Falco tinnunculus -- Linnaeus, 1758ANIMALIA -- CHORDATA -- AVES -- FALCONIFORMES -- FALCONIDAECommon names: Common Kestrel; Eurasian Kestrel; Faucon crécerelle; Kestrel

European Red List AssessmentEuropean Red List Status

LC -- Least Concern, (IUCN version 3.1)

Assessment InformationYear published: 2015Date assessed: 2015-03-31Assessor(s): BirdLife InternationalReviewer(s): Symes, A.Compiler(s): Ashpole, J., Burfield, I., Ieronymidou, C., Pople, R., Wheatley, H. & Wright, L.Assessment RationaleEuropean regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)EU27 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)

At both European and EU27 scales this species has an extremely large range, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criterion (Extent of Occurrence 10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure). Despite the fact that the population trend appears to be decreasing, the decline is not believed to be sufficiently rapid to approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population trend criterion (30% decline over ten years or three generations).

For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern within both Europe and the EU27.

OccurrenceCountries/Territories of OccurrenceNative:Albania; Andorra; Armenia; Austria; Azerbaijan; Belarus; Belgium; Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Croatia; Cyprus; Czech Republic; Denmark; Faroe Islands (to DK); Estonia; Finland; France; Georgia; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Ireland, Rep. of; Italy; Latvia; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of; Malta; Moldova; Montenegro; Netherlands; Norway; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Russian Federation; Serbia; Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain; Canary Is. (to ES); Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey; Ukraine; United Kingdom; Gibraltar (to UK)Vagrant:Greenland (to DK); Iceland; Svalbard and Jan Mayen (to NO)

PopulationThe European population is estimated at 409,000-603,000 pairs, which equates to 819,000-1,210,000 mature individuals. The population in the EU27 is estimated at 315,000-460,000 pairs, which equates to 629,000-919,000 mature individuals. For details of national estimates, see Supplementary PDF.

TrendIn Europe and the EU27 the population size is estimated to be decreasing by less than 25% in 16.2 years (three generations). For details of national estimates, see Supplementary PDF.

Habitats and EcologyPopulations in the northern part of the species’s range tend to be migrant, with others resident (Orta and Boesman 2013). Migrant birds leave their breeding grounds between August and October and those arriving in sub-Saharan Africa do so from October onwards (Ferguson-Lees and Christie 2001). The return journey begins from February through until April (the exact time probably dependent on food availability), and is often undertaken in small mixed groups with F. naumanni and occasionally F. vespertinus (Brown et al. 1982, Snow and Perrins 1998, Ferguson-Lees and Christie 2001). The species can be solitary or gregarious, being most often seen singly but sometimes travelling in flocks of up to 10 individuals, especially on migration. Larger groups may congregate at sources of abundant food. It is mainly diurnal (Ferguson-Lees

and Christie 2001). The species tolerates a wide range of open and partially forested habitats. It feeds mainly on small mammals, particularly in northern Europe, with insects possibly more important in the Mediterranean. The locations of nests are variable, with rock ledges, buildings and abandoned corvid nests being commonly reported sites. Typically lays three to six eggs (Orta and Boesman 2013).Habitats & Altitude

Habitat (level 1 - level 2) Importance OccurrenceArtificial/Terrestrial - Arable Land suitable breedingArtificial/Terrestrial - Arable Land suitable non-breedingArtificial/Terrestrial - Pastureland suitable breedingArtificial/Terrestrial - Pastureland suitable non-breedingArtificial/Terrestrial - Plantations suitable breedingArtificial/Terrestrial - Plantations suitable non-breedingArtificial/Terrestrial - Urban Areas suitable breedingArtificial/Terrestrial - Urban Areas suitable non-breedingForest - Boreal suitable breedingForest - Temperate suitable breedingForest - Temperate suitable non-breedingGrassland - Temperate suitable breedingGrassland - Temperate suitable non-breedingGrassland - Tundra suitable breedingShrubland - Mediterranean-type Shrubby Vegetation suitable breedingShrubland - Mediterranean-type Shrubby Vegetation suitable non-breedingShrubland - Temperate suitable breedingShrubland - Temperate suitable non-breedingAltitude 0-3500 m Occasional altitudinal limits

ThreatsPast population declines resulted from the heavy use of organochlorine and other pesticides in the 1950s–1960s (Orta and Boesman 2013). In Malta, the species was exterminated by shooting, though it has since returned (Ferguson-Lees and Christie 2001). The population in much of the rest of Europe has shown a more recent steady decline, thought to be due to agricultural intensification (Snow and Perrins 1998). The species is vulnerable to the effects of potential wind energy development (Strix 2012).Threats & Impacts

Threat (level 1) Threat (level 2) Impact and StressesAgriculture & aquaculture

Agro-industry farming

Timing Scope Severity ImpactOngoing Majority (50-90%) Rapid Declines Medium Impact

StressesEcosystem degradation

Biological resource use

Hunting & trapping terrestrial animals (intentional use - species is the target)

Timing Scope Severity ImpactOngoing Minority (<50%) Rapid Declines Medium Impact

StressesSpecies mortality

Energy production & mining

Renewable energy Timing Scope Severity ImpactOngoing Minority (<50%) Negligible declines Low Impact

StressesSpecies mortality

Pollution Herbicides and pesticides

Timing Scope Severity ImpactPast, Unlikely to Return

Majority (50-90%) Slow, Significant Declines

Past Impact

StressesSpecies mortality

ConservationConservation Actions UnderwayCMS Appendix II. CITES Appendix II. Bern Convention Appendix II. The ban of organochlorine pesticides, which were used heavily during the 1960s and 1970s has allowed this species to recover in some areas

(Hagemeijer and Blair 1997).

Conservation Actions ProposedThis species requires wide-scale conservation, which alleviates agricultural intensification. Policies should encourage mixed farming and high crop diversity and maintain non-cultivated marginal habitats, which decrease stocking rates and pesticide use (Tucker and Heath 1994). Management should also ensure suitable perches and roosting sites, usually provided by trees, telegraph poles, buildings or rock faces are maintained (Orta and Boesman 2013). Kestrel populations should be monitored, particularly with regards to the effects of modern farming (Tucker and Heath 1994).

BibliographyBrown, L.H., Urban, E.K. and Newman, K. 1982. The birds of Africa volume I. Academic Press, London.Ferguson-Lees, J. and Christie, D.A. 2001. Raptors of the world. Christopher Helm, London.Orta, J. and Boesman, P. 2013. Common Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus). In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J., Christie, D.A. and de Juana, E. (eds.). 2013. Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. (retrieved from http://www.hbw.com/node/53213 on 16 March 2015).Snow, D.W. and Perrins, C.M. 1998. The Birds of the Western Palearctic vol. 1: Non-Passerines. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Strix. 2012. Developing and testing the methodology for assessing and mapping the sensitivity of migratory birds to wind energy development. BirdLife International, Cambridge.

Map (see overleaf)