Implementation Review of the EU Species Action Plan for the Cinereous Vulture (Aegypius monachus)

LIFE14 PRE UK 002

“Coordinated Efforts for International Species Recovery EuroSAP”

2

Report commissioned by The European Commission Directorate General for the Environment

Compiled by Compiler: Jovan Andevski j.andevski@4vultures.org Professional review: José Tavares j.tavares@4vultures.org Vulture Conservation Foundation, VCF Wuhrstrasse 12. CH-8003 Zurich, Switzerland

Date of adoption April 2017

Recommended citation Andevski, J., (2017) Updating the International Species Action Plan for the Cinereous Vulture: Implementation review. Report of Actions A3 under the framework of Project LIFE EuroSAP (LIFE14 PRE UK 002). (unpublished report).

3

Introduction

This implementation review report is manly based on data collected though the online questionnaire distributed in late October 2016 (Implementation Review of the Species Action Plan for the Cinereous (Black) Vulture - Aegypius monachus), but it also includes information collected though the Vulture MsAP online questionnaire distributed mid-August 2016 among vulture experts and governmental representatives from the range countries and from the European Vulture Muli-species Action Plan Workshop held in Monfegüe 25-29 October 2016. The two questionnaires and the workshop were shared activities between the “Coordinated Efforts for International Species Recovery – EuroSAP” Life Project, the “Multi-species Action Plan to Conserve African and Eurasian Vultures (Vulture MsAP)” and the Flyway Action Plan for the Cinereous Vulture – last two CMS initiative. More information about the Vulture MsAP. The results obtained from the online questionnaires, the workshop in Monfegüe and the whole preparation process of the: Species status report for the Cinereous (Black) Vulture, this Implementation report of the Implementation Review of the EU Species Action Plan for the Cinereous Vulture, the Multi-species Action Plan to Conserve African and Eurasian Vultures (Vulture MsAP) and the Flyway Action Plan for the Cinereous Vulture, are providing recent information about the status, threats and conservation effort for the Cinereous vultures, not only in Europe but also at global level. All these documents have been prepared in parallel, complementing itself in a coherent way. Particularly, for this report is considered only the European range countries already listed in the Species Action Plan for the Cinereous Vulture (Aegypius monachus).

4

Contributors

Table 1: Questionnaire respondents - contributors

Country Name and surname Organization

Albania Taulant Bino Albanian Ornithological Society (AOS)

Armenia Sevak Baloyan Ministry of Nature Protection of Republic of Armenia

Azerbaijan Elchin Sultanov Azerbaijan Ornithological Society

Bulgaria Dobromir Dobrev Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds BSPB

Emilian Stoynov Fund for Wild Flora and Fauna

Croatia Ivana Jelenic Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection

Goran Susic Ornithological station Rijeka CASA

France

Jean Paul Urcun LPO Aquitaine

Neouze Raphael L.P.O. Grands Causses

Olivier Patrimonio Ministere de l'Environnement

Georgia Aleksandre Abuladze Institute of Zoology, Ilia State University

Greece

Dimitrios Vasilakis Hellenic Republic, Decentralized Administration Macedonia Thrace, Evros Prefecture Forest Service Theodora Skartsi WWF Greece

Elzbieta Kret WWF Greece

Italy Marco Gustin Lipu - Italian League for the protection of Birds

Alessandro Andreotti ISPRA - Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale

Portugal Eduardo Santos LPN - Liga para a Proteccao da Natureza

Antonio Espinha Monteiro

Instituto da Conservacao da Natureza e das Florestas

Russia (Caucasus) Elena Shnayder Siberian Environmental Center

Serbia Bratislav Grubac Institute for Conservation Nature of Serbia

Spain

Ruben Moreno-Opo Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment of Spain Alvaro Camiña Vulture Conservation Foundation

Borja Heredia UNEP/CMS

Eduardo Soto-Largo Merono

Fundacion CBD-Habitat

Nicolas Lopez Jimenez SEO/BirdLife

The FYR Macedonia Jovan Andevski Vulture Conservation Foundation

Turkey

Itri Levent Erkol Doga Dernegi (BirdLife Turkey)

Elif Yamac Anadolu University

Ilker Ozbahar Nature Research Society

Ukraine (Crimea) Kostin Sergey Yu. Nikita botanical gardens-National scientific centre

5

Methodology The methodology of this Species Action Plan review is based on the scoring system developed by BirdLife (Gallo-Orsi, 2001), later on also used by Barov & Derhé, 2010, which basically follows these steps:

Assessing the progress towards implementation of the actions and evaluation against the recovery targets set in the plan.

Estimating the overall effectiveness of the action plan to meet the planned population recovery objectives, using the latest available population estimates and trends.

The tasks were implemented with the help of a questionnaire form specifically designed for the implementation part, based on the contents of the action plan, where each action was converted into a target statement, to enable measurement of progress in implementation. Here we asked about measures like coverage of the species population, existence of management plans, implementation of LIFE and other significant projects, etc. The distance to target was evaluated by assigning an Implementation score (0-4) against each action (target statement); The size of the population affected by the measure was taken in consideration, and also the degree of priority (Priority Score PS) of the respective action, so that in the end an Action Priority Index (API) (representing the need for further action) was be calculated. Additional analysis was carried out to find out the National Implementation Score (NIS) for each country, which combines the urgency of an action with its implementation level. The Implementation Score (IS) of each target will be multiplied by its Priority Score (PS), and the sum of all these scores will be divided by the sum of the Priority Scores (PS).

The questionnaire form was produced using the questionnaire Internet platform “SurveyMonkey”. Access link was distributed among national experts in the relevant range states, using as a start point the contributors of the Species Action Plan for the Cinereous Vultures and also the contributors for the most recent implementation review (Barov & Derhé, 2010).

In total, 46 persons received the questionnaire and 19 replied. Responses from different experts in the same country were compared for matching. After receiving the answers from individual respondents, all answers were checked, when in doubt, replies were re-checked by consulting the respondents individually.

Significant part of the results was incomplete, so we most of the contacts were contacted again to obtain the complete information. After having the complete information from all people, next step was to unify the responses by counties. We merged all the contacts from one country to one single response. This action

required additional effort in contacting the stakeholders. The information provided for Georgia and Russia is incomplete.

To facilitate the interpretation of these scores, the results are presented in a graphic format.

Data regarding the status and trend of the species, threats, legal status and conservation effort (already also included into the Status Report for the Cinereous Vultures) were selected from the Vulture MsAP questionnaire and workshop outcomes. Recently published scientific papers and official data for the species were checked and relevant data is also included into the evaluation report.

6

Background The European Action Plan for the Cinereous Vulture (Heredia, 1996) was developed in 1993 and adopted in 1996 by the European Union and the Bern Convention. The action plan has not been revised so far. It implementation has been reviewed three times – in 2000 (Gallo-Orsi, 2001), 2004 (Nagy & Crockford, 2004) and in 2010 (Barov and Derhé, 2010).

Its geographical scope covers Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Georgia, Greece, Italy, FYR of Macedonia, Portugal, Russia (Europe only), Spain, Turkey and Ukraine.

General overview

Figure 1: Average implementation score (IS) and Action Priority Index (API) for each Action listed in the Cinereous vulture species action plan. Colours represent Priority Score.

The SAP has been implemented well across all range countries (AIS=2.2), slightly better compare to the previous implementation review (2010). Good implementation of the plan is noted in the countries with significant populations (France, Greece and Spain) where significant number of actions have been fully implemented. On the other hand, the species has been increasing since the adoption of the plan and continue to do so since the last review (2010). Some of the key threats have been addressed with legal measures and with designation of protected areas, but mainly through active conservation actions on the ground (related to feeding and the illegal use of poison). In the same time, poisoning remains a critical threat to address for this species (for all vulture species in general). Restoring the population to previous levels and recolonization of countries where it is extinct is unlikely due to the permanent loss of suitable habitat or significant distance from native existing colonies. Therefore, especially in Eastern Europe the species remain dependent of conservation activities (reintroduction activities where extinct).

7

Objective(s) These are the objectives presented in the SAP:

In the short term, to maintain and enhance the existing Cinereous Vulture populations in Europe.

In the long term, to encourage the recolonization of the former range.

Evaluation

The short term target of the plan has been achieved (was also achieved in the last review (2010)), as the European breeding population has increased overall from 1,330-1,874 in 1993-6 to 2 375 – 2 648 in 2010-2016. The population increase for the last decade in the previous review was considered from 10% to 20%, now should be considered an increase of 50%.

The mayor part (80-90%) of the European Cinereous Vulture population is in Spain (stronghold autonomous regions: Extremadura, Andalusia, Castilla la Mancha and Castilla y Leon) (De la Puente et al. 2007), marking increase of 48% in the last decade (2 068 breeding pairs in 2012/2015 (Moreno-Opo & Margalida et al. 2014)). The populations from the Spanish neighbouring counties Portugal (18 pairs in 2016) and France (30 pairs in 2016) are also increasing, due to successful conservation practices (reintroduction project in France), but also facilitated by the connection with Spanish population (confirmed by marked of birds). In the eastern part of Europe, we have the smaller population in Georgia (up to 25 pairs in 2016 (Abuladze 2013)) and Greece (up to 31 pairs in 2016 (Zakkak 2015)) marking stable trend, but the species has negative trend in Russia (Caucasus) (up to 102 pairs in 2004 (Belik 2004)) and Turkey (up to 200 pairs in 2013), from where precise and recent data is not available.

Regarding the long term objective, to recolonize former range some progress has been made, manly due to reintroduction activities. The reintroduction project in France is marking extraordinary success – this project is close to be finalized due to the already settle population of about 30 breeding pairs. The situation is similar with the in Cataluña, stable population have been established also there (14 territorial pairs). New projects related to reintroduction of this species have been initiated in Burgos (Spain) and in Bulgaria (following the successful reintroduction of Griffon Vultures) – projects that will defiantly contribute achieving this SAP long term objective.

Conservation and Legal Status

In 2017 the global IUCN Red List Category is Near threatened (C1) as at the time of adoption of the plan and in the last three reviews of the Plan, because the species has a moderately small population which appears to be suffering an ongoing decline in its Asiatic strongholds, despite the fact that in parts of Europe numbers are now increasing.

In Europe, the species does not meet regional IUCN Red List criteria, and its European Threat Status is Rare (BirdLife International, 2017). The species is listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive and in Appendix II of the

Bern convention.The species is legally protected in all range states covered by the plan.

Table 2: National conservation and legal status (Vulture MsAP questionnaire results)

Country Protection status

Conservation status Legally protected - killing

Legally protected - poisoning

Maximum legal coverage in national leg.

National Species Action Plan

Albania Protected Extinct in the wild Yes Yes No No

Armenia Protected Near threatened Yes No Partly No

8

Azerbaijan Protected Endangered Yes No Partly No

Bulgaria Protected Extinct in the wild Yes Yes Yes In devel.

Croatia Protected Extinct in the wild Yes Yes Yes No

France Protected Endangered Yes Yes Yes Yes

Georgia Protected Endangered Yes Yes Partly No

Greece Protected Endangered Yes Yes Yes No

Italy Protected Extinct in the wild Yes Yes / No

Portugal Protected Critically Endangered Yes Yes Partly In devel.

Ukraine Protected Near threatened Yes Yes Yes No

Russia Protected Vulnerable Yes Yes Yes No

Spain Protected Vulnerable Yes Yes Yes No*

Turkey Protected Near threatened Yes Yes Yes Yes

Regional Action Plan for the species are prepared in Spain.

Table 3: Country involvement in international processes and forums

Country C

on

ventio

n o

n

Bio

logical D

iversity

Co

nven

tion

on

Migrato

ry Species

Rap

tors M

oU

CITES

Ro

tterdam

Co

nven

tion

ASEA

N m

emb

er

Albania ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗

Armenia ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✗

Azerbaijan ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗

Bulgaria ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓

Croatia ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

France ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Georgia ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗

Greece ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✓

Italy ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Portugal ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Russia ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗

Serbia ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗

Spain ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

The FYR Macedonia ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗

Turkey ✓ ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗

Ukraine - Crimea ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ ✓ ✗

9

Overview of past and current threats

Table 4: Table of the importance of Cinereous Vulture threats by country. The current level of importance of threats listed in 2010’s SAP review and newly identified threats are listed for each country. Information collected through the Vulture MsAP questionnaire.

Country Poisoning Collision & Electrocution Food availability

Albania

Armenia

Azerbaijan

Bulgaria

Croatia

France

Georgia

Greece

Italy

Portugal

Russia (Caucasus)

Spain

The FYR Macedonia

Turkey

Ukraine Crimea

In the previous review (Barov, B. & Derhe, M. et all. 2010) identified as most important threats were: the decline of herbivores; loss of nest sites due to forestry and disturbance; reduction of animal carcasses in the wild due to modernisation of agriculture. Persecution and especially poisoning played a critical role leading to reduction of population or even extinction in some countries. The illegal use of poisons is the most important threat to the species at present, followed by collision with energy infrastructures (cables and windfarms), electrocution and the food shortage. Precisely these three groups of threats were prioritized by the online questionnaire and discussed over the Workshop in Monfragüe.

Unknown Local Low Medium High Critical

10

Table 5: Defined direct threats to the species at the Vulture MsAP workshop

Definition Scope Severity Time Overall Overall impact

Evidence Gaps

Unintentional poisoning with poison baits

3 3 3 9 Critical Good Effective toxicological screening

Shortage of freely available food

3 3 3 9 Critical Good

Effect on population dynamics, role for meta-population connections

Collision with any energy infrastructure (cables and wind turbines)

3 2 3 8 Critical Good

Need better methodology to identify corpses/cases related to collision; demographic models needed to understand real impact

Electrocution with energy infrastructures

3 2 3 8 Critical Good Need to centralised reporting system

Lead poisoning 2 2 3 7 High

Good on effects/poor on population impacts

Lead poisoning analysis and masked effects on mortality by other threats

Diclofenac 1 3 2 6 High Good

Inappropriate supplementary feeding

2 1 3 6 High Good

Effect on population dynamics, role for meta-population connections

Direct Persecution 2 1 3 6 High Good Middle East data incomplete

Destruction of Habitat (P) 1 2 3 6 High Good Long-term habitat suitability data

Farming related indirect poisoning

2 1 3 6 High Poor Effective toxicological screening

Poisoning by other vet drugs 2 1 3 6 High Poor Lack of knowledge /effects on pop dynamics

Disturbance from Human Activities

2 1 3 6 High Poor Collect & Analyse available data

Poisoning of pests on dumps 1 1 3 5 Medium Poor

Unsafe water 1 1 3 5 Medium Poor Population effects, location/exposure

Shortage of water 1 1 3 5 Medium Poor Arid countries, relevance to migration

Genetic diversity loss 0 1 1 2 Low Poor Lack of substantive data

Collision with moving vehicles 1 0 3 0 Low Poor Data sharing & Transparency

Collision with any man made infrastructure excluding power lines or wind turbines

0 0 3 0 Low Poor Standard monitoring protocols

11

Table 6: Defined direct threats to the species for Europe and Central Asia into the Vulture MsAP

Unintentional poisoning with poison baits Critical

Collision with any energy infrastructure High

Shortage of freely available food High

Electrocution at power poles and pylons High

Destruction of Habitat High

Direct Persecution (intentional killing) High

Disturbance by human activities High

12

Assessment of the implementation

Table 7: List of projects related to the Cinereous Vulture conservation approved by the European Commission

Project N° Year of finance Country Total budget EU contribution Species

LIFE00 NAT/E/007340 2000 Spain 1,036,378.00 621,827.00 Aegypius monachus /

LIFE00 NAT/E/007348 2000 Spain 1,853,176.00 1,297,223.00 Aegypius monachus / Neophron percnopterus

LIFE02 NAT/E/008624 2002 Spain 683,142.00 364,878.00 Gypaetus barbatus /

LIFE02 NAT/GR/008489 2002 Greece 1,248,000.00 936,000.00 None or non applicable /

LIFE02 NAT/GR/008492 2002 Greece 2,286,108.00 1,371,665.00 Gypaetus barbatus /

LIFE02 NAT/GR/008497 2002 Greece 1,566,345.00 939,807.00 Aegypius monachus /

LIFE03 NAT/E/000050 2003 Spain 3,286,882.00 1,972,129.00 Aegypius monachus /

LIFE03 NAT/F/000100 2003 France 1,726,194.00 1,035,716.00 Gypaetus barbatus /

LIFE03 NAT/F/000103 2003 France 2,256,971.00 1,128,485.00 Neophron percnopterus /

LIFE04 NAT/ES/000034 2004 Spain 2,082,923.00 1,249,754.00 None or non applicable /

LIFE04 NAT/ES/000036 2004 Spain 1,237,532.00 618,766.00 None or non applicable /

LIFE04 NAT/ES/000056 2004 Spain 1,649,250.00 1,236,937.00 Gypaetus barbatus /

LIFE04 NAT/ES/000067 2004 Spain 829,937.00 414,968.00 Neophron percnopterus /

LIFE05 NAT/IT/000009 2005 Italy 866,062.00 649,546.00 Neophron percnopterus /

LIFE06 NAT/E/000214 2006 Spain 1,826,559.00 913,279.00 Gyps fulvus /

LIFE06 NAT/IT/000026 2006 Italy 955,631.00 716,723.00 Neophron percnopterus /

LIFE07 NAT/E/000742 2007 Spain 3,699,135.00 1,625,400.00 Aegypius monachus /

LIFE07 NAT/E/000762 2007 Spain 3,869,850.00 1,934,925.00 Aegypius monachus /

LIFE07 NAT/IT/000436 2007 Italy 1,411,144.00 705,572.00 Gypaetus barbatus / Gyps fulvus / Neophron percnopterus /

LIFE08 NAT/BG/000278 2008 Bulgaria 1,332,328.00 666,164.00 Aegypius monachus / Gypaetus barbatus / Gyps fulvus /

LIFE08 NAT/E/000062 2008 Spain 1,672,020.00 646,737.00 Aegypius monachus / Gypaetus barbatus / Gyps fulvus / Neophron percnopterus /

LIFE08 NAT/P/000227 2008 Portugal 2,640,556.00 1,980,417.00 Aegypius monachus /

LIFE09 NAT/ES/000533 2009 Spain 5,660,886.00 2,730,790.00 Aegypius monachus/Gypaetus barbatus/Neophron percnopterus

LIFE10 NAT/BG/000152 2010 Bulgaria 2,625,742.00 1,312,871.00 Neophron percnopterus /

LIFE11 NAT/BG/000363 2011 Bulgaria 376,891.00 188,445.00 Aegypius monachus /Canis lupus /Gyps fulvus/Neophron percnopterus

LIFE11 NAT/FR/000734 2011 France 2,128,061.00 1,060,532.00 Neophron percnopterus /

LIFE12 NAT/ES/000322 2012 Spain 1,582,854.00 1,061,936.00 Gypaetus barbatus /

LIFE12 NAT/ES/000595 2012 Spain 2,103,209.00 1,049,627.00 Aegypius monachus / Neophron percnopterus /

LIFE13 NAT/ES/001130 2013 Spain 759,811.00 455,886.00 Aegypius monachus / Neophron percnopterus /

LIFE13 NAT/FR/000093 2013 France 1,810,276.00 905,136.00 Gypaetus barbatus /

LIFE13 NAT/IT/000311 2013 Italy 2,414,270.00 1,265,077.00 Gypaetus barbatus /Gyps fulvus /Neophron percnopterus

LIFE14 NAT/BG/000649 2014 Bulgaria 3,483,411.00 2,607,648.00 Aegypius monachus /

LIFE14 NAT/FR/000050 2014 France 5,632,328.00 4,157,440.00 Gypaetus barbatus /

LIFE14 NAT/IT/000484 2014 Italy 1,733,385.00 1,039,985.00 Gyps fulvus /

LIFE14 NAT/IT/001017 2014 Italy 2,877,095.00 2,071,508.00 Neophron percnopterus /

LIFE14 NAT/NL/000901 2014 Nederland 2,198,572.00 1,648,015.00 Aegypius monachus / Gyps fulvus /

LIFE14 NAT/PT/000855 2014 Portugal 3,578,924.00 2,672,481.00 Aegypius monachus / Neophron percnopterus /

LIFE14 PRE/UK/000002 2014 UK 837,995.00 500,000.00

Since 2000, 38 Life Projects have been approved for vulture conservation (15 targeting specifically this species) – projects that directly supported the implementation of the Cinereous Vulture SAP, with total budget of 79.819.833 €, from which 47.254.295 € EU contribution.

* Source: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/

13

Table 8: National implementation score

14

Appendix 1

Implementation of the action plan in the European range states. PS = Priority Score; Ave. IS = Average Implementation Score; API = Action Priority Index; National IS = National Implementation Score.

15