time mainly for research and education purpose and to scare away bird species for the protection of flora and fauna. Usually each derogation concerns only one species, with few exceptions, among which there are some derogations covering all bird species, or song birds or other generic categories of birds, such as Strigiformes. One example could be a derogation issued by the Regierungsprasidium Tubingen which allows disturbance and capture by nets of 44 different species for research purposes (mainly DNA analysis and study of parasites) or three derogations issued by the Regierung von Mittelfranken, which allow the disturbance of a long list of bird species in the interest of public health and safety. One of the most allowed activity, together with stuffing, is the destruction of nests in the interest of public safety mainly of Passer domesticus, Apus apus and Delichon urbica. 23