ADRIATIC FLYWAY - Bird conservation on the Balkans by EuroNatur

ADRIATIC FLYWAY -

BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Edited by: Peter Sackl Stefan W. Ferger

EuroNatur, 2017 Westendstraße 3, D – 78315 Radolfzell, Germany http://www.euronatur.org

All rights reserved No part of this publica�on may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmi�ed in any form or by any means electronical, mechanical, by photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior wri�en permission of the publisher. Permissions may be sought directly from

EuroNatur Westendstraße 3, D – 78315 Radolfzell, Germany Phone: + 49(0)7732-9272-0 Fax: + 49(0)7732-9272-22 Email: info@euronatur.org

ISBN 978-3-00-055897-9

Recommended cita�ons: Sackl P. & Ferger S. W. (eds.) (2016): Adria�c Flyway – Bird Conserva�on on the Balkans. Euronatur, Radolfzell. Leiner S. (2017): Migratory bird conserva�on and the EU. – In: Sackl P. & Ferger S. W. (eds.), Adria�c Flyway – Bird Conserva�on on the Balkans. Euronatur, Radolfzell, pp. 7 – 15.

Layout and typese�ng: Kers�n Sauer – EuroNatur Service GmbH Printed on 100% recycled paper

The MAVA Founda�on supported the project “Adria�c Flyway 2 – Towards a func�oning system of stop-over sites along the Adria�c Flyway”. Cover design by Kers�n Sauer showing Ruﬀs (Calidris pugnax), based on a photo by Mateusz Piesiak

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

ADRIATIC FLYWAY -

BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Edited by: Peter Sackl Stefan W. Ferger

Proceedings of the Second Adriatic Flyway Conference in Durrës, Albania, 1 – 3 October 2014

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

III

photo: Mateusz Piesiak - Ruï¬&#x20AC;s (Calidris pugnax)

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

photo: Kers�n Sauer

Foreword

The protection of migrating birds was the central focus of the 2nd Adriatic Flyway Conference which took place from 1st to 3rd October 2014 in Albania, organized by EuroNatur and its partner organisations from the countries along the Adriatic Flyway. More than 70 experts - scientists, high-ranking representatives of the European Commission and international conventions (e.g. Bonn Convention and AEWA) as well as representatives of international nature conservation organizations - from 20 countries convened for the conference. The conference affirmed again the global significance of wetlands on the Adriatic coast from Slovenia to Albania as an outstanding resting and breeding place for many bird species. And it is to be expected that the importance of the Adriatic Flyway might eventually increase due to growing threats for wetlands in Africa. Climate change and land-use intensification especially in the Sahel led and may lead even more to a dramatic loss of wetlands south of the Sahara and in consequence the annual journey will become even more dangerous for migrating birds. Although much has been achieved within the last years for the protection of migratory birds and their habitats, the wetlands along the Adriatic Flyway are unfortunately still being destroyed and migrating birds shot on a large scale. A large number of organizations work for the protection of migrating birds in Europe and in particular along the Adriatic Flyway. During the 2nd Adriatic Flyway Conference it became obvious that efforts need to be better coordinated if their impacts are to be felt. For that reason, EuroNatur and its partner organizations agreed to team up with the Agreement for the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) to make the Adriatic Flyway safer for Crane, Spoonbill, Ferruginous

Duck, Garganey and Co. All the countries along the Adriatic Flyway except Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia have signed AEWA already, but implementation and enforcement of AEWA is still lacking in most countries. Therefore, we recommend a close cooperation among the NGO community and the governments, who are ﬁnally responsible for the implementation of AEWA. First examples show that the contribution from the NGO community towards the delivery of the obligations under AEWA is regarded as a very good starting point for future collaboration. Finally, we should not forget site speciﬁc actions. There is a lot of evidence how relevant a well applied network of hunting ban areas would be for the improvement of the situation for migrating birds. Examples like the Nature Park Hutovo Blato in Bosnia-Herzegovina prove how fast the situation can be improved if the right measures are applied. In this respect the complete ban on hunting in Albania, which was approved in 2014 and in the meantime prolonged until 2021, offers great opportunities for the establishment of a modern hunting system and a network of hunting ban areas. EuroNatur feels committed to contribute - together with its large partner network - to the improvement of the hunting legislation and its proper implementation. Furthermore, we will engage in the best possible protection and restoration of wetlands along the Adriatic Flyway. A further loss of outstanding wetlands, like the Ulcinj Salina in Montenegro, is not acceptable, neither for the birds nor for the people. We therefore call on all responsible governments to prevent any further destruction of wetlands along the Adriatic Flyway. We are deeply convinced that migrating birds along the Adriatic Flyway deserve a better future.

Gabriel Schwaderer

Executive Director of EuroNatur

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Editorial

In April 2009, bird watchers, ornithologists, representatives of NGOs from all countries on the Western Balkans as well as participants from important international organizations met for the First Adriatic Flyway Conference in Ulcinj, Montenegro. As a main outcome, the conference in Ulcinj has raised awareness of the conservation community, international and national authorities like the Council of Europe, and local communities and stakeholders for the outstanding values of the remaining wetland habitats along the Adriatic’s eastern coast for migratory waterbirds. For the ﬁrst time, since the end of the last Balkan wars, people of different nationalities and diverse backgrounds agreed on the prospects of their natural heritage for the region’s cultural, economic and ecologically sustainable development.

lations, agreements for the conservation of migratory waterbirds, national legislation and local stakeholders. The present contribution to the Second Adriatic Flyway Conference by our Adriatic Flyway partners from Bosnia and Herzegovina is a good example. Their compilation of recent information indicates that the number of Common Cranes which cross the eastern Adriatic region during migration exceeds the number of individuals found during counts on the wintering grounds in Northern Africa. Another example are the results from bird monitoring on Ada Island, in the mouth of the Bojana-Buna River, which illustrate the importance of wetland habitats along the Montenegrin and Albanian coast for many migratory waterbirds, in particular for the Garganey and the near threatened Ferruginous Duck.

More than five years have passed since this First Adriatic Flyway Conference and they have seen highs and lows. When Dr. Martin Schneider-Jacoby, the initiator and main driver of EuroNatur’s Adriatic Flyway project and a very good friend sadly passed away in 2012, it was a big loss for nature conservation in South-East Europe. Looking back at the conservation challenges identified by Martin, the participants of the Second Adriatic Flyway Conference in Durrës, Albania, in October 2014 may be confident with the progress they have achieved since the first conference in 2009.

The documentation of illegal hunting practices and poaching throughout the countries of former Yugoslavia and in post-communist Albania raised an uproar of animal right activists, conservationists, and – most important – the general public across Europe, the USA and Canada. Public pressure propagated by international journals, TV stations and in the internet urged the Albanian government to proclaim a two-year hunting moratorium and helped to initiate a ﬁrst large-scale survey of bird killing in the Mediterranean region and North Africa by our partner BirdLife International. Our Adriatic Flyway partners in Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Albania continue to document illegal hunting outside and inside protected areas in order to evaluate the impact on bird populations and to document the violation of national and international laws. A number of the contributions of EuroNatur’s partners to the Second

Following Martin’s initiative EuroNatur’s Adriatic Flyway partnership, supported by the MAVA Foundation, has put the migration corridor across the Balkan Peninsular and the central Mediterranean back on the agenda of international assessments of ﬂyway popu-

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

photo: Kers�n Sauer

photo: Peter Sackl private

Adriatic Flyway Conference confirmed that considerable progress was achieved in eliminating, or at least mitigating, the impact of shooting on birds in places like Slano Kopovo in Serbia, Hutovo blato in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and along Velika Plaža and in the Ulcinj salina in Montenegro. Although bird crimes still remain unrecognized by local authorities in too many cases and are rarely dealt with in front of the courts, the increasing public awareness initiated a mental change from illegal killing and poaching of birds and other animals towards a sustainable use of the shared natural heritage of the Balkan countries. Apart of all progress, conservation is also facing old and new threats. During a meeting at the Second Adriatic Flyway Conference the AEWA Eurasian Spoonbill Expert Group identified illegal killing and the deterioration of wetland habitats both in the species’ wintering grounds in Africa and in staging areas along the Adriatic Flyway as large threats for the declining Central/Southeast-European Spoonbill population. For instance, one of the most important wetlands for breeding and migrating waterbirds at the East Adriatic Coast, the Ulcinj salina, is suffering from inappropriate water management and threatened by construction plans of marinas and golf courses. Although the municipality of Ulcinj recognizes the significance of the salina for the local economy and the development of ecotoursim in the region, the Montenegrin Government has still not managed to preserve the salina for future generations. While wetland habitats on the Albanian side of the BojanaBuna river delta have been already proclaimed as the Buna/Velipoja Ramsar Site, Montenegrin authorities still deliberately delay the designation of the Ulcinj

Dr. Peter Sackl

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

salina as a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar Convention as well as its legal protection under Montenegrin law. At the same time extensive wetland habitats in karst poljes in the hinterlands of the Adriatic coast are reclaimed for cultivation at an alarming rate. The planned construction of more than 570 large and medium-large hydropower plants all over the Balkans threatens the ecological integrity of many important wetlands like in the drainage area of the upper Cetina river, the Neretva river basin and the Vjosa river and even doesn’t spare out strictly protected areas like national parks. Taken together, the destruction of karst and riverine wetlands will impact the sedimentation, the water quality and the hydrological regimes of coastal wetland areas in Dalmatia, Montenegro and Albania. Many wetland habitats in the Bojana-Buna and Drin deltas are threatened by the unwise construction of private tourist facilities, new hotels and housing estates. The bad planning of wind parks and powerlines along the Dalmatian coast and in the Dinaric Mountains negatively affects migrating birds, like Common Cranes, Eurasian Spoonbills and many raptor species. Hence, despite the achievements made within the last ﬁve years, we must constantly ask whether the Adriatic Flyway will be save in the future. Many challenges are still ahead. New ones constantly arise. Consequently there remains enough work for conservationists that can only be tackled through strong, transboundary coalitions of non-governmental and governmental organizations. After more than eleven years of successful conservation work, the Adriatic Flyway partnership is well-equipped to move conservation on the Balkans forward also in many years to come!

Dr. Stefan W. Ferger

VII

In memoriam Ilhan Dervović

1958 - 2016

Bosnia and Herzegovina is a small country with a rather poor history when it comes to the study of its rich and highly diverse bird fauna. For almost 120 years, our knowledge on the country’s birds was based on data collected by two ornithologists - Othmar Reiser and Svjetoslav Obratil - who have worked in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and scarce data collected by ornithologists from neighboring countries. Amateur birders were rarely involved in any serious research and left very little data on the local bird fauna. The establishment of the Ornithological Society „Naše ptice“, which aims to connect and promote the work of numerous bird lovers in the country, was a turning point for the development of ornithology in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Ilhan Dervović was one of the foremost pioneers in involving amateur naturalists and birdwatchers in systematic bird surveys and conservation in the country. Ilhan was born on 14 September 1958 in Visoko where he attended elementary and high school. Since his early childhood he was fascinated by nature, and by the natural and cultural history of his home country. He was employed in the Self-management Community of Interest for Housing and Communal Affairs in which, in cooperation with the Bosnian Environmental Technologies Association (BETA), he established a system for the monitoring of air quality and the identiﬁcation of pollutants. In 1989, he fought for the introduction of environmental taxes for owners who register their vehicles in the area of Visoko municipality and for the foundation of a fund intended to improve air quality. He also participated in the realization of horticultural solutions for public green

VIII

areas around the sports hall Mladost in Visoko, the Combined Secondary School Hazim Šabanović in Visoko and in the Luke settlement. His private life as well as his professional work was guided by his interests in the natural, cultural and historical heritage of his home country, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Through his movies and documentaries he relentlessly tried to disseminated awareness for the preservation of this rich heritage. Ilhan produced his ﬁrst documentary, entitled Did We Spend the Future?, in 1990. In 1992, during the devastating war, together with a few friends he founded the local television station TV Visoko. He spent four years working for the station as producer and cameraman. In 1996, he established an independent production - Art Visoko - which, in 2004, was registered and renamed to Produkcija Visoki. For Produkcija Visoki Ilhan produced more then 50 documentaries and short ﬁlms, most of them addressing the need for preserving the historical, natural and cultural heritage of his home country. Following to his interest in environmental and nature protection he supported the work of several non-governmental organizations: He founded the environmental NGO Vidra from Visoko, with which he started the mid-winter waterbird counts (IWC) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and actively participated in the work of the Speleological Association SPELEO DODO from Sarajevo as a member of the executive board, and later continued to act within the Centre for Karst.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

photos: Dražen Kotrošan

During the past fifteen years, most of his activities were related to the Ornithological Society Naše ptice in Sarajevo, for which he acted as its current vice president. As such he was involved in all activities and projects of the society, and made special contributions to projects related to the preservation of the karst poljes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In addition, he helped with field work for the second European Breeding Bird Atlas. Ilhan contributed over 20 publications to the Bulletin of Birdwatchers’ Network in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bilten – Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni I Hercegovini), papers to proceedings of conservation conferences, held in Straslund, Kikinda, Livno and in Durrës and to the magazine Contributions to the Fauna of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He was further a co-author of the monograph Birds of Sarajevo Canton. Unfortunately, parts of his data prepared for publication in the Bulletin, including the first record of Citrine Wagtail (Motacilla citreola) for Bosnia and Herzegovina, got no chance to be published during his lifetime. Most of his field observations he has documented with the movie camera and later used the shots for his movies: About Birds and Us, Griffon Vulture, White Stork, European Crane, Livanjsko Polje: Future at the Edge of the Swamp, I Feel Like I‘m in Heaven, Karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina - Wetlands of National and International Importance, Birds without Borders, The Story of Cooperation for Nature, Hutovo blato Nature Park, and 150 educational short-movies about birds which were broadcasted on the Television of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2008.

The movie Livanjsko polje: Future at the Edge of the Swamp won the special prize for the successful presentation of the limits in the exploitation of natural resources at the International Festival of Documentary Movies, Tourism and Ecology Jahorinafest in 2009. As a relentless protagonist for nature conservation and animal protection, Ilhan Dervović invested a lot of energy and his knowledge for campaigning with his documentary movies against the destruction of the natural values of his home country, illegal hunting and bird crime, such as his documentary Duvanjsko polje – the Beginning or the End of a Country and his video clip for the Stop Illegal Hunting-campaign. Ilhan Dervović was further passionate about archeology. He produced several documentary movies on this subject and contributed to the archaeological knowledge of Bosnia and Herzegovina by collecting materials during his own field research. Part of this material is now stored in museums in Kakanj and Zenica. The untimely death has prevented Ilhan to finalize some of his projects, but at least a part of the passionate nature lover‘s latest materials will be available to the public after it will be finished by his associates. On 30 November 2016 numerous friends and colleagues said their final goodbye to Ilhan Dervović in the city cemetery in Visoko. His death is a great loss for his family, his friends and colleagues - and an immeasurably loss for the conservation movement in all Bosnia and Herzegovina. Dražen Kotrošan

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Contents

Migratory birds conserva�on and the EU Stefan Leiner

Birds in tourism and the economy Joost Brouwer

Hun�ng and bird crime along the Adria�c Flyway - a review of hun�ng legisla�on, law enforcement and driving forces Romy Durst, Tibor Mikuška

Impact of hun�ng on strictly protected species in Croa�a Alma Mikuška, Dario Horvat, Adrian Tomik & Tibor Mikuška

Development of the Montenegrin hun�ng legisla�on in the period 2009-2014 and monitoring of bird crime in Montenegro in the period 2012-2014 Darko Saveljić, Aleksandar Radunović, Ana Knežević Burzanović

The eﬀect of illegal hun�ng on the waterbirds of Hutovo blato Dražen Kotrošan, Nermina Sarajlić, Ilhan Dervović, Josip Vekić

Modern hun�ng legisla�on for Slovenia - a successful campaign against opening of the hun�ng bird list Damijan Denac, Tanja Šumrada

Habitat loss as a major threat for migratory bird conserva�on along the Adria�c Flyway Ulrich Schwarz

Securing a favourable ecological status of species and habitats in tradi�onal salinas: visitor management and salt-produc�on in Sečovlje Salina Nature Park, Slovenia Iztok Škornik, Andrej Sovinc

The breeding bird communi�es of Sazan Island (Albania) Fabrizio Borghesi

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

108

Southern Europe will likely harbour more birds in the future, which up to now winter in Africa Leo Zwarts

118

The status of waterbird popula�ons in the Adria�c Flyway Szabolcs Nagy, Tom Langendoen, Stephan Flink

128

150

The status of Eurasian Spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia) in Bosnia and Herzegovina Dražen Kotrošan, Ilhan Dervović, Mirko Šarac, Jovica Sjeničić, Goran Topić, Nermina Sarajlić

160

Improving connec�vity for the conserva�on of the Central European popula�on of the Eurasian Spoonbill: conclusions from the 2nd Adria�c Flyway Conference Csaba Pigniczki, Tibor Mikuska, Szabolcs Nagy, Taulant Bino, Dražen Kotrošan, Mirko Šarac, Peter Sackl, Darko Saveljić, Claudia Feltrup-Azafzaf, Michael Smart, Davide Emiliani, Romy Durst, Juan G. Navedo

168

Migra�on of Eurasian Crane Grus grus in Bosnia and Herzegovina – results of the monitoring for the autumn 2012 - spring 2014 period Goran Topić, Ilhan Dervović, Mirko Šarac, Jovica Sjeničić, Nermina Sarajlić, Dražen Kotrošan

178

Ground observa�ons of the spring migra�on of raptors at two sites in Dalma�a, southern Croa�a – new data for understanding raptor migra�on along the Adria�c Flyway Ivan Budinski, Vedran Lucić, Elvira Žižić-Gušo

186

Importance of the IBA Okanj-Rusanda for breeding Red-footed Falcons Falco vesper�nus Milan Ružić, Draženko Rajković

192

The recovery of the European Roller Coracias garrulus popula�on in Vojvodina Province, Serbia Milan Ružić, Otto Szekeres, Attila Ágoston, István Balog, Boris Brdarić, József Gergely, Dejan Ðapić, Ivan Ðorđević, István Hám, Ferenc Márton, Uroš Pantović, Dimitrije Radišić, Draženko Rajković, Mirjana Rankov, József Sihelnik, Silvija Šimončik, Irenke Szekeres, Levente Szekeres, Anita Sučić, Marko Tucakov, Norbert Vida, Tamás Vinkó, Milivoj Vučanović

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

photo: P. Sackl

Marsh Sandpiper (Tringa stagna�lis) and Ruﬀ (Philomachus pugnax), Salina Ulcinj, Montenegro, 29 March 2014. 2

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Migratory birds conserva�on and the EU Stefan Leiner Head of the Nature Unit, DG Environment, European Commission, Rue de la Loi 200, 1049 Brussels; E-mail: stefan.leiner@ec.europa.eu

Summary

Despite its relative small size compared to the overall planet‘s land mass, Europe owns a stunning diversity of wild plants, animals and landscapes, many of which are found nowhere else in the world. With more than 500 species of wild birds naturally occurring on the territories of its Member States, the European Union has a crucial role to play in ensuring the effective protection of European sedentary and migratory birds, which had been facing unprecedented threats and pressures from human activities. The Adriatic Flyway is particularly rich in biodiversity. As described in the present article, the EU has a robust set of policies, legislation, ﬁnancial instruments and other tools aimed at protecting wild birds in its own borders but also in its neighboring and other countries. Most of the countries on the European part of the Adriatic Flyway are either EU Member States or ofﬁcial or potential Candidate Countries. The full implementation of the EU Nature legislation as well as the development of adequate institutional capacity to implement these norms will be a very important contribution to the conservation and restoration of healthy wild bird populations along the Flyway. All stakeholders present in this conference play a major role in ensuring that nature conservation is effectively implemented on the ground. The challenges are numerous as pressures on wild birds continue to be high or are even increasing (habitat loss, illegal killing etc.). The European Commission is committed to continue its support towards effectively tackling these challenges.

Interna�onal commitments by the EU

The EU itself and its Member States are Party to various birds-related multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), among which are the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD), the Bern Convention, the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) and the Washington Convention (CITES). In order to implement its commitments under these MEAs, such as the Aichi Targets under the CBD, the EU has developed its own 2020 Biodiversity Strategy „our life insurance, our natural capital“, which envisions to ensure that Europe‘s unique natural heritage is protected, valued and appropriately restored by 2020. Through six ambitious targets and 20 related actions, this EU strategy addresses the main drivers of biodiversity loss and aims to reduce the key pressures affecting habitats and wild species. Central to achieving such targets is the EU Nature legislation (the EU Birds and Habitats Directives) and the Natura 2000 network.

Keywords migratory birds, European Union, Natura 2000, illegal killing, Adriatic Flyway

„Thanks to … EU legisla�on, the coverage of protected areas tripled in the EU in the last two decades“

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

MIGRATORY BIRDS CONSERVATION AND THE EU

Natura 2000: a coordinated network of protected areas all across the EU

As the conservation threats were not only conﬁned to birds‘ populations and responding to the increasing concern of European citizens regarding the decline of wildlife in general as well as the increasing degradation of natural habitats, EU governments unanimously adopted a broader ambitious response – the Habitats Directive – in May 1992. Its purpose is to ensure that the most threatened species and habitats across the EU are maintained or restored at a favourable conservation status. Along with the Birds Directive, the Habitats Directive requires Member States to designate Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) under the Habitats Directive, aimed at protecting the species and habitat types listed in Annex I and II of the Directive. Both SPAs and SACs form Natura 2000, the EU-wide network of protected areas (Fig. 1).

The Birds and Habitats Direc�ves In 1979, a highly ambitious EU legislation came into force, namely the Birds Directive. With the objective of maintaining the populations of all wild bird species in the EU at a level which corresponds to their ecological, scientiﬁc and cultural requirements, or adapting the population of these species to that level, this piece of legislation has critically changed the way birds‘ protection was performed over the past 35 years. This objective has been pursued by a two-fold approach combining the establishment of a protection status for bird species and the establishment of Special Protected Areas (SPAs) in places in the EU that are essential for the breeding and wintering of endangered and migratory birds listed in Annex I of the Directive.

-30°

-20°

-10°

10°

0°

20°

30°

40°

50°

Thanks to this EU nature legislation, the coverage of protected areas tripled in the EU in the last two de-

60°

70°

Biogeographic regions within the EU, 2013 Natura 2000 sites (under Birds and Habitats Directives) Outside coverage

60°

50°

40°

-20°

Canary Is.

30°

Azores Is.

-30°

30°

40°

30° 0°

Madeira Is.

10°

20°

500

30°

1000

1500 km 40°

Fig. 1: The EU Natura 2000 network, comprising sites designated under the EU Birds and Habitats Direc�ves 4

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

MIGRATORY BIRDS CONSERVATION AND THE EU

cades. Natura 2000 is now comprised of more than 27,000 sites covering over 1 million km² in 28 Member States. This represents over 18 % of the European terrestrial lands and around 4 % of European seascapes. The selection of sites in the Natura 2000 network, based on scientiﬁc criteria, aims to ensure the protection of key species and habitats across their entire natural range in the EU. This selection process ultimately provides each site with a strong legal protection status, together with high ﬂexibility and subsidiary provisions to ensure their effective implementation by Member States.

Ensuring a comprehensive protec�on regime for Natura 2000 sites…

apply to SPAs. However, analogous provisions apply to SPAs by virtue of Article 4(1) and (2) of the Birds Directive. Article 6(2) makes provision for avoidance of habitat deterioration and significant species disturbance. Its emphasis is therefore preventive. Articles 6(3) and (4) set out a series of procedural and substantive safeguards governing plans and projects likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site. These provisions apply not only to activities, plans or projects within a given site, but also to those that can significantly negatively affect a site from outside.

… as well as for priority species of the European Union.

In this approach, human activities are not forbidden but even often encouraged when it comes to ensuring that a given habitat or species is maintained or restored directly or indirectly through sustainable human activities. Natura 2000 is a network for nature and for people.

In addition to the protection of key habitats for prioritized species, the Nature Directives also establish a strict protection regime of all wild bird species as well as the species listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive. In the case of the Birds Directive, these provisions (Art. 5) include the strict prohibition of: deliberate killing or capture by any method deliberate destruction of, removal of, or damage to, their nests and eggs deliberate disturbance of these birds, particularly during the breeding and rearing season keeping birds of these species

Central to the Birds and Habitats Directives is Article 6 of the Habitats Directive. It sets out provisions which govern the conservation and management of Natura 2000 sites. The article has three main sets of provisions (Fig. 2). Article 6(1) makes provision for the establishment of the necessary conservation measures, and is focused on positive and proactive interventions. The development, implementation and financing of such measures, ideally identified in specific management plans, is the key challenge ensuring that these areas are not just protected on paper but fulfil on the ground their conservation objectives. A constructive dialogue for the effective management of each site is encouraged among the related land owners and users so as to ensure that management plans are adopted collectively and sound conservation measures implemented. The provisions of Article 6(1) do not

The Birds Directive also lays down a speciﬁc status for species which are traditionally hunted (articles 7 and 8; Annex II), provided that these species are kept at a „secured“ conservation status, that only certain appropriate means and methods of selection are used and that hunting is prohibited during the period of reproduction and during the return of birds of these species to their rearing grounds. Finally, in exceptional cases where a particular issue leaves no other satisfactory solution, a Member State may derogate to the provisions of the Directives under certain conditions (article 9). Similar provisions are also found in the Habitats Directive for other priority animal and plant species as well as habitats (articles 12 to 16). All together, these protection statuses have triggered a signiﬁcant recovery of certain species and habitats. Sustainable hunting is therefore fully compatible with the provisions of the Birds Directive.

Although it embraces national parks and nature reserves, Natura 2000 is based on a much wider concept of conservation and sustainable land and water management promoting an inclusive approach of people living in harmony with nature.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

MIGRATORY BIRDS CONSERVATION AND THE EU

Fig. 2: Flowchart explaining the elements of Ar�cle 6 of the EU Habitats Direc�ve

The Role of the EU

Ensuring the implementa�on, enforcement and streamlining of EU policies Since the coming into force of the Nature Directives, the ﬁrst and foremost concern of the European Union has been to support the implementation of these two legal pillars of nature conservation. This is achieved by organizing bilateral and multilateral meetings and workshops as well as by developing a wide range of guidance material on speciﬁc issues or thematic aspects related to the directives to the practitioners and Member States. For instance, the EU has been engaged in the past few years in multiple biogeographical processes, the Natura 2000 Seminars. The aim of these seminars has been to exchange experiences and best practices, identify common objectives and priorities, and enhance cooperation and synergies in managing Natura 2000 sites. Each seminar cycle aims to capture the latest information on the threats

and priority conservation needs, as well as good management practices, for key habitats and species of EU importance within and between countries of that particular region. The seminar process is supported by a dedicated Communication Platform. As Guardian of the Treaties, the European Commission is also here to promote that EU law is duly enforced in the Member States. Through its case-law, the European Court of Justice has identiﬁed and established important interpretations of the Birds and Habitats Directives. The development of the Court‘s case-law therefore contributed to clarifying the obligations of Member States under these Directives. These obligations and interpretations were in turn reﬂected in the updated guidance documents provided by the Commission. Another important work of the EU is to ensure that nature conservation is not only found in EU nature

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

MIGRATORY BIRDS CONSERVATION AND THE EU

policies, but also integrated in other EU sectorial policies. These include the EU Energy policies, Water policies or Climate Change policies, but also the Agricultural and Fisheries and Regional Development policies, as well as their related programmes and funds.

Financially suppor�ng conserva�on ini�a�ves and programmes As more and more studies and initiatives are now focusing on the economic evaluation of the services human-beings benefit from nature, the EU has also been keen to give an economic understanding to policy makers on the extent to which investing in Natura 2000 actually „pays off“. The figures in that regard are very eloquent: while over €6 billion are invested annually in the implementation of Natura 2000 and the protection of sites and species, the benefits that flow from the network were estimated to be at least of €200 to 300 billion/year. It was for instance estimated that there are between 1.2 to 2.2 billion visitor days to Natura 2000 sites each year, generating recreational benefits worth between €5 and €9 billion per annum.

Member States in developing Prioritized Action Frameworks (PAFs), i.e. plans which define the funding needs and priorities for Natura 2000 at a national or regional level and facilitate their integration into the above-mentioned operational programmes. These PAFs are crucial in making sure that Natura 2000 sites will receive appropriate funding in the coming years. A small but key financial instrument called LIFE-Nature supports innovative approaches to nature conservation and has helped throughout the years to find practical solutions to local conservation problems, especially through partnerships of different groups of people concerned with and affected by protected areas. This instrument is all the more interesting in the specific context of the Adriatic Flyway that it can support projects located in non-EU countries, provided that these projects significantly support the work of nature conservation in the EU context. This is highly relevant in the context of migratory birds, where LIFE projects of partnerships between EU and non-EU stakeholders can be developed in this perspective. Substantial funding is also available in the framework of the EU Neighborhood Policy. The Instrument for PreAccession Assistance (IPA) provides assistance to States that are EU candidates in order to strengthen their institutional capacity, cross-border cooperation, economic, social and rural development. At the territorial scale, the recently adopted EU strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR) also notably foresees to „contribute to good environmental status for marine and coastal ecosystems (…) and halting loss of biodiversity and degradation of ecosystems“. These can all play a critical role in supporting national and local capacity in biodiversity monitoring and law enforcement.

Taking into consideration this important aspect, the EU policies have integrated nature components in the main funding frameworks. As an example, the Common Agricultural Policy and the associated European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for 2014-2020 contain 6 common priorities, among which one is „restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry“. Similarly, the European Marine and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) contain provisions on nature conservation. Particularly in the poorest Member States and Regions, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) also supports measures supporting the implementation of the EU biodiversity strategy.

Fostering coopera�on and sharing experiences

Speciﬁc tools for providing and coordinating nature funding opportunities were also designed: In line with article 8 of the Habitats Directives, the EU supported

The EU further supports building partnerships and fostering cooperation, also working beyond its borders both at pan-European and global level to ensure nature conservation. For example, the EU supports

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

MIGRATORY BIRDS CONSERVATION AND THE EU

non-EU countries to select and protect sites of ecological interest with the establishment of the Emerald Network set up in 1996 under the Bern Convention. Discussions around implementation of the EU legislation also supported the building of speciﬁc partnerships amongst key stakeholders, such as the Sustainable Hunting Initiative by Birdlife and FACE (the European Hunters Federation). Other partnerships have been formed such as between private companies and civil society such as by BirdLife International with CEMEX, a major cement producing company, and with the Renewable Grids Initiative, representing energy grid operators. Finally, the EU cares to reward initiatives which ensure the promotion and implementation of sound conservation measures in an inclusive manner in the Network. In that sense, the Commission launched in 2014 the Natura 2000 Award which aims to celebrate and promote best practices for nature conservation in Europe while bringing success stories of the Natura 2000 network to the attention of the general public (Fig. 3).

An example of EU ac�on: Comba�ng the illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds

Illegal killing, trapping or trade of birds can have a very negative impact on bird populations in some speciﬁc situations such as along the Adriatic Flyway and represent one of the major threats preventing attainment of the objectives of the Birds Directive.

Member States in ﬁghting against these illegal activities. In parallel, the Commission commanded a study on „Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU“ which helped assessing the current situation EU-wide.

During The European Conference on Illegal Killing of Birds in July 2011 (in the context of the Bern Convention), the EU, together with various stakeholders therefore pledged in the „Larnaca Declaration“ for a zero tolerance approach to illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds, and a full and proactive role of EU

In order to move forward from the “vision” set in Larnaca to the “Action” and concrete implementation, the Parties to the Bern Convention met again in Tunis, in 2013, and prepared an Action Plan which foresees the setting-up of concrete tools in the ﬁeld of enforcement of legislation, biological matters, institutional aspects, and awareness and education.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

MIGRATORY BIRDS CONSERVATION AND THE EU

These actions have so far included regular meetings and workshops with key European and international institutions and stakeholders (BirdLife, FACE, AEWA, Europol and Interpol), the collection of data and exchanges at Member States level through the Ornis Committee and infringement procedures, as well as an on-going initiative to set up an EU legal instrument on environmental inspections. Information sessions are organized for judges and prosecutors.

Challenges and perspec�ves: Strengthening the network and leading the way

photo: J. Hlasek

At times when the policy priority cursor tends to point towards growth and jobs, an important challenge will be to enhance recognition of the important contribution biodiversity, nature and ecosystem services provide to a healthy and sustainable growth in Europe. Ensuring an effective establishment, conservation, management and ﬁnancing of the Natura 2000 network will be critical, from the local to the European level.

Fig. 3: The LIFE project „LIFE for save grid“ in Bulgaria is helping to protect the highly threatened Imperial Eagle by insula�ng the electricity grid to secure hun�ng and breeding grounds. Recognizing the excellence of the partnership and work achieved, the project received the conserva�on Natura 2000 award in 2014.

This will also require continued investments in generating the adequate knowledge, scientiﬁc data, monitoring and research, valuation and mapping of species, habitats, ecosystems and ecosystem services.

Although enforcement is primarily a responsibility of Member States, the Commission fully acknowledged its critical role in helping to improve the situation by laying down a Roadmap to better tackle the issue, set priorities and coordinate actions at EU level.

A very important challenge is also the development of an adequate legal and institutional framework which ensures adequate laws, law enforcement, human and ﬁnancial resources to effectively comply with and implement the legislation.

The Roadmap lists possible actions under 4 main headlines (monitoring and data collection; information exchange, training and awareness-raising; enforcement and legal aspects; prevention) for the Commission itself and for its partners.

Raising awareness not only among stakeholders, which are directly and indirectly dealing with Natura 2000 sites, but also with the general public who is still too unaware of the Network, will be another key challenge.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

MIGRATORY BIRDS CONSERVATION AND THE EU

Building constructive partnerships and fostering cooperation will offer promising opportunities to tackle the complex issues related to nature conservation: Transboundary in terms of national borders, of course, but also transdisciplinary in terms of approaches and sectors: integrating environmental aspects in the agricultural and forestry practices and programmes, in land use planning or when envisioning the future of energy, transport or tourism infrastructures will be highly important. We need to develope a real European ‚Green Infrastructure‘ around protected areas embedded in the wider land and seascapes and supporting nature based solutions.

While there is indeed still a lot ahead of us that remains to be achieved, I am conﬁdent that these challenges can be met, not least thanks to the fervent engagement of the various stakeholders gathered at this Second Adriatic Flyway Conference.

Europe has put itself ambitious goals aimed at ﬁghting climate change and promoting renewable energy. The development of renewable energy and other infrastructure will therefore need to be further developed in the coming years. The challenge will be to ensure that this does not happen on the costs of preserving our precious natural heritage. Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, the development of early planning and integrated approaches are key tools in this respect. The European Commission has published a number of guidance documents explaining how this can happen including best practice examples.

„We need to develope a real European ‚Green Infrastructure’ around protected areas embedded in the wider land and seascapes and suppor�ng nature based solu�ons“

All in all, the major challenge will be to develop the necessary political will to effectively achieve our biodiversity commitments.

I therefore very much thank the organisers and hosts for organising this very valuable and timely conference.

The European Commission is keen to ensure that the EU legislation remains „fit for purpose“: the recently launched Fitness Check on Nature Directives reflects the Commission‘s ongoing commitment to a simple, clear, stable and predictable legislative framework for stakeholders and citizens. This policy evaluation initiative aims to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value of the Directives. This represents a key opportunity to understand the impact of the EU legislation in achieving our international biodiversity commitments. Review does not mean revision and existing standards should not be reduced.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

MIGRATORY BIRDS CONSERVATION AND THE EU

References Birds Directive: Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (codiﬁed version of Directive 79/409/EEC as amended) Habitats Directive: Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and ﬂora EU biodiversity strategy to 2020: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/ comm2006/2020.htm Natura 2000 network website: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/ index_en.htm Natura 2000 Communication platform: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/ platform/index_en.htm Natura 2000 Award: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/ awards/index_en.htm

European Funds: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/thefunds/index_ en.cfm LIFE fund: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/index. htm LIFE project LIFE for save grid, Bulgaria: www.lifeforsafegrid.bg LIFE project HELICON, Hungary: http://imperialeagle.hu/ Illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the European Union: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/ wildbirds/illegal_killing.htm Fitness check: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/ ﬁtness_check/index_en.htm

photo: P. Sackl - Common Shelduck (Tadorna tadorna)

„… hun�ng is prohibited during the period of reproduc�on and during the return of birds of these species to their rearing grounds“

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

photo: K. Sauer

American novelist and essayist Jonathan Franzen bird-watching in Radolfzell, Germany, 15 October 2015. 12

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Birds in tourism and the economy Joost Brouwer Brouwer Environment & Agriculture Consultancy, Wildekamp 32, 6721 JD Bennekom, The Netherlands; E-mail: BrouwerEAC@online.nl

Summary

The messages from the various sections of this contribution can be summarised as follows:

Birds are an important part of the world economy. Which participant in this conference hasn’t spent money on birds recently, be it on a t-shirt with a bird on it, a tie, a bird calendar? Or by going bird watching or feeding birds in the winter? Or simply by coming to this conference?

1. Ulcinj 2009: If you want to improve bird conservation, think about what the non-birder wants, and what interests he or she may have in common with you. 2. The Ecosystem Promise: As this book demonstrates, and can help you demonstrate for your own country or area, the value of birds is not just about the birds themselves, it is also about the value to humankind of the ecosystems the birds need to survive. 3. There are a number of other sources of information and (economic) tools available as well, to help demonstrate the value of birds and their habitats. Many of these are available on-line. 4. You need to know the ecosystem you want to change or improve before you make any decisions on how to change it. SYSTANAL, a checklist for analysing ecosystems for biodiversity conservation and development can help you do this. 5. Good conservation is very difﬁcult without good data. The West African Bird DataBase software can be used to collect such data and is adaptable to the Western Balkan as well as to taxa other than birds.

Keywords conservation, eco-tourism, ecosystem services, integrated natural resource management

Introduc�on

And who has not profited from birds recently? Those who work for a bird organisation obviously profit from birds, but so do those people who find pleasure in listening to their song or seeing their images. And don’t we all profit from the additional functions that bird reserves have, such as flood control, landscape conservation and coastal protection? This paper, based on my presentation at Durrës, is structured as follows: To refresh memories, I start by repeating some messages from my presentation at the First Adriatic Flyway Conference. This presentation was based on a report to the Convention on Migratory Species, later published as a brochure. I then discuss another source for finding and giving inspiration in relation to nature conservation and its economic relevance, a book called ‘The Ecosystem Promise’. Some other useful sources of information are also briefly mentioned, as well as some useful tools. One useful tool is discussed separately. This is: SYSTANAL, a checklist of analysing ecosystems for biodiversity conservation and development. Lastly, because good conservation is very difficult without good data, a database is presented that could serve as a model for biodiversity databases for countries in the Balkan Peninsula, and elsewhere. A summary wraps up this contribution.

„In apprecia�on of Mar�n Schneider-Jacoby, an inspiring friend, bold enough to call the conference he organised in Ulcinj in 2009 the First Adriatic Flyway Conference, dearly missed.“ ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

CONSERVATION, ECO-TOURISM AND THE ECONOMY

Some messages from the First Adria�c Flyway Conference in Ulcinj, 2009

I was lucky enough to also be present at the First Adriatic Flyway Conference, held in Ulcinj, Montenegro, in April 2009. The talk I gave there was entitled ‘The value and necessity of protecting migratory birds along their entire Flyway’. It was based on a report to the Convention on Migratory Species (Brouwer 2009), that was subsequently published as a brochure (CMS 2009, available electronically). Key messages from that presentation were: Why would people without an interest in birds still have an interest in protecting birds? Because there is money to be made. Don’t try to convert the convinced, try to convince the unconverted. And money is what can do that. Too often we give presentations or prepare publicity material that is pitched to people who are already interested in birds and care about their conservation. Our energy might perhaps be used more efﬁciently by trying to get the interest of members of the public, politicians and decision makers who don’t yet have a professed interest in birds. If they see the economic. If you want to convince people, you have to start from their point of view. If you start from your own point of view, they may think ‘here comes another greeny ratbag’ and immediately loose interest. Start by saying ‘you are interested in …., aren’t you?’ and then work your way back to the common interest that your discussion partner or audience and you share. What people do depends on 1. what they know, 2. what they are able to do (economically) and 3. what they want to do (socially). Ignore one of these three and your chances of success become very small.

Too often scientists focus on knowledge, assuming that if people are given particular information, e.g. on the conservation status of a bird species, they will automatically draw the right conclusions and do the right thing. But if they aren’t able or are unwilling to do ‘the right thing’, it is not going to happen, in spite of their increased knowledge. Migratory birds have value through hunting and harvesting of the birds and their products; through bird watching; through their ecological services; through other services they provide; and through their cultural role. Hunting of birds is big in many parts of the world. You may not like the numbers on that, but you can’t ignore them. However, in the USA, where hunting is a big pastime, birdwatching-related spending of $32 billion annually is more than twenty times as high as the amount spent on hunting birds. Eco-tourism is big in many other countries, too. Migration hotspots are particularly attractive to bird watchers. So are the migratory bird festivals that take place annually in many parts of the world. In addition, regardless of one’s opinion about hunting, if hunters want to keep hunting they have to make sure they do hunt in a sustainable fashion. See e.g. the bag limits and the conservation work of Ducks Unlimited in North America. And don’t forget that up to 100 years ago bird hunting and catching was an important economic activity all over Europe. It doesn’t do, and is indeed counter-productive, to be arrogant about this issue. Insect-eating birds signiﬁcantly reduce the damage caused by pest insects. Other species play a role in pollination or seed dispersal, etc. Falconry is big in certain regions of the world. Vultures clean up carcasses that would otherwise be sources of disease. Many scientiﬁc and technological innovations are inspired by birds. Last but by no means least, there is the value of the ecosystem services of areas that have been protected because of the birds that they host (see also the next section).

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

CONSERVATION, ECO-TOURISM AND THE ECONOMY

Culturally, birds are seen as symbols of freedom. Certain species, like cranes and swallows, are held to bring good fortune. Birds have been depicted in cave paintings all over the world and still inspire painters, musicians, poets, dancers, and other artists. They appear on coins and bills, in national coats of arms, in proverbs and expressions. Migratory birds signal the changing of the seasons. Migratory birds go around the world, but money makes the world go around. Which reader knows how much birds are worth to his or her own country, directly as well as indirectly through protection of their habitats and the value of the associated ecosystem services?

The Ecosystem Promise: a book on the value of ecosystems (and bird habitats!), for entrepreneurs and policymakers as well as the general public h�p://www.ecosystempromise.net

The Ecosystem Promise (2012) is an easy to read but never shallow, very attractively produced book on the dependence of mankind on ecosystems and how we should value that. It has been written for the general public as well as for entrepreneurs, policymakers, conservationists, development workers, students in economics and students in resource management. It addresses a new trend: assigning ﬁnancial value to nature and paying for ecosystem services (PES) that nature provides us. The book explains the values of ecosystems and the beneﬁts of ecosystem services. These ecosystem values and services are fundamental to our wealth as well as our wellbeing. The book shows that nature conservation and restoration con-

tribute to e.g. water supply, water puriﬁcation, food security, poverty alleviation, health, human wellbeing, political stability, trade in responsible products and new jobs. It demonstrates that making use of the services of nature in a responsible way is often much cheaper than building installations and maintaining these. It explains that ecological management can result in more agricultural yields on less land. And it shows that natural assets can be included in the balance sheet. The Ecosystem Promise does this through presenting the vision of top resource economists, scientists, conservationists, entrepreneurs and local people, as well as best practices from around the globe. As a prologue, the views on nature of 16 young people from as many countries on all six populated continents are presented. The introductory section starts with an extensive essay by world-renowned ecological economist Robert Constanza, on the need for a new, ecological economics model that properly reﬂects the value to mankind of ecological systems and services. A model that integrates economic values, ecological values and social values. Patrick ten Brink of the Institute for European Environmental Policy discusses how ecosystems and ecosystem services can be priced, and provides examples of such valuations. Joshua Farley and Abdon Schmitt explain how agriculture and ecosystem conservation can be coupled successfully.

„Why would people without an interest in birds s�ll have an interest in protec�ng birds?“

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

CONSERVATION, ECO-TOURISM AND THE ECONOMY

In the second part of the book proof is presented of the value of ecosystems. This is done by leading resource economists Rudolf de Groot and Jennifer Allen and colleagues, as well as by 25 concrete examples from all over the world. Included are a contribution on assessing nature’s values in the Danube-Carpathian region, an intercontinental project that shows that equitable payment for watershed services (EPWS) works, and a general essay on the value of birds. In the third section visions are shared on e.g. gross national happiness, moral aspects of payment for ecosystem services, property rights in relation to ecosystem services, and the need for an ecosystem approach to ‘development’. Many of these sections were written by directors of international organisations, such as the International Tropical Timber Organisation, IUCN, BirdLife International, Wetlands International, and the World Wide Fund for Nature WWF. However, the views of a traditional chief, the prime-minister of Bhutan, a former environment minister of Brazil, and a hydrology student are included as well. Section four is about responsible business. Why companies should invest in nature conservation, and in ecologically and socially responsible production. Consumers can have a big say in this, but that is by no means the only reason. At the very end of the book a network section provides many very useful suggestions on organisations to contact and websites to consult. The Ecosystem Promise has so far been distributed to almost 100 countries and is in the hands of primeministers, CEOs of multinationals, ministers of economic affairs, statesmen and -women, UN ofﬁcials from Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon down, parliamentary chairs and other members of parliaments, Nobel Prize recipients, other top scientists, etc.. President Peter Bakker of the World Business Council on Sustainable Development adopted the book during Rio+20.

Other useful sources of informa�on and useful tools

On the internet there are many sources of information relevant to eco-tourism and to putting a value on birds and their habitats. A selection is presented here.

4.1 The UN World Tourism Organisa�on (UNWTO) UNWTO has developed a ‘Practical guide for the development of biodiversity-based tourism products’. This and other relevant publications are available at http://www.biodiv.unwto.org

4.2 The Conven�on on the Conserva�on of Migriatory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) CMS (http://www.cms.int), also known as the Bonn Convention, has published the following guidelines: for the sustainable use of biodiversity (including the text of the Addis Ababa principles); for sustainable deployment of renewable energy technologies in relation to migratory species; for mitigating conﬂicts between migratory birds and electricity power grids; to prevent poisoning of migratory birds; on the integration of migratory species into national biodiversity strategies and action plans; for preparing national or regional raptor conservation and management strategies. CMS is also working on a project to promote renewable energies that are sensitive to mgiratory wildlife, in collaboration with BirdLife International and the International Renewable Energy Agency IRENA.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

CONSERVATION, ECO-TOURISM AND THE ECONOMY

4.3 The African Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA) AEWA (http://www.unep-aewa.org/en/publications/ technical-publications) has published many guidelines, of which the following are relevant here: Ecotourism AEWA Conservation Guidelines No. 7 - Guidelines on the development of ecotourism at wetlands Infrastructural development and other conflict situations AEWA Conservation Guidelines No. 8 - Guidelines on reducing crop damage, damage to fisheries, bird strikes and other forms of conflict between waterbirds and human activities AEWA Conservation Guidelines No. 11 - Guidelines on how to avoid, minimize or mitigate impact of infrastructural developments and related disturbance affecting waterbirds Guidelines on how to avoid or mitigate impact of electricity power grids on migratory birds in the African-Eurasian Region

Climate change AEWA Conservation Guidelines No. 12 - Guidelines on measures needed to help waterbirds to adapt to climate change Hunting and catching AEWA Conservation Guidelines No. 5 - Guidelines on sustainable harvest of migratory waterbirds AEWA Conservation Guidelines No. 6 - Guidelines on regulating trade in migratory waterbirds Non-toxic Shot - A Path Towards Sustainable Use of the Waterbird Resource Phasing Out the Use of Lead Shot for Hunting in Wetlands: Experiences made and Lessons Learned by AEWA Range States Plan of Action to Address Bird Trapping Along the Mediterranean Coasts of Egypt and Libya Review on Hunting and Trade Legislation in Countries Relating to the Species Listed in Annex 2 to the African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement Update Report on the Use of Non-toxic Shot for Hunting in Wetlands

photo: P. Sackl

Site management AEWA Conservation Guidelines No. 2 - Guidelines on identifying and tackling emergency situations for migratory waterbirds AEWA Conservation Guidelines No. 4 - Guidelines on the management of key sites for migratory waterbirds

Ada Island, Montenegro, 1 March 2015.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

CONSERVATION, ECO-TOURISM AND THE ECONOMY

4.4 The Wings over Wetlands project (WOW) WOW (http://www.wingsoverwetlands.org) was the ﬁrst international, ﬂyway-scale wetland and waterbird conservation initiative ever to take place in the African-Eurasian region. The four year project (2006 - 2010) was a partnership among international conservation organizations and national governments, which aimed to improve and conserve healthy and viable populations of African-Eurasian migratory waterbirds. WOW Demonstration Projects were implemented in Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal/The Gambia, South Africa, Tanzania, Turkey and Yemen. A training and capacity development framework was developed, which resulted in, among other things, a Critical Site Network (CSN) Tool, a Flyway Training Programme and a Flyway Training Kit.

4.5 The Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment (TESSA) TESSA (http://www.birdlife.org/worldwide/science/ assessing-ecosystem-services-tessa) has been developed through a collaboration of six conservationnor research oriented institutions, with input from scientists and practitioners from multiple disciplines. The toolkit provides accessible guidance on low-cost methods for how to evaluate the benefits people receive from nature at particular sites in order to generate information that can be used to influence decision making. TESSA is primarily aimed at conservation practitioners, although the methods may be applicable to a wide range of users, including natural resource managers (e.g. forestry, fisheries, water managers), land-use planners, development organisations (e.g. for poverty alleviation), and the private sector.

The methods in the toolkit are designed to be applicable to users from developing and developed countries, and across all terrestrial and wetland habitats (currently excluding marine areas). The current version (1.2) provides methods for assessing global climate regulation, flood protection, water provision, water quality improvement, harvested wild goods, cultivated goods and nature-based recreation. The toolkit includes: An overview of ecosystem services, key concepts and caveats Guidance on conducting a preliminary scoping appraisal for site(s) Decision trees (flow charts) to lead the user to the most appropriate methods according to the characteristics of the site Details provided for over 50 methods for assessing particular aspects of the ecosystem services listed above The valuation of an ‘alternative state’ in order to compare a current and alternative state of the site and hence estimate the impact of potential or actual changes on the ecosystem services provided Worked examples on how to derive a value (quantitative, including potentially economic, and/or qualitative) for each service, including presenting the difference in value between two states of the site Guidance on how to synthesise the data for each service into a summary of ecosystem service change at site scale Guidance on assessing how the benefits are spread across local, national and global communities Advice on how to disaggregate the values at the local level into measures that reveal potential inequities in the costs borne and benefits received by different individuals

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

CONSERVATION, ECO-TOURISM AND THE ECONOMY

4.6 The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) TEEB (http://www.teebweb.org/) is a global initiative focused on drawing attention to the economic beneﬁts of biodiversity, including the growing cost of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation. TEEB presents an approach, and relevant tools that can help decision-makers recognize, demonstrate and capture the values of ecosystem services and biodiversity. Since the launch of the TEEB reports various countries have initiated TEEB studies to demonstrate the value of their ecosystems and to encourage policymaking that recognizes and accounts for their ecosystem services and biodiversity. Separate sector and biome studies have also captured and assessed the costs of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation. Integrating these ﬁndings into decision-making at all levels should lead to reduced losses of biodiversity and ecosystem, and ultimately to their preservation.

SYSTANAL, a checklist for analysing ecosystems for biodiversity conserva�on and development

For sustainable management of ecosystems for different purposes, integrated natural resource management is a prerequisite. Integrated natural resource management is a complicated affair. SYSTANAL is a checklist developed to promote a systematic approach to participative integrated natural resource management. The checklist reduces the chances of important aspects being forgotten. The core of the checklist are two tables. One table enumerates the steps to be followed to achieve participative integrated natural resource management. The other table lists the aspects that should be considered in the analysis of (agro-)ecosystems before any development plans or other changes are formulated: ‘You need to know the system you want to change or improve before you make any decisions on how to change it’.

In my limited experience TEEB requires more of a background in economics than does TESSA.

4.7 Internation Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) IUCN (http://www.iucn.org) has produced a number of publications on Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES). It has also published ‘Economic Values of Protected Areas - Guidelines for Protected Area Managers’.

4.8 IUCN’s Commission on Ecosystem Management has a thema�c group on ecosystem services

photo: P. Sackl

Members of this group (http:/www./iucn.org/about/ union/commissions/cem/cem_work/cem_services) are experts from around the world that may be consulted when advice on this topic is needed. Young birdwatchers, Scutari Lake, Albania, 7 October 2014.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

CONSERVATION, ECO-TOURISM AND THE ECONOMY

Steps to be followed in the process of participative integrated natural resource management from Brouwer, J. 2001. SYSTANAL: a checklist for analysing (agro-)ecosystems for the conservation of biological diversity. Ostrich Supplement No. 15:178-182. If you want to change/improve a system, you should ﬁrst have a reasonable idea what the system contains and how it works. 1. Identify all stakeholder groups, incl. local populations, private enterprise, various levels of government, partners in development as well as (inter)national conservation groups. Check how they communicate, and who or what structures might represent them. With all stakeholder groups (or principally by them), using e.g. Table 1 of SYSTANAL below: 2. Make a quantitative inventory of what natural resources there are, how they are being managed, what the relevant traditional and government regulations are. 3. Make a quantitative inventory of how the natural resources are being used by the various groups. 4. Evaluate the sustainability of past and present use, threats to the system, and possible conﬂicts between groups.

7. Analyse what would be needed for such future uses, including management and regulation structures. 8. Check what possible conﬂicts there might be between groups in their claims on natural resources. 9. Make inventory of means available for future development, and from that make a plan for future development, incl. management and regulation structures. Include in this where required training for all actors, including managers and regulators. 10. Fit the plans into the larger picture, and assess interactions at a larger scale: if the results are acceptable, procede with the plans; if not, adjust the plans and try again. 11. For the whole process, consider the training requirements of all parties involved, both for leading and for participating in this kind of participative process. For instance, if you come from an hierarchical tradition, whether it is from the upper layers or the lower layers, participative decision making and participative management take getting used to. At various stages make sure that the stakeholder representatives communicate with their groups, and keep their support.

5. Evaluate likely future developments (demographic, climate, urbanisation, demand for natural resources). 6. Make an inventory of what the stakeholders would like for the future.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

CONSERVATION, ECO-TOURISM AND THE ECONOMY

SYSTANAL, a checklist for analysing (agro-) ecosystems from Brouwer, J. 2001. SYSTANAL: a checklist for analysing ecosystems for the conservation of biological diversity. Ostrich Supplement No. 15:178-182. 1. Using SYSTANAL is only one part of participatory integrated natural resource management.

high average, high external input, with risk and belated return acceptable how do the various stakeholders perceive e.g. security, proﬁtability, poverty? do they aim to optimise return to capital, labour, land, water, nutrients, seed, fossil energy? are they looking for diversiﬁcation of income; how important is off-farm income? to what extent do different stakeholder wishes compete for the same resources?

2. Where are you; where do you want go; how do you get there; how do you know you have arrived?

8. Y = f (G, E) : Yield/production is a function of Genotype(s) and Environment: changing G or E changes Y.

3. Analyse holistically - reductionistically - holistically (the hourglass method)

9. What are the (sub-)system socio-economic values (attributes, functions and uses, incl. diversity of plant/animal species).

4. Deﬁne boundaries of (sub-)systems you work on, but also look at what happens across these boundaries. 5. What is already known, being done, or planned for the (sub-)system being analysed? incl. local knowledge 6. How did the present develop, how will/may it evolve? What are the threats as perceived by various stakeholders? Learn from the past and anticipate trends! (e.g. climate, population changes, urbanisation) 7. All the various stakeholders (farmers male/female, NGO’s, government etc.): what they do depends on what they know/ want/are able to do; how do they communicate with each other; goals can differ within groups: farmers may want high minimum, low external input, low risk, fast return or

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

10. Availability of production factors, and utilisation thereof by crops, depends on environmental factors. Three ways to classify environmental factors (2x4x4 combinations): Locality

Type

Effect

above-ground (climate)

physical

positive

below-ground (soil)

chemical

negative

above/below (biological)

biological

changing

socio-economic (former land-use)

socio-economic (incl. public health)

(neutral)

11. What does a plant need? (7 essential production factors, three pairs plus one) O2, CO2; water, nutrients; temperature, radiation; space to grow all in the right amount (optimum), at the right time, and in the right place

CONSERVATION, ECO-TOURISM AND THE ECONOMY

6. What does an animal need? (three or four factors, and three types of places) O2 in air or water; water, food; temperature; places for shelter, feeding, reproduction all in the right amount (optimum), at the right time, and in the right place Production systems are not linear: there can be factor interaction, making possible multiple solutions. 12. Time and space aspects, at different scales (part of ﬁeld - world; part of day - years), variability in time and space is always present: what are its effects? variability in time and space can be necessary or desirable are averages important or extremes? 13. When proposing changes to (agro-) ecosystems, look at interactions and effects (G, E) off-site (up/down/sideways), esp. via water, gaseous emissions, money/economy (sphere of inﬂuence)

No conserva�on, and no eﬃcient eco-tourism, without (good) data: the West African Bird DataBase so�ware, adaptable to the Western Balkans?

For effective conservation of birds, it is essential to know what species occur (and breed) where, at what time of year, and in what numbers. This information is also indispensable for mounting a good bird-related tourism program. For these reasons, the on-line, openaccess, bilingual (English and French), West Africa Bird DataBase http://www.wabdab.org was founded. The WABDaB at present includes bird observations and images from Niger, Chad and Burkina, the latter just starting. As a part of the WABDaB, information on bird names and stories in local languages and cultures are also collected. Such information can help reach people who don‘t have a direct afﬁnity with birds but are interested in their own culture. Information is very easy to enter, with the aid of dropdown lists from which species and locations can be selected etc. Information can be extracted

14. Be quantitative in your analysis whenever possible. 15. Be mindful of the ﬁve aspects of sustainability: productivity protection (of the environment.) acceptability (social) security (dependability) viability (economic)

per species (overall distribution block maps, seasonal occurrence block maps, precise location of observations maps, list of all observations, list of observations for a particular period, images) per half degree square (list of species, list of observations) per location (list of species, list of observations, images from that location) per polygon (e.g. a protected area or an Important Bird Area) and per contributor (list of observations, images)

16. When proposing changes, answer the questions: who, what, when, where, how, with whom, how much, why?

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

CONSERVATION, ECO-TOURISM AND THE ECONOMY

This can be done per country or for all countries in a region together. On the map with all the locations from which at least one record has been received, the colour of the location symbol indicates the number of records received from that location. A pop-up gives the number of species known from that location, as well as access to all the images taken at that location. Data on senstive species can be screened from the general public. National checklists (with picture and record symbols to click on) are also included, as are literature lists, user statistics (species, records), information on identification of difficult species pairs, and of course a data use policy. All in all the WABDaB software is attractive, user-friendly, administrator-friendly and flexible. It is a good way to collect information on (migratory) birds, raise awareness, promote conservation, and help convince the unconvinced.

References Brouwer J. (2001): SYSTANAL: a checklist for analysing ecosystems for the conservation of biological diversity. Ostrich Supplement No. 15: 178-182. (Arabic translation available) [version française: SYSTANAL: liste de control pour l‘analyse des écosystèmes dans le cadre de la conservation de la diversité biologique.] Brouwer J. (2009): The Flyway Approach to conserving migratory birds. Its necessity and value. Report to UNEP/Convention on Migratory Species, Bonn, March 2009. 70 pp. CMS (2009): A Bird’s Eye View on Flyways. A brief tour by the Convention on the Conservation of Migriatory Species of Wild Animals. Second edition, October 2012; UNEP/CMS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 64 pp.

photo: K. Sauer

A number of countries in the Western Balkans have already their own bird atlassing scheme that includes on-line data submission. For those that don’t, adaptation of the WABDaB software may be an option. Extra ﬁelds for altitude and vegetation information can be added. The software can also be extended to include other taxa such as mammals, butterﬂies, plants, etc.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

photo: M. Schneider-Jacoby

Observa�on tower in the ﬂoodplains of the Save River, Croa�a, 2011. 24

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Birds in tourism and the economy along the Adria�c Flyway: applica�on in project situa�ons of ‘SYSTANAL, a checklist for analysing (agro-)ecosystems for the conserva�on of biodiversity’ Joost Brouwer1, Milan Ružić2 Brouwer Environment & Agriculture Consultancy, Wildekamp 32, 6721 JD Bennekom, The Netherlands; E-mail: BrouwerEAC@online.nl 2 Bird Protec�on and Study Society of Serbia, Radnička 20a, 2100 Novi Sad, Serbia; E-mail: milruzic@yahoo.com 1

Summary In this workshop participants became acquainted with using SYSTANAL, a checklist that can be useful for them in their day-to-day work of analysing conversation problems and developing solutions to those problems. The approach used in the workshop is outlined below. For a complete overview of SYSTANAL itself the reader is referred to the other contribution by J. Brouwer in these proceedings.

Keywords Workshop, natural resource management, stakeholder involvment, socio-economic analyst

The workshop Along the Adriatic Flyway, as elsewhere, promoting the role of ‘Birds in tourism and the economy’ often means formulating new project proposals. In that formulation it is important to check all the aspects that may be relevant, and to be as participatory as possible. SYSTANAL (Brouwer 2001) is a checklist for analysing (agro-) ecosystems for the conservation of biological diversity. Its main message is contained in two tables. Table 1 contains 16 points to check for a holistic analysis of a ‘system’ or situation that one is looking to change. The better one knows the present situation, the more likely it is that the project to be designed will be effective in achieving the desired change. Table 2 contains eleven steps to be followed in the process of participative integrated natural resource management, i.e. in the formulation and execution of natural resource-related projects. Both tables are included in full in the other contribution by J. Brouwer in these proceedings. During the workshop the twelve participants got acquainted with working with SYSTANAL. The workshop goals were:

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

1. To help the participants to be more systematic when preparing a project proposal 2. To help the participants think a bit differently when preparing a project proposal 3. To give the participants a little push in the development or revision of their project. Each participant was asked to name a project or project goal that they would like to use as a concrete case to work on during the workshop. This could be related to, for instance development of new legislation declaration of a new protected area development of a single species action plan development of a habitat management plan development of a Natura 2000 network the setting up of a monitoring system. The project or project goal could be a new one, or an ongoing one in need of a new impulse. Its geographical focus needed to be deﬁned so that all participants were aware of that focus. Participants with similar cases they wanted to work on were combined into a subgroup. Within each of the three subgroups thus formed it was left up to the members to decide whose case they would work on. Working on all cases would have taken too much time. During the discussions within the subgroup it was in any case possible to also bring up the cases that had not been selected. The three subgroups were then given points from SYSTANAL to guide them in the process of developing or revising their project plan. They had ﬁfteen minutes per round to discuss the selected points among themselves, and ten minutes for general discussion of all three subgroups together. The general discussion included some points from the workshop leaders on aspects that were sometimes forgotten but that were important to consider.

SYSTANAL - TOOLKIT FOR CONSERVATION PLANNING

The three projects selected were: 1. Encouraging sustainable activities in Vjosë Nartë protected area, S Albania 2. Establishment of a local conservation group at Lake Dojran, Macedonia 3. Habitat management of Skadar Lake Ramsar site The discussion rounds were focused on: 1. Define the boundaries of the (sub-)system you work on, and check what happens across these boundaries (Table 1, point 4 of SYSTANAL) Points of attention: If you are looking at a migratory bird site, the entire flyway can be your system, including the people (not all bird lovers!) along that flyway; or in the case of a wetland, the whole catchment can be your system (upstream as well as downstream!) When you define the boundaries of the subsystem you will actually work on, look at what is needed and what is practical What happens across boundaries is often related to water movement, to movement through the atmosphere, or to people. 2. What are the area’s values Attributes, functions and uses, including individual plant/animal species (Table 1, point 9). Make an inventory of its natural resources (recognised and unrecognised) (Table 2, point 2) Points of attention: Values can be on-site and off-site, recognised and unrecognised See CMS flyway brochure (Brouwer 2009) or The Ecosystem Promise (Brouwer 2012) for further ideas of possible values Be aware of variability in time and space (Table 1, point 12) of values, too; variability can be a trend, or seasonable variability, or related to extreme conditions Quantify values whenever you can.

3. Identify all stakeholders (groups) (Table 2, point 1) What are their goals (Table 1, point 7) Who might represent them? How do they communicate? (Table 2, point 1), Points of attention: Private, government; local, national, international stakeholders (across boundaries of project area) How do you know what their goals are? Ask them, don’t assume! And involve them, early! Will it be your project or theirs, too? Special role of women? At the end it was pointed out that it is always very important to identify what expertise is needed, and to get that expertise from outside if it is not present in-house. Expertise can be biological, physical, chemical or socio-economic (people-related). Unfortunately there was no time for the other prepared discussion round: 4. What is already known, being done, or planned for the (sub-)system being analysed? (Table 1, point 5) What are the threats as perceived by various stakeholders? (Table 1, point 7) How did the present develop, how will/may it evolve? (Table 1, point 6) Points of attention: Include local knowledge (ALL stakeholders) What people do depends on what they know, what they are able to do economically, and what they want to do (socially). If they don’t know or can’t or don’t want to, it won’t happen. Anticipate trends (global change, local change); don’t plan today for tomorrow with yesterday’s information.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

SYSTANAL - TOOLKIT FOR CONSERVATION PLANNING

Indeed one of the regrets of a number of participants was that there was too little time for the workshop. And the general discussions planned at the end of each discussion round soon became three separate discussions with each subgroup, because they were so caught up in their own case study. The results of each case study were presented at an all-conference meeting in the evening. We won’t repeat them here, as the workshop was not aimed at producing information or knowledge but at giving the participants the beginnings of a new skill.

Conclusions By way of conclusion it seems best to repeat the comments of the participants after the workshop: “bigger problem where to ﬁnd donor for such project :-)” “proposition: have more time to discuss different project propositions” [= more time for general discussion so one can learn from the other subgroups, too?] “goal 4 [thinking more systematically] was confusing at the beginning and still is not crystal clear” “good cooperation with moderators and group members, good exchange of ideas” “I am sure that in case we had more time for group work our results and conclusions would be better. But after all, thanks for the knowledge you transferred to us :-)” “Extremely happy to be introduced to SYSTANAL. Wish we had had more time to work on every proejct idea from the group because it was amazing help for me. I wish I could always use SYSTANAL with foreigners and get fresh perspectives.” “Using SYSTANAL I identiﬁed a whole new and very important stakeholder group in my project.”

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

References Brouwer J. (2001): SYSTANAL: a checklist for analysing ecosystems for the conservation of biological diversity. Ostrich Supplement No. 15:178-182. (Arabic translation available) [version française: SYSTANAL: liste de control pour l‘analyse des écosystèmes dans le cadre de la conservation de la diversité biologique.] Brouwer J. (2009): The Flyway Approach to conserving migratory birds. Its necessity and value. Report to UNEP/Convention on Migratory Species, Bonn, March 2009. 70 pp. 2nd edition October 2012. Illustrated brochure based on this report available at http://www.cms.int/publications/pdf/Flyways/CMS_ Flyways_Internet1.pdf. Brouwer M. (2012): The Ecosystem Promise. 228 pp. ISBN 978-90-811942-0-4. http://www.ecosystempromise.net

„The be�er one knows the present situa�on, the more likely it is that the project to be designed will be eﬀec�ve in achivieng the desired change.“ 27

photo: P. Sackl

In a ﬁeld near Lushnjë, Albania, a Hen Harrier (Circus cyaneus) serves as a scarecrow; 20 March 2009. 28

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Hun�ng and bird crime along the Adria�c Flyway a review of hun�ng legisla�on, law enforcement and driving forces Romy Durst1, Tibor Mikuška2 1 2

EuroNatur, Konstanzer Straße 22, 78315 Radolfzell, Germany; E-mail: info@euronatur.org Croa�an Society for Bird & Nature Protec�on, Gundulićeva 19a, 31000 Osijek, Croa�a; E-mail: �bor.kopacki.rit@gmail.com

Summary The review gives an insight into the impacts of hunting and poaching on wild bird populations along the Adriatic Flyway. Evaluations are based on a comparative analysis of national hunting legislations, expert surveys and long-term ﬁrst-hand experience gained by ornithologists/nature conservationists from the Western Balkan region in 2012 and 2013. By highlighting deﬁciencies in the hunting laws of individual countries from the biodiversity conservation point of view, it demonstrates a variety of options for urgently needed legislative improvement. The study differentiates between legal hunting activities, the application of illegal hunting techniques/practices and poaching. The latter two are referred to as “bird crime”. The main causal chains behind unsustainable hunting and the occurrence of bird crime are evaluated and discussed, as both catalyse the decline of bird populations in the Western Balkans and Central/Eastern Europe, which has been observed in recent years. Finally, the observations emphasize the need for strong leadership and law enforcement in wild bird protection, as well as the need for a shift in the overall mind set with respect to the exploitation of wildlife and the sustainable management of protected areas in the region.

Keywords hunting legislation, bird crime, Adriatic Flyway, hunting, Western Balkans

Introduc�on

Schneider-Jacoby & Spangenberg (2010) estimated far more than 2 million birds being shot annually along the Adriatic Flyway. The semi-scientiﬁc term “Adriatic Flyway” refers to the section within the Black Sea-Mediterranean Flyway that covers the Western Balkan countries. Due to its geographical location between the Adriatic Sea in the southwest and the

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Carpathian Mountains in the northeast it interconnects the wintering sites of many migratory bird species of North and Sub-Saharan Africa with breeding sites in North-Eastern and Eastern Europe. Schneider-Jacoby & Spangenberg (2010) extrapolated data on the density of hunters and bird harvesting habits collected by FACE (2010). With a density of registered hunters ranging between 0.48 (Albania) and 0.98 hunters/ km² (Bosnia and Herzegovina) the Western Balkans showed significantly lower figures than several countries in the European Union (EU), such as France (2.01 hunters/km2), Spain (1.94 hunters/ km²) or the United Kingdom (3.27 hunters/ km²). However, they observed very high anthropogenic pressure on wild bird populations in the Western Balkans compared to other European regions. This pressure was assumed to result from (1) intense legal hunting activities caused by more than 200,000 registered hunters, (2) high frequency of bird crime committed not only by poachers, but also by registered hunters and (3) attractiveness of the countries along the Adriatic for hunting tourists from EU member states, especially from Southern and Eastern Europe. In addition, national hunting laws were comparably weak in the past and law enforcement insufficient. Slovenia, which is known for the most restrictive bird hunting legislation in the entire EU, plays an exceptional role in this respect (BIO Intelligence Service 2011). The present study gives an insight into the legal regulations for bird hunting in 2012 and 2013 and it provides an insight into the actual state of protection of wild birds along the Adriatic Flyway. Furthermore, this study includes a survey-based evaluation of the dominant motivations and drivers for bird crime.

„„… seven bird species deﬁned as game are listed in Annex I of the EU Direc�ve and shall be subject to special habitat conserva�on measures … to ensure their reproduc�ve success within their speciﬁc range of distribu�on“ 29

HUNTING AND BIRDCRIME IN WESTERN BALKAN COUNTRIES

Methodology

The observations focussed on the Yugoslavian successor states, as well as on Albania (in case of Kosovo the analysis was restricted to the legislative situation). While Slovenia has been an EU member since 2004, Croatia joined the EU only in July 2013 representing the most recent EU member state, being obliged to comply with the EU Birds Directive. All other Western Balkan countries hold the EU candidate (Montenegro, Serbia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Albania) or potential candidate status (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo). Yet, all countries within the geographical range of this study are parties to the European Council (with the exception of Kosovo) and are required to comply with the guidelines of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention). Even if the availability of data on the impact of hunting and poaching on wild bird populations is relatively poor in the investigated region, bird harvesting along the Adriatic was observed to accelerate the continuous decline of species with an unfavorable conservation status frequenting the Black Sea-Mediterranean Flyway (cf. Hirschfeld & Heyd, 2005). The estimate of more than 2 million birds being legally or illegally killed in the Western Balkans annually (Schneider-Jacoby & Spangenberg 2010) still represents a reliable source of information. A report recently published by BirdLife International (2015) estimates 0.8 Million birds being killed unlawfully only in Albania and Croatia per year. In order to create an overview on the actual impact quality of hunting and bird crime in individual countries, national experts reported on their respective national or entity-wise legislative frameworks with a focus on the hunting seasons, game bird species lists and prohibited hunting practices. A country-speciﬁc situation analysis with respect to law enforcement, the functionality of control mechanisms and their implications for wild bird conservation was obtained by the evaluation of standardized questionnaires ﬁlled by experienced ornithologists being partners in the EuroNatur Adriatic

Flyway project network. The network consists of recognized ornithologists and representatives of nature conservation organizations in the Western Balkan countries having access to long-term monitoring data for stop-over, wintering (regular national contributions to the International Waterbird Census, IWC) and breeding sites of waterbirds, raptors and songbirds in the region. The collected information was backed by ﬁndings and data gained through regular wild bird monitoring programs conducted in the context of the Adriatic Flyway project for more than 10 years.

Results

3.1 Official game bird species along the Adria�c Flyway The total number of wild bird species open for hunting in the Western Balkans was 57 in 2009 and has not changed until 2013. Still, the composition of the game bird species list shows differences. Of the 82 species listed in Annex II of the EU Birds Directive (defining game birds for the entire EU in Annex II A and birds open for hunting in individual countries only in Annex II B) some 47 species are classified as “game” by national hunting laws of the Western Balkans. Another seven bird species defined as game are listed in Annex I of the EU Directive and shall be subject to special habitat conservation measures accordingly in order to ensure their reproductive success within their specific range of distribution. Seven species occurring in the hunting list of the Western Balkan region are not mentioned in any of the Annexes of the Directive and are subject to strict protection in the entire EU accordingly. The actual killing of these species in the Western Balkan countries – may it be legal or illegal on the national level – obviously counteracts the objectives of the Birds Directive by harming the populations of sensitive species. Nine species of those listed as game under national hunting laws, are even named in Annex II of the Bern Convention, defining them as “strictly protected” for the entire geographic range of the Council´s member states (Fig. 1, Tab. 1).

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

HUNTING AND BIRDCRIME IN WESTERN BALKAN COUNTRIES

Of the nine legislative entities under investigation (referring to entities, due to the administrational separation of Bosnia and Herzegovina), ﬁve entities allow the harvesting of species that are under protection in the EU (not listed in Annexes I and II). These are Croatia, Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Macedonia. Another two entities, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia even list vulnerable species (Annex I, Birds Directive) under the national game bird lists without providing any measures to guarantee the required availability and quality of habitats. In total, nine species listed under Annex II of the Bern Convention are open for hunting in Republika Srpska, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Macedonia. Obviously, the respective hunting laws do not comply with the European Council´s nature conservation guidelines. Only Slovenia, Montenegro, Kosovo and Albania formally comply in this respect with both the EU Directive and Bern Convention (Tab. 1).

Fig. 1: Absolute number of huntable wild bird species per country and share of protected species under the EU Birds Direc�ve and the Bern Conven�on; EU Annex I: subject to habitat conserva�on measures, EU Annex II A: huntable in all EU countries, EU Annex II B: huntable in individually named countries only; numbers above columns indicate the number of species under strict protec�on according to the Bern Conven�on.

„Consequently, na�onal legisla�ve hun�ng frameworks do not serve the purpose of sustainable management and exploita�on of wild birds as a natural resource in many cases”

„In the Montenegrin hun�ng law the hun�ng season for ducks, geese and several other game bird species was prolonged to 15 February in 2010“ ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

HUNTING AND BIRDCRIME IN WESTERN BALKAN COUNTRIES

Annex II of the Bern Convention are open for hunting in Republika Srpska, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Macedonia. Obviously, the respective hunting laws do not comply with the European Council´s nature conservation guidelines. Only Slovenia, Montenegro, Kosovo and Albania formally comply in this respect with both the EU Directive and Bern Convention (Tab. 1).

Table 1: Bird species included in the na�onal game species lists of the countries of former Yugoslavia and Albania according to na�onal hun�ng legisla�ons in October 2013. Unmodified status since 2008/ 2009: ; species removed since 2008/ 2009: ( / ); species addi�onally listed compared to 2008/ 2009: X; status not clearly defined by law: ?; “EU status” refers to EU Direc�ve 2009/147/EC (I  = species listed in Annex I; P = species not allowed to be hunted within the en�re EU; IIB = species allowed to be hunted in certain EU countries; IIA = species allowed to be hunted in all EU countries); “BC status” refers to the Bern Conven�on (II = species under strict  protec�on according to Annex II; III = species under protec�on according to Annex III); scien�fic names marked in red: species not   defined as game in 2008/ 2009; names marked in green: species no longer defined as game compared to 2008/ 2009; boxes marked  in red indicate non-compliance with the EU Birds Direc�ve.  

    



 

 











           

           

           

           

           

     ?      

           

           

           

           

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

    

    

    

    

  ? ? ?

    

    

    

    

    





                    

           



ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

HUNTING AND BIRDCRIME IN WESTERN BALKAN COUNTRIES

       

    





                                         

                       

                       

                                      

               

 

                        



 

                       

 

                                                                

              

 

 











          ?            

            

           

             

      

               

      

                    

              

               

               

                       

                       

                       

 

 

             

     

? ? ?                  

              

               

       ?   ?  ? ? ? ?

               

               

                      

                       

                       

? ? ? ? ?

     

                       

                       

 

 

 

 

          

? ?      

                 

   

 

* not included in the assessment 2008/ 2009

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS 

HUNTING AND BIRDCRIME IN WESTERN BALKAN COUNTRIES

3.2 Legal deficiencies impac�ng wild bird popula�ons If based on reliable scientific monitoring data and enforced properly, legislative regulations like the determination of (1) game bird and strictly protected bird species, (2) the determination and obedience of quota for the harvesting of these species and (3) the definition of open and closed seasons for distinctive species represent major legislative tools to control the impact of hunting on wild bird populations and to guarantee population viability despite human exploitation. However, the analysis of national hunting law along the Western Balkans revealed a row of deficiencies. - Hun�ng laws poorly consider popula�on viability and interna�onal conven�ons Long-term water bird monitoring for the Black Sea/ Mediterranean Flyway and in the Western Balkans, respectively, gave evidence of declining numbers for a set of species in the last 10 years (Nagy et al. 2016). This is explicitly true for wintering ducks and the numbers of ducks staging in wetlands along the eastern Adriatic’s coast during spring migration. Almost all species of the genus Anas, Aythya and Mergus are listed as game birds in Croatia, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Albania and Montenegro. The flyway-wide populations of ducks, particularly Garganey (Anas querquedula), have declined dramatically in Western Balkan countries. Stumberger et al. (2012) estimated that, following to unsustainable hunting and poaching, average numbers of resting Garganeys during spring migration had considerably dropped in selected priority sites in the past 20 years. Species of the Anatidae family are separated into far more than 450 distinct biogeographic populations, which makes individual populations comparably small and vulnerable in consequence (Wetlands International 2012). Hence, the dramatic decline of Garganeys along the Adriatic Flyway is a most alarming signal. The distinct sub-population

may fall below the limits of viability in the near future, if conservation measures will not be intensified on the flyway-scale. Another example for the ignorance of national laws regarding population trends is the case of the Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) in the Republic of Serbia. While the species is open for hunting all year round its country-wide population has been observed to decline rapidly in recent years. Furthermore, its protection status according to both, the EU Birds Directive and the Bern Convention requires parties and member states to take on measures for the protection and recovery of the species. Although special permits are required for goshawk hunting by law in Serbia, the actual pressure on the species is not under administrative control. Likewise, the hunting season for Great Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), which is under protection in the EU, is open all year round in Serbia, clearly interfering and jeopardizing conservation efforts made by the EU member states. European Turtle Dove (Streptopelia turtur) and Bean Goose (Anser fabalis) gave evidence of declining national populations, especially in Vojvodina Province, but no consequences for the hunting law have been fostered meanwhile. In Montenegro the national hunters’ association estimates the national population of Rock Partridge (Alectoris graeca) at 18,000 individuals, while independent scientific data gave evidence of less than 1,300 breeding pairs remaining at present (D. Saveljić et al., unpubl. data). An earlier inventory reported on 3,000 – 4,000 pairs still (Puzović et al. 2003). Although the role of Macedonian migratory bird habitats as stop-over sites along the Adriatic

„These examples clearly demonstrate that the legal regula�ons in place do not suit the purpose of preven�ng protected species from being harmed by legal hun�ng“

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

HUNTING AND BIRDCRIME IN WESTERN BALKAN COUNTRIES

Flyway has not been entirely investigated, it is part of Macedonia´s international nature conservation liabilities to harmonize its hunting law with the Bern Convention´s requirements. However, four species under strict protection according to the Bern Convention (Annex II) are legally shot in the country. In addition, another two strictly protected species according to EU law (not listed in Annex II and I), as well as four species listed in Annex I of the EU Birds Directive are being exploited legally in the country. In many cases, national hunting legislations do reflect neither national wild bird population trends nor Flywayspecific trends adequately. Consequently, national legislative hunting frameworks do not serve the purpose of sustainable management and exploitation of wild birds as a natural resource in many cases (Fig. 1, Tab. 1). - Hun�ng seasons do not reflect the phenology of species The adequate determination of open and closed seasons is another main legislative parameter to control and manage wildlife exploitation. With the hunting season for the Anatidae family starting in August or beginning of September in several countries, detrimental impacts on late-breeding species not having completed their annual breeding cycle by that time, are inevitable. The season for Garganey opens on 1 September in Croatia, for example. This practice negatively affects the national breeding bird population, especially taking into account that climatic variations become more frequent and may have an impact on the seasonality of breeding. Simultaneously, early resting birds originating from populations breeding further in the North-East are impacted during migration. Another species whose national breeding population is negatively affected by the early beginning of the hunting season is Ferruginous Duck (Aythya nyroca). It is strictly protected in Croatia, but at least 80 individu-

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

als are killed annually on Croatian fish ponds with an observed maximum of 150 kills between 2009 and 2012 (Mikuška T. et al., unpubl. data). The majority of the birds were shot during the first half of September when local breeding populations are still in family groups. A similar situation is observed for other species of the genus Aythya. Not only in Croatia, but also in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo duck and geese hunting opens in mid-August or the beginning of September. In Serbia duck hunting is permitted until the end of February when migration success may be impacted. In the Montenegrin hunting law the hunting season for ducks, geese and several other game bird species was prolonged to 15 February in 2010. This amendment represented a step backwards for wildlife protection compared to the situation after the previous law adopted in 2009, restricting bird hunting to 15 January (CZIP, 2010). Back then, the hunting season for all waterfowl was closed by mid-January. Individual species suffering from inadequately early or long hunting seasons are Hazel Grouse (Tetrastes bonasia), open from 16 August in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Garganey in Albania. The Albanian hunting law allowed hunting for Garganeys until mid-March, which did not comply with EU regulations and requirements of the Bern Convention and dramatically interfered with the breeding and migrating populations frequenting Albanian coastal wetlands. Along the Albanian coast, hunting and poaching activities were fatal until the final adoption of a two years hunting moratorium in March 2014, an official step representing a benchmark reaction to the overexploitation of wildlife for entire Europe. Any regulations enabling the hunting of bird species all year round (such as reported for crows, Northern Goshawk and Grey Heron Ardea cinerea in Serbia) are unacceptable from biodiversity conservation perspectives and clearly breach the requirements of both, the EU Birds Directive and the Bern Convention.

HUNTING AND BIRDCRIME IN WESTERN BALKAN COUNTRIES

- Hun�ng law must not give any room for interpreta�on or side-eﬀects Field observations revealed severe disturbance and damage of protected species caused by legal hunting for closely related game bird species sharing the same habitats. This is the case in Slovenia, where Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) is the only huntable duck species. With the hunting season starting on 1 September the reproductive cycle of Ferruginous Duck was observed to suffer from disturbance through Mallard hunting. Another critical case of detrimental side-effects on protected species is the situation of wild Grey Partridge (Perdix perdix) in Slovenia. Despite the fact that hunting is only allowed for individuals bred in captivity, individuals of the wild population are not easily distinguished phenotypically from the bred ones by the hunters. As a consequence, the wild population might already have dropped below the level of extinction (DOPPS, pers. information). In the extensive karst polje landscapes of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Corncrake (Crex crex) represents another prominent example of species confusion and accidental shooting, sharing its habitat with Common Quail (Coturnix coturnix). These examples clearly demonstrate that the legal regulations in place do not suit the purpose of preventing protected species from being harmed by legal hunting. The phenomenon of protected duck species being confused with game species and being killed falsely has been reported frequently for Albania, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia, as well. Confusion of species and negative side-effects on sensitive or even protected ones is even more frequent in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the hunting law refers to “ducks” as a species group including the genera Anas, Aythya, Mergus and even Cygnus without any distinction between individual species. The legislative status of these genera is unclear, as paragraph 5 classiﬁes them as “not protected” on the one hand, while paragraphs 8 and

9 define these genera as protected. The fact that scientific species names are not used consistently and articles refer to common names for species groups/ species creates even more confusion. This lack of clarity and any differentiation between abundant and rare, nationally or internationally protected species in the hunting law opens the floor for uncontrolled hunting of any members of the mentioned genera, even those under strict international protection (e.g. Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus, Redbreasted Goose Branta ruficollis and Ferruginous Duck). The respective hunting law is that ambiguous, that the legal prosecution of cases of illegal hunting or poaching on respective bird groups is virtually impossible, as there are many options for interpretations benefitting the hunter/poacher.

3.3. Facts around bird crime 3.3.1. Illegal hun�ng techniques applied The Bern Convention refers to forbidden hunting techniques as follows: ‘In respect of the capture or killing of wild fauna species speciﬁed in Appendix III Contracting Parties shall prohibit the use of all indiscriminate means of capture and killing and the use of all means capable of causing local disappearance of, or serious disturbance to populations of a species, and, in particular, the means speciﬁed in Appendix IV’. With regards to EU legislation, hunting practice is regulated in Article 8 of the EU Birds Directive which states that ‘Member States shall prohibit the use of all means, arrangement or methods used for the large-scale or non-selective capture or killing of birds or capable of causing the local disappearance of a species, in particular, the use of those listed in Annex IV, point (a).’ Both, the EU Directive and the Bern Convention provide a clear understanding of the techniques failing compliance with the respective law/ guideline.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

HUNTING AND BIRDCRIME IN WESTERN BALKAN COUNTRIES

shore, this practice is commonly applied to attract wader species (Fig. 2). The use of motor vehicles was observed on ponds and lakes even inside areas of national and/or international protection or conservation priority (Ramsar sites, IBAs, nature parks and national parks) (Fig. 3). The most common illegal hunting practices and the species/species groups which are most impacted are summarized in Tab. 2.

photo: EuroNatur

Despite the fact, that the national hunting legislations of the countries of interest do reďŹ&#x201A;ect the premises of the Bern Convention and the EU Birds Directive with regard to applicable hunting techniques, there is clear evidence of the massive application of illegal means of killing, capturing and trapping of wild birds along the Adriatic Flyway. Voice records and decoys are especially wide-spread to attract birds in duck hunting on lakes and shallow wetlands. Along the

photo: EuroNatur

Fig. 2: Decoys and speakers are used to allure birds at Velika Plaza, Ulcinj, Montenegro.

Fig. 3: A poacher using a motor boat in Hutovo Blato Nature Park, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

HUNTING AND BIRDCRIME IN WESTERN BALKAN COUNTRIES



 Fig. 3 Tab. 2: Frequently applied illegal hun�ng techniques in the countries along the Adria�c Flyway and species/species Tab. 2: Frequently applied illegal hunting practices along the Eastern Adriatic Flyway and groups aﬀected. species/ species groups affected

Technique

Species affected

Applied in/on

Tape records

Water birds in general, Anseriformes and quail in particular, songbirds during autumn migration

Frequently found along the shore and on the banks of lakes and impoundments, used during autumn migration to attract songbirds in Albania

Motor vehicles

Anseriformes (ducks, swans, Frequently used on rivers, lakes and impoundments, observed in Ramsar geese), cormorants, herons sites and national parks and coot

Decoys and lures

Anseriformes (ducks, swans, Placed in shallower wetlands, where geese), curlew, godwit and there are no strong currents, i.e. salinas other waders and shallow coastal waters, used in hunting ponds in Serbia, Croatia and Montenegro both by hunting tourists and locals

Poisoning and poisoned baits

All kinds of buzzards, hawks, eagles, falcons and vultures

Frequent in the vicinity of small animal or poultry husbandry, common practice in trophy hunting for raptors and owls

Hunting dogs

Frequently used in Quail hunting with voice imitation devises attached to dogs collars

Used in the extensive grassland landscapes of the karst poljes in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Montenegro

Automatic weapons

Used in duck and geese hunting, especially for species wintering in big flocks on the open water surface

Often automatic weapons are used on lakes and impoundments and in combination with motor vehicles which causes even more stress and has dramatic effects on resting flocks

Unselective means like glue and nets

Passerines, especially larks, Goldfinch, but also Great cormorant and Pygmy cormorant, bee-eaters

In extensive cultural landscapes (lime sticks and nets) and around fish ponds, where people fear competition for fish (fishing nets), used to catch bee-eaters when entering their nest-hole

These illegal techniques significantly increase the overall pressure on wild birds as they result in mass destruction of entire flocks of automatic weapons, for disturbance and These illegal techniques signiﬁcantly increase the (in case weapons, for example) or severe example) or severe disturbance and deterioration of deterioration entire species groups (raptors overall pressure on wild birds as they result in mass of entire species groups (raptors being being killed by the exposure of poisoned bates, for example). destruction of entire ﬂocks (in case of automatic killed by the exposure of poisoned baits, for example).

3.3.2. Main driving forces and motivations for bird crime  38

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

HUNTING AND BIRDCRIME IN WESTERN BALKAN COUNTRIES

3.3.2. Main driving forces and mo�va�ons for bird crime - Trophy hun�ng as a recrea�onal ac�vity Trophy hunting affects certain species groups much more than others and is more wide-spread in regions where international hunting tourism is common (cf. Hunting tourism). Severe impacts on all kinds of raptors are caused by poachers and illegal hunting activities in Serbia. While the national populations of Saker (Falco cherrug) and Peregrine Falcon (F. peregrinus) are impacted by nest robbery for the international black market, there are numerous records that Griffon Vultures (Gyps fulvus), buzzards, Common Kestrels (Falco tinnunculus), hawks and White-tailed (Haliaeetus albicilla), Golden (Aquila chrysaetos) and Eastern Imperial Eagles (A. heliaca) are shot, poisoned or trapped. The same is true for Montenegro and Albania where especially eagles have a high symbolic meaning. Owl species, particularly Eurasian Eagle Owl (Bubo bubo), are also amongst the most popular trophies. They are caught alive, but also shot for being stuffed. Additionally, poaching is a very common way of spending weekends and leisure time in the region. This is explicitly true for Albania, besides Montenegro, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. In Albania, where hunting permits were only given to members of the politbureau and the upper military class during the communist time, hunting and poaching became popular “sports” since the political transformation of the country in the early 90s bringing wildlife at the edge of regional extinction. Comparably high unemployment rates and the lack of socio-economic perspectives in rural areas also feed the popularity of poaching. Regional ornithology experts do not ﬁnd common ground when asked if massive bird crime, as we have experienced it in recent years, may be a generation problem. Regardless of the correct answer, several wild bird populations may not be viable enough to sustain nowadays pressures for another two decades.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

- Hun�ng tourism The EU member states are required to embody their national hunting legislations under the EU umbrella represented by the Birds Directive. EU countries with longlasting traditions in bird hunting, such as France, Malta, Italy and others have experienced certain restrictions since that time. With these restrictions hunters and poachers from EU countries living in close vicinity to the non-EU Western Balkan countries started frequenting the region as hunting tourists. They profit from a combination of deficiencies in the administrational, custom and hunting control sector in these countries, as well as from the comparably weak job market, comparably low wage level and general economic distress in the region. The non-EU countries along the Eastern Adriatic, mainly Montenegro and Albania, receive hunting tourists from southern Europe, especially Italy, while Serbia is frequented by an increasing number of Romanians. Hunting tour agencies in the destination countries, such as Albania, sell packages perfectly fitting the needs of foreigners. They include hunting guns, transportation to the most promising sites and they guarantee the shooting of a certain number of birds without paying any respect to the law and hunting seasons. Hunting tours are organized to privately owned priority sites for bird migration, such as fish ponds (known for Croatia and Serbia) or salt-works (Montenegro, Albania), and even to areas under national protection. Corruption amongst tour agencies, local hunters, game keepers, protected area administrations and in some cases even the border police and customs is most likely paving the way for this illegal business. The financial situation of many sites under official national protection is far from being secure and governmental financial commitment has been decreasing rather than rising in many areas. Protected areas in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and other countries often need to raise 50 % and more of their required annual budget from entrance fees, the sale of souvenirs and other economic business. Management quality suffers under this strong economic tension and the inappropriate exploitation of natural resources, such as wildlife is only one of the consequences.

HUNTING AND BIRDCRIME IN WESTERN BALKAN COUNTRIES

- Demand for wild birds in regional gastronomy

A very prominent motive for illegal killing of wild birds is the “pest prevention” argumentation used by farmers, fish pond owners and pigeon breeders. Wild birds preying on livestock and small game species, like raptors and fish eating birds, or feeding on seeds and crops in the fields, are frequent victims of illegal shooting and poisoning. This wrong and illegal approach of “pest control” is wide-spread in EU countries. And it is a well known motive for illegal killing of birds in the Western Balkan countries, even in Slovenia, where bird crime is not a frequent phenomenon in general. Great Cormorants have ever since suffered from their image as “pest birds” and are repelled and killed by commercial fishermen and fish pond owners in large numbers. Even the strictly protected Pygmy Cormorant (Phalacrocorax pygmaeus) as well as Grey Heron and Great Egret (Casmerodius albus) are impacted severely. Poisoned baits, cage traps and other illegal means of killing or trapping are applied to decrease the population of raptor species (cf. “Trophy hunting as a recreational activity”). The pressure is significantly high in the vicinities of poultry and small animal husbandries, a phenomenon known from many EU countries, as well. In Serbia, even cases of gull poisoning were recorded.

Illegal killing and trapping of passerines being driven by local gastronomy is a sad pattern known for southern EU countries like Malta, Cyprus, France and Italy. However, along the Western Balkans the cuisine calls for waterfowl. In the Neretva Delta, restaurants intensely promote dishes prepared with Eurasian Coot (Fulica atra), for example. Even the international touristic sector is highlighting coot dishes as a local specialty and the exclusive quality of a coot dish in the restaurants of the Neretva delta (Croatia/Bosnia and Herzegovina). These dishes are popular not only during the hunting season, but especially during the closed season perfectly overlapping with the busiest months in the touristic sector. As a consequence, illegal killing of coot is intense during late spring and summer, when the hunting season is closed. In the past, coot and duck poaching was witnessed inside the boundaries of protected areas in the delta using motor boats and automatic weapons.

photo: B. Stumberger

- The false image of pest birds

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

HUNTING AND BIRDCRIME IN WESTERN BALKAN COUNTRIES

„Despite the fact, that the na�onal hun�ng legisla�ons of the countries of interest do reﬂect the premises of the Bern Conven�on and the EU Birds Direc�ve with regard to applicable hun�ng techniques, there is clear evidence of the massive applica�on of illegal means of killing, capturing and trapping of wild birds along the Adria�c Flyway“

3.4. The lack of law enforcement In the context of this report information on both, the legal frameworks as well as the state of implementation of these frameworks was collected. As described in section 3.1 and 3.2, there are more or less severe deficiencies in the national hunting legislations putting population viability at risk due to unsustainable exploitation. Besides this, experts reported on insufficient law enforcement and hunting control and a major lack of inspection in the field, a lack of governmental financial commitment for the protection of priority species and their habitats as well as a lack of the installation and control of hunting ban areas in their countries. Besides urgently needed adaptations of the hunting law based on actual population trend data, serious law enforcement efforts and legal prosecution of infringements must be undertaken by the authorities. The reporting of bird crime is most seldom realized by public institutions or hunters associations and game keepers, but by civil society organisations, ornithologists and bird watchers. There are positive examples of active cooperation between civil society organisations and the local or county police, but these still remain exceptions proving the rule. Indeed the governments, represented by their respective Ministries of Agriculture/Forestry/Environment, do not only fail in effectively enforcing the hunting law in most of the region. We are generally witnessing public environmental funds being invested in international networks, such as Natura 2000 or the designation of additional protected areas as a preparation for EU accession. While trying to formally fulfil EU criteria,

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

the actual protection of biodiversity in these sites, i.e. the management and maintenance of protected areas, is successively marginalized. Such effects have been observed in Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania and even in Slovenia. It is inevitable to mention also the need for strong and trustful collaboration between governmental and non-governmental stakeholders in this context. Joint efforts of executive public organs, hunters associations and civil society organisations bear the potential to mitigate wildlife crime effectively. On the other hand, national hunting laws can only serve their intrinsic purpose of wise management and sustainable use of wildlife, if they are based on sophisticated monitoring data, which in the majority of cases are generated and managed by non-governmental institutions exclusively. Also in respect of wildlife monitoring, governmental agencies need to take on their tasks and responsibilities.

„ Besides urgently needed adapta�ons of the hun�ng law based on actual popula�on trend data, serious law enforcement eﬀorts and legal prosecu�on of infringements must be undertaken by the authori�es“

HUNTING AND BIRDCRIME IN WESTERN BALKAN COUNTRIES

Conclusions and outlook

With respect to the complexity of environmental and climatic challenges that societies are facing nowadays, governments should no longer close their eyes from the urgent need of wise management and sustainable use of natural resources, which wild bird populations are an elementary part of. This responsibility includes the deﬁnition of adequate frameworks to the sustainable harvesting of wild birds and respective measures to ensure population viability. Comprehensive international and regional population trend data need to serve as a baseline for these legal regulations. Otherwise authorities cannot guarantee that population viability is not negatively affected by hunting activities. Furthermore, legislations need to become better harmonized along the Adriatic Flyway and beyond in order to preserve especially the populations of migrants throughout their entire range. The exploitation of species which suffer from stress caused by habitat reduction and other detrimental anthropogenic or natural pressures like diseases, unfavourable climatic conditions, needs to be ceased completely in order to enable these species to recover. In addition, vulnerable and endangered species which are easily confused with related but abundant ones must be removed from national game bird lists in order to avoid the side-effects described above. Besides legislative regulations, the role of law enforcement in the context of wild bird protection cannot be overestimated and claims for wise management of hunting ban and protected areas as well as effective measures of hunting control cannot be loud enough. The establishment of effective alliances between the public executive organs, such as the police, customs, protected area and other relevant administrations, and the non-governmental sector is crucial for successful awareness raising, the reduction of bird crime and the stabilization of wild bird populations in the long run. Public hunting control mechanisms must be empowered to accomplish their challenging tasks

through the provision of adequate resources (staff, equipment and facilities, expert guidance) and specific trainings. Even if civil society organisations have played a leading role in the monitoring and documentation of birds and bird crime along the Western Balkans, governments and administrations, as well as the police and border controls need to take over both, executive responsibility and comprehensive data collection in the future. Good and trustful collaboration between governmental and non-governmental organisations, which represent an impressive source of expertise (monitoring, data analysis, protected area management etc.), may significantly benefit the efficiency of governmental action in the future. Finally, the commitment for the establishment and management of protected areas to preserve the countries´ natural heritage definitely needs to obtain a higher rank in the priority list of the Western Balkan countries in the near future. With regards to wild bird conservation priority must be given not only to the international Natura 2000 and Emerald networks, but explicitly to Important Bird Areas (IBAs), Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar sites) and to national protected area networks, as well. Given the present situation, the availability of a well-protected network of breeding, stop-over and wintering sites for migratory birds represents a worthwhile regional biodiversity conservation goal for the countries along the Adriatic Flyway.

Aknowledgements Special appreciation goes to the Adriatic Flyway partner network and particularly to Borut Stumberger, Peter Sackl (Universalmuseum Joanneum, Austria), Damijan Denac and Luka Božič (DOPPS - BirdLife Slovenia), Ivan Budinski (Association BIOM, Croatia), Adrian Tomik (Croatian Society for Bird and Nature Protection), Dražen Kotrošan, Ilhan Dervović and Nermina Sarajlić (Naše ptice, Bosnia and Herzegovina), Aleksandar Perović, Mihailo Jovičević and Darko

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

HUNTING AND BIRDCRIME IN WESTERN BALKAN COUNTRIES

Saveljić (Centre for Protection and Research of Birds of Montenegro), Milan Ružić and Marko Janković (Bird Protection and Study Society of Serbia), Qenan Maxhuni (Kosovo Environmental Protection Agency), Denik Ulqini and Dritan Dhora (Association for Protection of Aquatic Wildlife of Albania) and Metodija Velevski (Macedonian Museum of Natural History) who contributed signiﬁcantly to the present review by providing information, data and their valuable expert feedback.

References BIO Intelligence Service (2011): Stocktaking of the main problems and review of national enforcement mechanisms for tackling illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU. Final report prepared for European Commission (DG Environment) Bird Life International (2015): The killing, unlawfully shot, trapped or glued. Every year around 25 million birds are slaughtered in the Mediterranean. Read our first review of illegal killing of birds in the region. http://www.birdlife.org/sites/default/files/attachments/01-28_low.pdf Centar za zaštitu i proučavanje ptica Crne Gore: Ptice u zakonskoj regulativi Crne Gore. Fact sheet for the EU IPA-project: “Wings Across the Balkans, Preparing countries in the Western Balkans for implementing the EU Wild Birds Directive”. Centre for Protection and Research of Birds, Podgorica (Montenegro). Council of Europe: Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. European Treaty Series - No. 104, Bern (Switzerland). Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds. Official Journal of the European Union, L20/7, Brussels (Belgium).

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

FACE (2010): FACE - Annual report 2009-2010 http://www.face.eu/sites/default/ﬁles/attachments/ data_hunters-region_sept_2010.pdf Hirschfeld A. & Heyd A. (2005): Jagdbedingte Mortalität von Zugvögeln in Europa: Streckenzahlen und Forderungen aus Sicht des Vogel- und Naturschutzes. Bericht des Präsidenten des Deutschen Rates für Vogelschutz für das Jahr 2004. Ber. zum Vogelschutz 42: 7 – 13. Nagy Sz., Langendoen T. & Flink S. (2016): The status of waterbird populations in the Adriatic Flyway (this volume). Puzović S., Simić D., Saveljić D., Gergelj J., Tucakov M., Stojnić N., Hulo I., Ham I., Vizi O., Sciban M., Ružić M., Vucanović M. & Jovanović, T. (2003): Birds of Serbia and Montenegro – size of nesting populations and trends: 1990-2002. Ciconia 12: 36-120. Saveljić D., Rubinić B. & Jovićević M. (2011): Istraživanje indikatorskih vrsta ptica na Durmitoru tokom 2010: godine procjena stanja njihovih populacija. Nature Protection in 21st Century Conference Proceedings Book II: 341-349. Schneider-Jacoby, M. & Spangenberg, A. (2010): Bird Hunting Along the Adriatic Flyway – an Assessment of Bird Hunting in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia and Serbia. – In: Denac D., Schneider-Jacoby M. & Stumberger B. (eds.). Adriatic Flyway – closing the gap in bird conservation. Euronatur, Radolfzell, pp. 32–51. Stumberger B., Sackl P. & Schneider-Jacoby M. (2012): Heimﬂug in den Tod – der Frühjahrszug der Knäkente Anas querquedula an der östlichen Adria. Vogelwarte 51: 288–289.

photo: P. Sackl

Eurasian Teal (Anas crecca), Vransko Jezero, Croaï¿½a, 29 December 2007. 44

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Impact of hun�ng on strictly protected species in Croa�a Alma Mikuška1, Dario Horvat2, Adrian Tomik3 & Tibor Mikuška3 Department of Biology, University J.J. Strossmayer in Osijek, Cara Hadrijana 8a, 31000 Osijek, Croa�a; E-mail: alma.mikuska@biologija.unios.hr 2 3/10 Nepean Avenue, Hampton East, 3188 Victoria, Australia; E-mail: hdarios@gmail.com 3 Croa�an Society for Bird and Nature Protec�on, Gundulićeva 19a, 31000 Osijek, Croa�a; E-mail: �bor.kopacki.rit@gmail.com 1

Summary

Keywords

We have inspected hunting bags during five hunting seasons on two fishponds in Pannonian Croatia. In total, we have examined 5,879 shot birds representing 23 bird species. Eight species that were allowed to be hunted were Anas crecca, A. querquedula, A. platyrhynchos, Aythya ferina, A. fuligula, Fulica atra, Gallinago gallinago and Columba palumbus. Apart from them 15 strictly protected species were recorded in the hunting bags. The most frequent strictly protected species in the hunting bag was Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope (377 shot individuals) followed by Ferruginous Duck Aythya nyroca (262 ind.), Gadwall A. strepera (147 ind.), Northern Shoveler A. clypeata (93 ind.) and Norhern Pintail A. acuta (48 ind.). Other strictly protected species recorded were Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo, Greylag Goose Anser anser, White-fronted Goose A. albifrons, Redcrested Pochard Netta rufina, Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula, Smew Mergellus albellus, Northern Lapwing Vanellus vanellus, Dunlin Calidris alpina, Spotted Redshank Tringa erythropus, and Ruff Philomachus pugnax. The rate of strictly protected species within the hunting bag varied between from 6.32 % (2012) to 18.93 % (2009) per year, 16.29 % in average. However, the rate of strictly protected species in the hunting bag per one hunting event (hunting day) was higher than 10 % during 20 % of hunting days, higher than 20 % during 10 % of hunting days, and higher than 30 % during 6 % of hunting days, respectively. The highest rate of protected species recorded per hunting day was over 60 %.

Illegal hunting, Croatia, strictly protected species, hunting impact

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Introduc�on

Hunting is a well-known and traditional way of spending leisure time in Croatia. Over 64,000 hunters were officially registered in the country by 2012 (Croatian Bureau of Statistics 2014) managing 1,081 hunting grounds (Central Hunting Evidence 2014) that covered 3.69 million ha or 65 % of the total land (Croatian Bureau of Statistics 2014). The number of foreign hunters is estimated to 7,000 – 7,500 per year (Podnar 2013), only a fraction of the estimated 30,000 that were hunting in Croatia in the late 1980s (Anonymus 2013). Despite the elaborated hunting legislation, hunting in Croatia received a insufficient score in an extensive assessment study of bird hunting along the Adriatic Flyway (Schneider-Jacoby & Spangenberg 2010). A lack of monitoring of shot birds, hunting during the reproduction stages, hunting impact on endangered bird species and illegal bird hunting were pinpointed as the main problems in the hunting implementation and deficits to the standards defined by the EU directives (Schneider-Jacoby & Spangenberg 2010). The purpose of this article is to shed light on the impact of hunting on strictly protected species in Croatia via hunting bag controls.

PROTECTED WATERBIRD SPECIES IN HUNTING BAG

Methods

We acquired the data through hunting bag checks on two fishponds in Pannonian Croatia during the 2008 - 2012 hunting seasons. Waterfowl hunting was taking place primarily during the two mornings of a weekend with longer time spent hunting during the first day (Saturday) than the second one (Sunday). Hunting took place from sunrise until mid-day when hunters returned to their lodges. Shot birds were collected by the employees of the hunting ground and brought out to the central place where we were able to examine them. Species, sex and their numbers were recorded during the examination. In very few cases we have found ringed birds whose recoveries were then reported to the Ornithological Institute in Zagreb. The list of hunting species was obtained from the Hunting Law (Official Gazzette no. 140/05, 75/09, 153/09, 14/14), while the list of strictly protected species was obtained from the Nature Protection Act (Official Gazzette no. 80/13).

Results

During ﬁve hunting seasons we have examined 5,879 birds in total representing 23 bird species (Tab. 1). Apart from 8 species that are considered game animals and allowed to be legally hunted (Anas crecca, A. querquedula, A. platyrhynchos, Aythya ferina, A. fuligula, Fulica atra, Gallinago gallinago and Columba palumbus), 15 species, with exception of Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo, were representatives of strictly protected species according to the Croatian Nature Protection Act. Non-game and strictly protected species were representatives of four families: cormorants (Phalacrocoracidae), geese (Anatidae), plovers (Charadriidae) and sandpipers (Scolopacidae).

The most frequent strictly protected species in the hunting bag was Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope (377 shot individuals) followed by Ferruginous Duck Aythya nyroca (262 ind.), Gadwall A. strepera (147 ind.), Northern Shoveler A. clypeata (93 ind.) and Norhern Pintail A. acuta (48 ind.) (Tab. 1). Apart from Greylag Goose Anser anser with 14 shot individuals, other species were only occasionally present in the hunting bag with less than ﬁve individuals (Tab. 1). The rate of strictly protected species in the hunting bag varied from 6.32 % (2012) to 18.93 % (2009) per year, with 16.29 % in average (Fig. 1). However, the rate of strictly protected species in the hunting bag per one hunting event (hunting day, n = 101) was higher than 10 % during 20 % of hunting days, higher than 20 % during 10 % of hunting days, and over 30 % during 6 % of hunting days, respectively (Fig. 2). The highest rate of protected species recorded per hunting day was 60.67 %. The temporal distribution of the ﬁve most common strictly protected bird species found in the hunting bags (all seasons combined) is represented in Tab. 2. The highest numbers are shot during the beginning of the hunting season and then the numbers decrease towards the winter. The temporal distribution of strictly protected bird species in the hunting bags clearly mimics the life histories of the species. This is nicely represented by the three most common strictly protected bird species in the hunting bags: Ferruginous Duck, Gadwall and Eurasian Wigeon (Fig. 3.). The highest numbers of Ferruginous Duck and Gadwall are shot early in the hunting season (September) and then their numbers decline. Contrary to this pattern, the highest number of Eurasian Wigeons is shot during the October-November period, which coincides with their migration through Croatia (Fig. 3).

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

PROTECTED WATERBIRD SPECIES IN HUNTING BAG

Tab. Bird species andand their legal status represented in hun�ng bags during 2008-2012 period. Tab.1:1: Bird species their legal status represented in hunting bags during 2008-2012 period.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Species

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012



Anas crecca Anas platyrhynchos Anas penelope Aythya nyroca Fulica atra Aythya ferina Anas strepera Anas clypeata Anas querquedula Anas acuta Aythya fuligula Anser anser Vanellus vanellus Anser albifrons Aythya nyroca/fuligula Bucephala clangula Gallinago gallinago Philomachus pugnax Phalacrocorax carbo Netta rufina Aythya nyroca/ferina Mergus albellus Calidris alpina Columba palumbus Tringa erythropus 

210 160 25 3 16 15 41 5 4 5 5

817 564 104 150 25 61 33 29 18 18 7 10 3 2 2

800 273 134 76 148 56 46 31 19 6 9 4

590 441 94 32 29 22 20 18 20 17 1

340 228 20 1 6 16 7 10 17 2 1

2,757 1,666 377 262 224 170 147 93 78 48 23 14 3 2 2

2 1 2 1

1 1 1 1 1 493

1,847

1,604

1,286

1 649

2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5,879

Protection status in HR Protected Protected Strictly protected Strictly protected Protected Protected Strictly protected Strictly protected Protected Strictly protected Protected Strictly protected Strictly protected Protected

Strictly protected Protected Strictly protected Not protected Strictly protected Strictly protected Strictly protected Protected Strictly protected

HR Hunting Law Game Game

Game Game

Game





Tab. 2: Temporal distribu�on of ﬁve most common strictly protected species in the hun�ng bags during the hun�ng season. Tab. 2: Temporal distribution of five most common strictly protected species in the hunting bags during the hunting season. Species Anas penelope Aythya nyroca Anas strepera Anas clypeata Anas acuta 

Sept 33 167 85 32 9 326

Oct 140 85 25 23 25 298

Nov 158 8 20 25 10 221

Dec 42 2 16 3 4 67

Jan 4 0 1 0 0 5

Feb 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 377 262 147 83 48 917

„Based on the oﬃcial data … it can be conserva�vely es�mated that 3,000 – 4,000 strictly protected waterbirds are being killed each year in Croa�an wetlands during legally organised hun�ng“

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS





PROTECTED WATERBIRD SPECIES IN HUNTING BAG

Fig. 1: Rate of strictly protected bird species in the hunting bags during 2008 - 2012 period. Fig. 1: Rate of strictly protected bird species in the hunï¿½ng bags during 2008 - 2012 period.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

PROTECTED WATERBIRD SPECIES IN HUNTING BAG

Fig. 2: Occurrence of strictly protected species in the hun�ng bag per hun�ng event (n = 101).



Fig. 2: Occurrence of strictly protected species in the hunting bag per hun (n = 101). 

Fig. 3: Temporal distribu�on of Ferruginous Duck (Aythya nyroca), Gadwall (Anas strepera) and Wigeon (Anas penelope) in the hun�ng bag during the hun�ng season (all years combined).

Fig. 3: Temporal distribution of Ferruginous Duck, Gadwall and Wige hunting bag the hunting ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD during CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS season (all years combined). 49

PROTECTED WATERBIRD SPECIES IN HUNTING BAG

Discussion

The results of this study confirm the well-known fact that strictly protected birds are often victims of indiscriminate and illegal hunting in Croatia, as already proven by Schneider-Jacoby & Spangenberg (2010). However, for the first time we have recorded actual proportions of protected species within hunting bags that are, with 16.3 % on average, unacceptably high. Based on the official data that 18,000-23,000 waterbirds are being shot in Croatia per year (Croatian Statistical Bureau 2014) it can be conservatively estimated that 3,000-4,000 strictly protected waterbirds are being killed each year in Croatian wetlands during legally organised hunting. This figure excludes birds killed during hunting on non-water birds or during poaching that is also taking place throughout the country. Our data show that rates of protected species in the hunting bag are decreasing since 2010, but we are quite convinced that this trend is misleading. Based on our field experience, we strongly suspect that, in later years as hunters became more aware of our presence, strictly protected species simply were not collected by the hunters from the field or they were pre-selected and separately stored, together with other illegal devices such as plastic decoys, tape-recorders and semi-automatic rifles that are regularly and openly used during hunting. With our study it has been proven that hunters shoot at birds indiscriminately, regardless of the species flying nearby. The list of 15 strictly protected species that were found in the hunting bags is far from complete because numerous circumstantial reports from other hunting grounds recorded shot species, such as Great Egret (Ardea alba) or Pygmy Cormorant (Microcarbo pygmaeus). Not only “hard to distinguish” or “easy to confuse” species are usual casualties, but ea-

sily recognisable species, such as Northern Lapwing, Red-crested Pochard, Smew or Common Goldeneye, serve as a proof that hunting in Croatia is indiscriminate. For the purpose of hunting statistics such birds would be simply reclassified as Mallards, making Croatian Central Hunting Evidence completely non-reliable. By default, such false data are further feeding and corrupting European statistical services. Hunting represents a particular problem to those species that are hard to distinguish from game species. This is well demonstrated with the numbers of killed Ferruginous Ducks whose shot numbers far exceeded the numbers of shot Common Pochards. This species with declining populations in Europe and designated as Vulnerable (BirdLife International 2015) are highly threatened during breeding and migration by illegal and indiscriminate hunting. Further to this, the early start of the hunting season, which begins in September, targets still breeding populations of both Ferruginous Ducks and Gadwalls. We have witnessed that even flightless ducklings of Ferruginous Duck were killed. As a conclusion, we would like to urge the Croatian government and respective Ministry of Agriculture to develop an efficient hunting bag control during legally organised bird hunting. Such hunting bag control has to be performed by independent ornithologists who are able to correctly identify the species of the shot birds. Further changes of the existing Croatian hunting legislations are necessary in order to shorten the hunting season in a way that would not affect the local breeding populations (particularly of the Vulnerable Ferruginous Duck), as well as to reduce the list of hunting species to exclude game species that can be easily confused with strictly protected species. It is also necessary to strengthen the penalties and efficiency of hunting inspection in order to decrease and eliminate the illegal hunting and poaching.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

PROTECTED WATERBIRD SPECIES IN HUNTING BAG

Acknowledgments We would like to thank to the hunting ground managers and their staff for providing us access to the hunting bags and collecting shot birds during the hunting. Although unintentionally, they have provided us with the much needed data on the lethal impact of illegal hunting on strictly protected bird species.

References Anonymus (2013): Downloaded from http://www. business.hr/ekonomija/lovci-iz-hrvatske-bjeze-umadjarsku-i-poljsku

Podnar O. (2013): Lovni turizam u EU okreće 10 mlrd Eura, Hrvatska uzima mrvice. Poslovni Dnevnik. Downloaded from http://www.poslovni.hr/hrvatska/ lovni-turizam-u-eu-okrece-10-mlrd-eura-hrvatskauzima-mrvice-240329# Schneider-Jacoby M. & Spangenberg A. (2010): Bird hunting along the Adriatic Flyway – an assessment of bird hunting in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia. In: Denac D., Schneider-Jacoby M. & Stumberger B. (eds), Adriatic Flyway – Closing the Gap in Bird Conservation. Euronatur, Radolfzell, Germany; pp. 33 – 52.

BirdLife International (2015): Species factsheet: Aythya nyroca. Downloaded from http://www.birdlife.org on 28/04/2015. Recommended citation for factsheets for more than one species: BirdLife International (2015) IUCN Red List for birds. Downloaded from www.birdlife.org on 28/04/2015. Croatian Bureau of Statistics (2014): Downloaded from www.hsz.hr on 15/09/2014. Central Hunting Evidence (2014): Downloaded from http://www.lovistarh.mps.hr/lovstvo_javnost/ Lovista.aspx?mode=2&zup=22 on 20/09/2014.

„For the purpose of hun�ng sta�s�cs such birds would be simply reclassiﬁed as Mallards, making Croa�an Hun�ng Evidence completely non-reliable“

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

photo: EuroNatur

Hunï¿½ng stage, Salina Ulcinj, Montenegro, 2008. 52

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Development of the Montenegrin hun�ng legisla�on in the period 2009-2014 and monitoring of bird crime in Montenegro in the period 2012-2014 Darko Saveljić 1, Aleksandar Radunović 1, Ana Knežević Burzanović 2 1 2

Center for Protec�on and Research of Birds of Montenegro, Velise Mugose bb, Podgorica, Montenegro; E-mail: czip@czip.me Customs Administra�on of Montenegro, Port of Bar, 8500 Bar, Montenegro; Email: akburzanovic@gmail.com

Summary A short review of the development of the Montenegrin hunting legislation between the two Adriatic Flyway conferences (2009 - 2014) is presented. Additionally several monitoring activities by Center for Protection and Research of Birds of Montenegro (CZIP) and its partners and some results of these monitoring activities are described. Amongst them are a monitoring of foreign hunters arriving by ferries during the hunting season of 2013/2014, a monitoring of the Green Market in Ulcinj during the hunting season of 2013/2014, a monitoring of illegal hunting on the Great Beach from 2012 - 2014 and a monitoring of illegal hunting on Ulcinj Salina from 2012-2014. Finally, the “Bruzda case”, a case of a killed Greater Spotted Eagle (Aquila clanga) in November 2012, is described.

Keywords hunting legislation, illegal hunting, bird crime, Montenegro

„In this new Rulebook the hun�ng season was prolonged from 15th of January to 15th of February … which was in contradic�on with the EU’s Birds Direc�ve“ ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Montenegrin legisla�on between two Adria�c Flyway conferences (2009-2014) After accepting the Law on hunting in Montenegro (2008), the Montenegrin Parliament in 2009 accepted a Rulebook on huntable species and the duration of hunting season. The Rulebook was greeted by CZIP as an important step towards bird protection: the number of huntable species was decreased from 23 to 20, and the hunting season was significantly shortened - to 15th of January (by the previous Rulebook the season was lasting up to 1st of March, and was prolonged for Garganey Anas querquedula up to 15th of March). Less than a year after this, the Government has, without any pervious announcement or a public debate, but probably under pressure of the hunting lobby, accepted a Rulebook on changes and corrections to the Rulebook on hunting species and the duration of hunting season. In this new Rulebook the hunting season was prolonged from 15th of January to 15th of February, to a period overlapping the birds returning from Africa, which was in contradiction with the EU’s Birds Directive (Article 7). In an analysis of the legislation and practices in bird protection (Schneider-Jacoby & Spangenberg 2010), Montenegro got an overall grade of 1.55 (grading is from 1 - 5 with 5 being excellent). The grade was based on the regulation of hunting, the duration of the hunting season, the number of species that are allowed to be hunted, the influence on endangered species etc. The study estimated that there are 4,500 registered hunters in Montenegro (correct data was unavailable) (Schneider-Jacoby and Spangenberg, 2010). This number was significantly smaller than the real number for that year – 7,324 (Ivanović 2014). The newly accepted Rulebook (MSPS 2010) also allows birds to be hunted in a way that was contradicting the Birds Directive. As an additional fact, the cessation of the operation of the Ulcinj Salina, a key area along the Adriatic Flyway, after more than 80 years, poses a serious threat to the survival of migrating

HUNTING LEGISLATION AND BIRD CRIME IN MONTENEGRO

birds on the whole Adriatic Flyway. If all three chanMonitoring of foreign hunters arriving ges are taken into consideration, from 2009 up to by ferries during the hun�ng season of now, and considering that Albania has put a mora2013/2014               torium on hunting, Serbia  has significantly improved monitoring of bird hunting Croatia shortened the hunting season of 2013/2014 32 vehicles   and   the  During       spring hunting season (since its entrance to European with 128 hunters from Italy have been recorded to                Union), the grade that Montenegro be given arrive Montenegro. At the same time 210 hunting   would   in       in a new scoring would definitely be below the Slodogs and 41 firearms were brought into the country. 63 hunters (from 128) with full hunting gear (hunting venian, Croatian, Serbian and Albanian score. Mon suit, ammunition, rifle and dog) entered Montenegro tenegro, along with Bosnia and Herzegovina, would  via the same route. Four hunters were sent back to probably have the lowest grade in the region.  Italy because they did not have an invitation letter,  to which they are obligated by law (MPRR 2010). The The whole surface of areas suitable for hunting in  highest number of hunters was registered in DecemMontenegro in 2011 was 1,105,000 ha, of which           990,000 ha were designated as hunting areas. In the ber (54 hunters). In January 39  Italian hunters were      in    registered, in February 29 and October and Noperiod from 2003 to  2011 there was no significant          change in the surface of hunting areas (Tab. 1).  The vember 16  Italian hunters. number registered hunters decreased around 7 %         of  by  in the same period (Monstat 2013). According to the interviews with  hunters made by  the        authorized officers on the border, there is also the pos sibility that hunters are entering Montenegro without their firearms and hunting gear which they later rent  from their Montenegrin partners - from 128 hunters  that entered Montenegro 41 had  firearms.            only  

 Tab. 1: Hun�ng surfaces and number of hunters in Montenegro

 

 

































  54

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS 

HUNTING LEGISLATION AND BIRD CRIME IN MONTENEGRO

Most of the hunters entered without guns but with hunting dogs. When asked, hunters justified themselves with the excuse that they are here to train their hunting dogs, even though such training is forbidden during the hunting season. So there is the possibility that they bring their hunting dogs to hunt or traffick them in Montenegro illegally. Some of the hunters entered with their rifles but without other gear. During the hunting season of 2013/2014, 67 killed Common Snipes (Gallinago gallinago) were confiscated by the customs due to a lack of export permits. The results of this monitoring show that hunting is still not fully regulated in Montenegro.

Monitoring of Green Market in Ulcinj

In comparison to the period from 2000 to 2010, the number of hunters which entered trough Port Bar has signiﬁcantly decreased but there is a possibility that they are also entering trough Sukobin, a border pass with Albania, and that the Port Durrës is the place of their entrance to the Balkans. The Southeast European Law Enforcement Center (SELEC), which has the purpose to protect birds and to prohibit trafﬁcking, has during 2013 implemented an operation called “Orion” in Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Moldova, Macedonia, Montenegro and Romania. The operation was done in two phases: phase one from 4th October at 8:00 CET to 7th October at 16:00 CET; phase two from 8th November at 8:00 CET to 11th November at 16:00 CET. The goal of the operation was to pay attention to hunting companies and border crossing of the hunters and its frequency. During the operation 56 cars and hunters were controlled in Montenegro but no irregularities found. In the same period the customs and police of Hungary did 57,756 controls and noted the illegal transport of 44 individuals of three protected songbird species. As Montenegro is on the Adriatic Flyway, and there is still a great pressure from poachers, the results of the Montenegrin controls would probably be much more accurate and show irregularities if they were done in bigger number.

Monitoring of illegal hun�ng on the Great Beach from 2012 - 2014

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

During the hunting season of 2013/14 a periodical monitoring of the Green Market in Ulcinj was done, as this is a place where shot birds are sold (for approximately 3 EUR per bird). Birds were sold during the working days and on weekends, freshly killed, even although in Montenegro the only legal hunting days are Sunday and national holydays (MPVS, 2009). On the market we found between 8 and 34 birds daily, and the sold species were: Anas crecca, Anas penelope, Anas platyrhynchos, Anas acuta, Anas clypeata and, in the very cold winter 2012, a lot of Anser anser.

During periodical monitoring of illegal hunting on the Great Beach (Velika Plaža) no illegal bird hunting was registered during the hunting seasons in the 2012 to 2014 period. Decreased hunting pressure on Velika Plaža was probably due to intensive CZIPs campaigning and lobbying against illegal hunting. However, at the back of Štoj beach we registered many incidents of illegal hunting of Common Quails (Coturnix coturnix) with tape recorders.

„During the whole day monitoring 17 poachers were registered. … most of the poachers used plas�c decoys and tape recorders to hunt, both of which is illegal as well“

HUNTING LEGISLATION AND BIRD CRIME IN MONTENEGRO

Monitoring of illegal hun�ng on Ulcinj Salina from 2012 - 2014 The fact that the Montenegrin government still does not recognize poaching and insufficient implementation of the hunting law as a big problem is underlined by the statement of the Minister for Agriculture and Forestry that the greatest problems in hunting are the underdeveloped monitoring schemes for game animals, specifically the lack of monitoring methodology and central database and hunting records, along with the underdevelopment of hunting as economic activity. Ulcinj Salina is the most important bird habitat on the Eastern Adriatic Coast for resident, wintering, and birds migrating during autumn and spring migration (Schneider-Jacoby et al. 2005). By the decision No.69/1 from Montenegrin Gazette 31/1/2005 a Business Unit Natural Park was formed on the salina. The amendment no. 69/2 states that on the salina hunting and fishing is prohibited as well as that all persons who are not employed there do not have permission to enter the area. However, during the winter and spring months intense poaching is taking place in the salina.

In the next season (2013/2014) 54 ﬁeld days were conducted during the monitoring. More than 40 volunteers participated and during the hunting season 38 poachers were registered. The police was called each time the poachers were spotted and on several occasions they managed to capture and process the perpetrators. Only one case of poaching ended up on the court which clearly points that poaching in Montenegro is marginalized by the government.

The Bruzda case An event that undoubtedly shook the public, not only in Montenegro, is the case of a killed Greater Spotted Eagle (Aquila clanga) in November 2012. The eagle was monitored via GPS from Poland and shot in Montenegro. It was dying for two days in the yard of the director of the National Park Skadar Lake without any veterinary care provided. The case has started a diplomatic activity of the Ambassador of Poland in Podgorica who organized a round table on the needs of bird protection during migration, both with the diplomatic core and wider public in Montenegro.

CZIP, with its volunteers, conducts monitoring of illegal hunting. During the season of 2012/2013 CZIP worked on 56 ﬁeld days in the salina during which 35 volunteers participated in the monitoring. During the whole monitoring 17 poachers were registered. Apart from illegally entering, most of the poachers used plastic decoys and tape recorders to hunt, both of which is illegal as well. Although the police was informed on each event, they did not appear in any case.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

HUNTING LEGISLATION AND BIRD CRIME IN MONTENEGRO

References

Monstat (2013): Statistički godišnjak. 2013. Podgorica. lvanovic P. (2014): Uvodno obraćanje na okruglom stolu: Lovstvo u Crnoj Gori EU. Podgorica.

Ministarstvo poljoprivrede, vodoprivrede i sumarstva - MPVS (2010): Pravilnik o izmjeni i dopuni Pravilnika o lovnim vrstama i lovnim sezonama. Podgorica Pravilnika o lovnim vrstama i lovnim sezonama. Podgorica.

Schneider-Jacoby M., Dhora D., Saveljić D., Sackl P., Schwarz U. & Stumberger B. (2005): Rapid Assessment of the Ecological Value of the BojanaBuna Delta (Albania/Montenegro). Euronatur, Radolfzell.

Ministarstvo poljoprivrede i ruralnog razvoja MPRR (2010): Upustvo za podnošenje zahtjeva za davanje saglasnosti za organizovanje lova strancu. Direktorat za šumarstvo i lovstvo. Direkcija za lovstvo. Podgorica.

Schneider-Jacoby M. & Spangenberg A. (2010): Bird hunting along the Adriatic Flyway – an assessment of bird hunting in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia and Serbia. In: Denac D., Schneider-Jacoby M. & Stumberger B. (eds.), Adriatic Flyway – Closing the Gap in Bird Conservation. EuroNatur, Radolfzell, Germany; pp. 33 – 51.

photo: P. Sackl - Greater Flamingo (Phoenicopterus roseus)

Ministarstvo poljoprivrede, vodoprivrede i šumarstva – MPVS (2009): Pravilnik o lovnim vrstama i lovnim sezonama. Podgorica.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

photo: P. Sackl

Pygmy Cormorants (Microcarbo pygmaeus), Salina Ulcinj, Montenegro, 29 June 2015 58

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

The eﬀect of illegal hun�ng on the waterbirds of Hutovo blato Dražen Kotrošan1, Nermina Sarajlić2, Ilhan Dervović2, Josip Vekić3 Na�onal Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Zmaja od Bosne 3, 71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; E-mail: kotrosan@bih.net.ba 2 Ornithological Society „Naše p�ce“, Semira Frašte 6, 71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; E-mail: nermina_sarajlic@yahoo.com 3 Public Ins�tu�on Hutovo blato Nature Park, Karaotok bb, 88307 Višići, Bosnia and Herzegovina; E-mail: josip.vekic2@gmail.com 1

Summary

Keywords

Hutovo blato is a complex of sub-Mediterranean wetlands located in the southeastern part of Herzegovina. According to the last census, a total of 259 bird species was recorded in Hutovo blato and its immediate surroundings during the 1888 - 2013 period. In 1995, Hutovo blato was declared a nature park. In 1998, Hutovo blato was declared an Important Bird Area (IBA) and in 2001 it was registered in the List of Wetlands of International Importance by the Ramsar Convention. In 2002, the Nature Park „Hutovo blato“ was added to the Provisional List of National Monuments of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Although hunting is forbidden in Hutovo blato since 1995, due to unexpected circumstances during the 2008 - 2013 period (lack of ﬁnancing for the ranger service), adequate control was missing which led to the occurrence of illegal hunting in the area. Since 2008, winter bird counts and monitoring of illegal hunting in Hutovo blato is performed regularly by the Ornithological Society „Naše ptice“. This paper presents the numbers of birds recorded during the International Waterbird Census (IWC), with focus on the Common Coot (Fulica atra). Analyses of collected data show that a declining trend of illegal hunting since 2011 corresponds with signiﬁcantly increased bird numbers in Hutovo blato, with more than 24,500 birds recorded in the area in 2014. It is estimated that the number of wintering birds in Hutovo blato can reach 50,000, if illegal hunting is reduced to a minimum which can be done by providing funding for the ranger service and strengthening its capacities, improving cooperation with the local community, hunting associations and the local and cross-border police, but also by developing sustainable birdwatching tourism.

Hutovo blato, waterbirds, International Waterbird Census, illegal hunting, Common Coot

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Introduc�on

Hutovo blato is a complex of sub-Mediterranean wetlands in the southeastern part of Herzegovina, situated on the left side of the Neretva River near the border between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. It occupies an area of 7,411 hectares of swamps, plains and mountains, ranging from 1 - 432 m a.s.l. The mild Mediterranean climate and the developed vegetation of Hutovo blato are responsible for the extraordinary richness of the area‘s bird fauna, especially from autumn to spring, when large ﬂocks of birds from Central and Northern Europe use the area for stopping-over during migration or spend the entire winter here. According to data published between 1888 and 2000 and research performed by members of the Ornithological Society „Naše ptice“ since 2000, a total of 259 bird species has been recorded in the area of Hutovo blato and its surroundings (Kotrošan & Sarajlić 2014). After World War II, Hutovo blato was a hunting ground for the social and political elite. It was ﬁrst protected in 1954, when the ornitho-faunistic reserve „Hutovo blato“ was established. In 1995, Hutovo blato was declared a nature park which was added to the Provisional List of National Monuments of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2002. Following to its importance for birds, in 1998 Hutovo blato was declared an Important Bird Area (IBA) and in 2001 it was registered in the List of Wetlands of International Importance by the Ramsar Convention (http://www.hutovoblato.ba/parku.html; Kotrošan & Sarajlić 2014).

ILLEGAL HUNTING AND WATERBIRDS

photo: Dražen Kotrošan

According to Article 6 of the Law on Hunting of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, hunting is not allowed in protected areas. The „Ordinance on Internal Order of the Hutovo blato Nature Park“ states that hunting is allowed only in exceptional cases: Wild boar (Sus scrofa) can be hunted if the population becomes too high, other animals can be further hunted for the purpose of scientific research, sanitary measures or in order to restore natural balance, but in all cases a permission has to be issued by the Ministry (Articles 14 and 15). By the decision of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Water Management and Forestry Hutovo blato’s status as a special purpose hunting ground under Article 6 of the game law was confirmed in 2014. Due to various circumstances, mainly the lack of financing for the ranger service during 2008 - 2013, illegal hunting was a common practice in the area (Stumberger et al. 2008/09).

Figures 1 & 2: Hutovo blato in south-eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

ILLEGAL HUNTING AND WATERBIRDS

Methods

Since 2008, International Waterbird Censuses (IWCs) are performed by the Ornithological Society „Naše ptice“ in Hutovo blato. Counts were conducted during a single day between 11 and 22 January (Kotrošan & Dervović 2010, Dervović & Kotrošan 2011/12, Topić & Kotrošan 2011/12, Topić 2013). At the same time, the evidence for the occurrence and intensity of illegal hunting activities was monitored. The intensity of illegal hunting activities was ranked on a scale from 0 to 3, with 0 for no illegal activities, 1 for minimal activities (1 - 2 shots heard during the respective count), 2 for 3 to 10 shots per count and no hunting from boats, 3 for more than 10 shots and hunting from boats. For the present study data were analyzed for the families Gaviidae, Podicipedidae, Phalacrocoracidae, Ardeidae, Threskiornithidae, Anatidae, Rallidae and Laridae, with special attention on the Common Coot (Fulica atra), the quarry most preferred by illegal hunters.

Results

of the public institution „Hutovo blato“, which led to the disbandment of the ranger service and a lack of control of hunting activities. According to Tab. 1 illegal hunting activities are considerably lower in Hutovo blato since 2011, after a report regarding this topic was shown in the “Europamagazin” of the German TV station ARD in autumn 2011, and letters by the Ornithological Society „Naše ptice“ have been sent to the relevant national and entity ministries and to the Ramsar representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Since then, several police actions were performed and six guns have been confiscated. Since 2013, the monitoring of illegal activities has been intensified and a better cooperation with local communities, hunting associations and the police has been established which led to a significant decrease in illegal hunting activities. Eleven cases of illegal hunting activity were registered in 2013 and during the first half of 2014 there were six cases, with no illegal activities in spring and during summer.

3.1. Intensity of illegal hun�ng ac�vity During the study period, the intensity of illegal hunting activities was most prominent between 2008 and 2010 (Tab. 1), when a number of activities which are forbidden by the Law on Hunting of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and by international conventions, such as shooting from motor boats, shooting from hunting blinds, the killing of endangered and protected species, like Pygmy Cormorant (Microcarbo pygmaeus) and Ferruginous Duck (Aythya nyroca), the killing of birds during migration and the disturbance of bird ﬂocks, were observed (Stumberger et al. 2008/09). The main reason for the occurence of illegal hunting activities is the reduction in ﬁnancing

Tab. 1: Intensity of illegal hun�ng ac�vi�es in Hutovo blato, 2008 - 2014. Hun�ng intensity increases on a scale from 0 – 3.

Year

Intensity of illegal hunting

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

„According to Ar�cle 6 of the Law on Hun�ng of the Federa�on of Bosnia and Herzegovina, hun�ng is not allowed in protected areas“

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

photo: Ilhan Dervović

ILLEGAL HUNTING AND WATERBIRDS

Fig. 3 & 4: Hun�ng from a motorboat and used cartridges

reference: ARD - Europamagazin

as signs for illegal hun�ng in Hutovo blato.

Fig. 5: Detail from a report which the German TV sta�on ARD broadcasted in autumn 2011.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

ILLEGAL HUNTING AND WATERBIRDS

Fig. 5: Detail from a report which the German TV station ARD broadcasted in autumn 2011. Since 2013, the monitoring of illegal activities has been intensified and a better cooperation with local communities, hunting associations and the police has been established which led to a 3.2. Eﬀect ofdecrease illegal hun�ng on waterbird The low cases waterbird numbershunting present in Januarywere 2013 significant in illegal hunting activities. Eleven of illegal activity were registered due to the extremely mild winter, when abundance registered in 2013 and during the first half of 2014 there were six cases, with no illegal activities in January and February temperatures were signiﬁcantly spring and during summer.

Data collected during IWCs show the relation between above average in Central and Eastern Europe, which the intensity of illegal hunting activities and the poled to lower migration intensity from the north. Any3.2. Effect of illegal hunting abundance pulation numbers of waterbirds. In on thewaterbird years between way, in 2013, Hutovo blato was the locality in which Data collected during IWCs show the relation between the intensity of illegal hunting activities and 2008 – 2010 when illegal hunting was common, total the largest drop in numbers of wintering waterbirds the population numbers of waterbirds. In the years between 2008 – 2010 when illegal hunting was numbers of waterbirds in Hutovo blato didn‘t exceed was registered in the entire country (Topić 2013). common, total numbers of waterbirds in Hutovo blato didn't exceed 5,000 individuals (ind.), but, 5,000 individuals, but, after illegal hunting activities after illegal hunting activities declined, numbers raised up to more than 24,500 birds in 2014 (Tab. declined, numbers raised up to more than 24,500 birds 2). The most significant increase of the winter population was observed in Common Coot (Fulica inatra) 2014and (Tab.in2).many The most increase of the ducksigniﬁcant species (Anatidae). winter population was observed in Common Coot and in many duck species (Anatidae).

Tab. 2: Results of International Waterbird Censuses (IWCs) in Hutovo blato in January, 2008 –



Tab. 2: Results of Interna�onal Waterbird Censuses (IWCs) in Hutovo blato in January, 2008 – 2014. 2010.

Species Gavia arctica Tachybaptus ruficollis Podiceps cristatus Phalacrocorax carbo Phalacrocorax pygmaeus Ardea cinerea Ardea alba Egretta garzetta Botaurus stellaris Cygnus olor Anas penelope Anas strepera Anas acuta Anas crecca Anas clypeata Anas platyrhynchos Netta rufina Aythya ferina Aythya nyroca Aythya fuligula Aythya marila Rallus aquaticus Fulica atra Gallinula chloropus Larus michahellis Larus ridibundus TOTAL

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

54 1 108 360 2

69 6 103 566 24 2 9

503 45 40 1,842 21 6

34 100 1

187 264 17 1

3 1 3

12 163 146

113 3

62 98

1 716 72 2 2

1 385 64 3 648

1 1,814 4 21 333 3,814

185 9 587 102 4 63 4

675

1,300

5 1,616

7,745

26 783 3,986

360 41 11,126

71 85 56 135 3 208 6 410 39 65



2013 1 25

2014



355 287 48 5

213 121 4 4 4

2 2 135 26 14 89



929 2,658



176

520 2 1,268

65 43 422 1

469 13 1,364 125



 



6,936 6 61 183 10,721

1,741

16,747

25 105 3,567

29 73 24,593



The low waterbird numbers present in January 2013 were registered due to the extremely mild winter, when January and February temperatures were significantly above average in Central and ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS Eastern Europe, which led to lower migration intensity from the north. Anyway, in 2013, Hutovo



ILLEGAL HUNTING AND WATERBIRDS

Aythya fuligula 63 66 65 422 1,364 Aythya marila 1 125 Rallus aquaticus 1 1 5 Fulica atra 385 1,814 1,616 7,745 6,936 1,741 16,747 Gallinula chloropus 4 6 Larus michahellis 64 21 26 360 61 25 29 Larus ridibundus 3 333 783 41 183 105 73 648 3,814 3,986 11,126 10,721 3,567 24,593 TOTAL 3.3. Eﬀect of illegal hun�ng on Common Coot abundance The low waterbird numbers present in January 2013 were „… registered due tohun�ng the extremely mild a�er illegal ac�vi�es winter, when January and February temperatures were significantly above average in Central and declined, numbers raised up to Common Coot is the species which was most affected Eastern Europe, which led to lower migration intensity from the north. Anyway, in 2013, Hutovo by illegal hunting activities in Hutovo blato. After the more than 24,500 birds in 2014“ blato was the locality in which the largest drop in numbers of wintering waterbirds was registered in control of illegal hunting activities was established in the entire country (Topi 2013).

winter 2010/2011, the numbers of the species recorded during the IWC increased (Tab. 2, Fig. 6). This is „It will be further necessary to proespecially prominent for the ﬁgures in January 2014. vide funding for a ranger service, for 3.3. Effect of illegal hunting on Common Coot abundance During winter 2013/14 illegal hunting activities were itsillegal capaci�es, to most affected by huntingand activities in Common Coot (Fulica atra) is the species which wasstrengthening registered in nearby Neretva Delta in Croatia. Hence, Hutovo blato. After control over illegal hunting activities wascoopera�on established till winter 2010/2011, improve with … hun�ng it is assumed that birds from the Croatian part of numbers of the species recorded during the IWC increased (Tab.and 2, Fig. 6). This especially associa�ons the local andiscrossthe Neretva river valley moved to Hutovo blato, searprominent for the figures in January 2014. During winter 2013/14 illegal hunting activities were ching for safety. border police“

registered in nearby Neretva Delta in Croatia. Hence, it is assumed that birds from the Croatian part of the Neretva river valley migrated to Hutovo blato, searching for safety.

Numbers of Common Coot (Fulica atra)(Fulica in Hutovoatra) blato during the IWC in January, 2008 - 2014. Fig.Fig.6:6: Numbers of Common Coot in Hutovo blato during the IWC in January, 2008 2014.

4. Conclusions

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

ILLEGAL HUNTING AND WATERBIRDS

Conclusions

The presented data show that the reduction of illegal hunting activities had a positive and immediate effect on bird populations in Hutovo blato. A similar effect was registered after a complete hunting ban at Lake Constance in Switzerland and Germany (Schneider-Jacoby 2009). Obviously, the securing of peace for birds from hunting is a basic prerequisite for increasing their numbers. With favorable conditions, such as the lack of significant anthropogenic pressures or following to possible effects of climate change on winter distribution (cf. Zwarts 2015), the number of wintering birds in Hutovo blato is expected to rise up to 50,000 ind. in the next few years. The control of illegal hunting activities in Hutovo blato encouraged the first nesting of Glossy Ibis (Plegadis falcinellus) in 2013 (Dalmatin et al. 2013) as well as the first record of Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis) in the area in 2014. It is necessary to ensure the continuity of monitoring of illegal activities in order to reduce hunting and other disturbances to a minimum. It will be further necessary to provide funding for a ranger service for strengthening its capacities, and to improve cooperation with the local community, hunting associations and the local and cross-border police. This is confirmed by the success of the present two-year project „Improving management of Hutovo blato Nature Park“ through which three park rangers received funding and necessary equipment which strengthed the capacities of the ranger service. As a result, the control of illegal hunting activities could be substantially improved in 2013 and 2014 (Bečka 2014). Finally, the positive effect of the present project for the biodiversity of birds should be used for strengthening tourism in the region by including birdwatching in the offer for tourists. In this context it will be necessary to link Hutovo blato with the Neretva Delta by developing cross-border programs for the control of illegal hunting activities and sustainable tourism, based on the natural resources of the area and on birdwatching.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

References Bečka P. (2014): Poboljšanje upravljanja s Parkom prirode Hutovo blato [Improving the managment of Hutovo blato Nature Park]. Eko Hercegovina 7: 24 - 29. Dalmatin M., Vekić J., Ilić B., Gujinović J., Kotrošan D., Dervović I. & Ćukteraš M. (2013): Gniježđenje blistavog ibisa (Plegadis falcinellus) na Hutovu blatu u 2013. godini. Bilten - Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 9: 73 - 83. Dervović I. & Kotrošan D. (2011/12): Rezultati zimskog brojana ptica močvarica u Bosni i Hercegovini u 2011. godini. Bilten - Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 7/8: 44 - 55. Kotrošan D. & Dervović I. (2010): Rezultati zimskog brojanja ptica močvarica u Bosni i Hercegovini za period od 2008. do 2010. godine. Bilten - Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 6: 23 - 45. Kotrošan D. & Sarajlić N. (2014): Ornitofauna Hutovog blata – stanje i perspektive. Naš krš 34 (47): 146 - 169. Schneider-Jacoby M. (2009): Lov na ptice u Bosni i Hercegovini: apel za hitne promjene. Bilten - Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 4/5: 4 - 7. Stumberger B., Sackl P., Dervović I., Knaus P., Kitonić D., Schneider-Jacoby M. & Kotrošan D. (2008/09): Primjeri uznemiravanja ptica i kršenja Zakona o lovu u močvarnim staništima krša Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine. Bilten - Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 4/5: 97 - 115. Topić G. (2013): Rezultati Međunarodnog cenzusa ptica vodenih staništa u Bosni i Hercegovini 2013. godine. Bilten - Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 9: 14 - 39. Topić G. & Kotrošan D. (2011/12): Rezultati Međunarodnog cenzusa ptica vodenih staništa u Bosni i Hercegovini 2012. godine. Bilten - Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 7/8: 56 - 73. Zwarts L. (2015): Southern Europe will likely harbour more birds in the future which up to now winter in Africa (this volume). Electronic sources: http://www.hutovo-blato.ba/ parku.html (last access 10.09.2014)

photo: DOPPS - BirdLife Slovenia

Young volunteers in front of the Modern Gallery in Ljubljana on 7 March 2013 performing an an�-hun�ng event. 66

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Modern hun�ng legisla�on for Slovenia - a successful campaign against opening of the hun�ng bird list Damijan Denac1, Tanja Šumrada2 1 2

DOPPS – BirdLife Slovenia, Trzaska cesta 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; E-mail: damijan.denac@dopps.si DOPPS – BirdLife Slovenia, Trzaska cesta 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; E-mail: sumrada.tanja@gmail.com

Summary

The Slovenian hunting regulation currently enlists six huntable bird species, which is relatively low compared to most other European countries. Following the intensive pressure made by leading sections of the hunting society in Slovenia, an enlargement of the huntable bird species list and an extension of the hunting period for corvids was proposed in early 2013. A public campaign was launched by DOPPS Birdlife Slovenia to expose the proposed changes against public opinion. Among other activities, a press conference, followed by more than 100 separate contributions in the Slovene media, a petition, signed by 9,406 individuals and 64 organisations, and statements of Slovene topmost sportsmen and sportswomen against hunting were carried out. The main message of the campaing was that the public does not agree with the hunting of endangered bird species and the killing of wild birds just for fun and sport. The authors question why bird hunting should still be allowed in modern times just for fun and sport and how it is justiﬁed since probably the great majority of people in the EU does not agree with it.

Extensive legal and illegal hunting activity in the 19th and early 20th century probably considerably contributed to the decimation of populations of at least some bird species (e.g. Grey Partridge Perdix perdix, Hazel Grouse Tetrastes bonasia) in Slovenia. Together with diminishing of several huntable species after the 2nd World War, hunters’ interest for most of these species gradually lessened. However, for few species conservationally questionable measures, such as breeding and taking of wild animals in captivity during the winter, followed by releasing of only “fertile” individuals back in spring in Grey Partridge, were promoted. Such efforts of hunting associations probably affected the already endangered populations even further and had damaging side-effects also on other species, most evidently raptors, which were believed to contribute to low levels of huntable species and were therefore systematically exterminated in some regions.

Keywords hunting legislation, game species, hunting season, Slovenia, campaigning

„… the 24 topmost Slovene sportsmen and sportswomen signed a statement suppor�ng the „Against hun�ng for sport“ pe��on“ ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Introduc�on

In 1976 a new hunting act was adopted that limited the number of huntable species to 21, among which only males were allowed to be hunted in Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus), Black Grouse (Lyrurus tetrix) and Hazel Grouse. For females of these 3 species and additional 7 species only limited numbers were allowed to be killed in case a special licence was issued by the responsible minister. However, in the late 80s and early 90s markedly progressive conservation orientation was present in the hunting society which culminated in 1993, when the decree on the protection of endangered animal species was adopted, allowing only 6 huntable species. This legislation remained in force more or less unchanged until 2014, when an amending decree was issued, following the intensive pressure made by leading sections of the hunting society. These initiatives were opposed by expert argumentation, extensive campaigning and policy work, which are presented here and was led by DOPPSBirdLife Slovenia.

SLOVENE HUNTING LEGISLATION

Activities to prevent enlargement of huntable species

In 2013 the organisations Slovenia Forest Service (Zavod za gozdove Slovenije) and Slovene Hunters Association (Lovska zveza Slovenije) as well as the company Erico (Erico Velenje inštitut za ekološke raziskave d.o.o.) tried to add new bird species to the list of huntable species. The addition of the following species to the hunting list was proposed: (1) Wood Pigeon (Columba palumbus), (2) Eurasian Woodcock (Scolopax rusticola), (3) Common Snipe (Gallinago gallinago), (4) Eurasian Teal (Anas crecca), (5) Eurasian Coot (Fulica atra), (6) Black Grouse, (7) Great Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), and (8) native population of Grey Partridge. In addition, the extension of hunting periods for corvids (Hooded Crow Corvus cornix, Eurasian Jay Garrulus glandarius, Eurasian Magpie Pica pica), Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and Common Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) was proposed by the above mentioned organisations, too. DOPPS – BirdLife Slovenia prepared detailed expert argumentation against all proposals. In addition, DOPPS – BirdLife Slovenia started a public campaign to expose the proposed changes and organisations against the public opinion. The following activities were carried out.

in practically all Slovene media. A mass of information against the proposed changes was launched to the public. For the roll-up panels and leaﬂets we used the following texts: “Common Snipe – We appeal to the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment to abolish any bird killing just for fun or sport”.

We organised a press conference in Ljubljana, Grand Hotel Union, on 27 February 2013, where we informed the public for the first time about the attempts to add new bird species to the list of huntable animals. Three roll-up panels (Fig.1), special leaflets (Fig. 2), and a letter for the minister (Fig. 3) were printed in larger numbers for the purpose of promotion. The leaflets were distributed among the wider public (Fig. 4) and as pdfs on the web, Facebook, etc. In total, more than 100 separate contributions were published

photo: DOPPS - BirdLife Slovenia

2.1. Press conference and informing the public about threats arising from the proposed changes of hunting legislation

Fig. 1: Panel posters that were used on the press conference as the background scene, posters are s�ll staying in the DOPPS‘ entrance hall in Ljubljana.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

SLOVENE HUNTING LEGISLATION

“Woodcock – We appeal to the Hunters Association of Slovenia to renounce bird hunting, thus following their self-proclaimed mission of nature conservation”. “Teal – We appeal to the Hunters Association of Slovenia, Slovenia Forest Service and company Erico to withdraw all proposals to enlarge the huntable bird species list and to extend the hunting periods”.

2.2. Public youth event in Ljubljana

Fig. 2a: Flyers that were printed with the public appeal against hun�ng.

photos: DOPPS - BirdLife Slovenia

On 7 March 2013 a public youth event was organised by DOPPS’ youth branch. The event took place in front of the Museum of Modern Art (Fig. 5). The volume of birds shot by the Slovene hunters in one year was calculated and a corresponding pile with hight over 3 meters raised, demonstrating that volume. The event triggered a lot of supportive contributions in the media.

Fig. 2b: Flyer card that was printed and distributed around Slovenia.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

SLOVENE HUNTING LEGISLATION

Fig. 4: Volunteers at the stand in Maribor campaigning against hun�ng of birds (headings on the stand are all an�-hun�ng).

Fig. 5: Young volunteers in front of the Modern Gallery in Ljubljana on 7 March 2013 performing an an�-hun�ng event. The green pile in the background represents the volume of all birds shot in one year in Slovenia.

Fig. 6: Presen�a�on of pe��on with signatures against hun�ng for sport and fun to the Minister of Agriculture and Environment, 14 October 2013, Ljubljana (from le� to right: Rudolf Tekavcic, DOPPS president, Damijan Denac, DOPPS director, Tanja Sumrada, DOPPS volunteer, Dejan Zidan, minister).

photo: DOPPS - BirdLife Slovenia

Fig. 3: Public le�er to the minister asking him not to support change of hun�ng law that was printed as ﬂyer and widely distributed around Slovenia.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

SLOVENE HUNTING LEGISLATION

2.2. Public youth event in Ljubljana On 7 March 2013 a public youth event was organised by DOPPS’ youth branch. The event took place in front of the Museum of Modern Art (Fig. 5). The volume of birds shot by the Slovene hunters in one year was calculated and a corresponding pile with hight over 3 meters raised, demonstrating that volume. The event triggered a lot of supportive contributions in the media.

2.3. Pe��on against hun�ng of endangered birds and against hun�ng birds for fun and sport A petition against hunting of endangered bird species and against hunting birds for fun and sport was launched at the press conference on 7 May 2013. The NGO platform “www.tretjiclen.si” was used for the petition. Until 10 October 2013 9,406 individual signatures were collected. In addition, the petition was supported by 64 different organisations - NGOs, companies, etc. On 10 October 2013 all signatures were ofﬁcially handed over to Mr. Dejan Židan, Minister of Agriculture and Environment (Fig. 6). The Minister gave a public statement that for as long as he is the minister there will be no enlargement of the list of hunted bird species.

2.4. Special issue of Svet p�c magazine

„No new bird species were ﬁnally added to the list of huntable species“

The second number of DOPPS’ Svet ptic magazine in the year 2013 was completely dedicated to the presentation of arguments against bird hunting in form of expert articles. A pdf of the journal is available at: http://www.cdn.ptice.si/ptice/2014/wp-content/ uploads/2014/03/sp_2013_1902.pdf

„How can we, in modern �me, jus�fy birds being killed just for fun and sport?“

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

SLOVENE HUNTING LEGISLATION

2.5. Topmost sportmen and women‘s support Support for the petition by well-known Slovene people, especially sportsmen and sportswomen, was obtained. On 15 July 2013 a press release was launched by DOPPS informing the public that the 24 topmost Slovene sportsmen and sportswomen signed a statement supporting the “Against hunting for sport” petition. They were: Rajmond Debevec, shooting, Iztok Čop, rowing, Andrej Jerman, alpine skiing, Anja Čarman, swimming, Robert Markoja, shooting, Jure Meglič, kayak, Klemen Bauer, biathlon, Rok Kolander, rowing, Miran Vodovnik, athletics, Rok Perko, alpine skiing, Tomaž Pirih, rowing, Rok Rozman, rowing, Maja Sajovic, parachuting, Tanja Šmid, swimming, Maja Tvrdy, badminton, Uroš Velepec, biathlon, Saša Farič, free style skiing, Rožle Prezelj, athletics, Miha Pirih, rowing, Teja Zupan, long-distance swimming, Klemen Bečan, climbing, Nejc Žnidarčič, kayak, Bojan Pollak, alpinism, Tone Škarja, alpinism. Among them were two especially outstanding and recognised sportsmen – Olympians: Rajmond Debevec, shooting (Gold – Sydney 2000, Bronze – Peking 2008, Bronze – London 2012), and Iztok Čop, rowing (Gold – Sydney 2000, Silver – Athenes 2004, Bronze – Barcelona 1992, Bronze – London 2012).

2.6. Adop�on of declara�on On 5 April 2013, the general assembly of DOPPSBirdLife Slovenia adopted a declaration in 6 points regarding hunting: 1. DOPPS recognizes the right of all free living bird species to live. 2. DOPPS recognizes the right of all free living bird species to breed, migrate and winter safely and without disturbances. 3. DOPPS does not support the qualiﬁcation of any wild living bird species as game species.

4. DOPPS is against any killing of birds for sport, fun and joy, as we are convinced that such behaviour is ethically unacceptable for the modern man. 5. DOPPS as the main Slovene nature conservation organisation does not acknowledge bird hunting as a sustainable game management but we think this is an outdated way of nature exploitation. 6. DOPPS will try hard to realize all points of the declaration.

2.7. Pressure on the ministry to lead the process transparently Through the mentioned public campaign and all the expert positions, DOPPS compelled the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment to lead the process of changing hunting legislation in a more transparent way. The Ministry organized a sort of reconciliation meeting (hunters, Ministry, DOPPS, NGOs for the protection of animal rights) on 15 October 2013. There hunters reduced their original proposal of 8 new hunting bird species to two species – Wood Pigeon and Eurasian Woodcock. The meeting was lead by the Ministry and was very pro-hunters oriented. Public was informed about that and despite a very limited time frame available for DOPPS to argue against proposed changes, we were able to deliver general arguments. After that meeting all communication from the Ministry stopped. Without public discussion on 14 November 2014 the decree on changes and compilation of the decree on game and hunting periods was published and came into force on 29 November 2014. No new bird species were ﬁnally added to the list of huntable species. As game species the following species remained on the decree: Grey Partridge – captive bred individuals only, Common Pheasant, Mallard, Eurasian Jay, Eurasian Magpie and Hooded Crow. However, the hunting periods were changed for three game species as the pro hunting organisations proposed (Tab. 1).

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

SLOVENE HUNTING LEGISLATION

Tab. 1: List of huntable species remained the same in Slovenia, but for Common Pheasant and the two corvid species the hun�ng lobby achieved a prolonga�on of the hun�ng period. The table gives the period during which the respec�ve species can be hunted before and a�er the revision of the decree.

Species

period before

period after

Common Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus)

1.9.-15.1.

1.9. – 28.2.

Grey Partridge (Perdix perdix)

1.9.-15.11.

1.9. – 15.11.

Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)

1.9.-15.1.

1.9. – 15.1.

Eurasian Jay (Garrulus glandarius)

20.8.-28.2.

1.8. – 28.2.

Eurasian Magpie (Pica pica)

1.8.-28.2.

1.8. – 28.2.*

Hooded Crow (Corvus corone cornix)

10.8.-28.2.

1.8. – 28.2.*

* During mild weather both species start with nest-building (and sometimes egg-laying) in early/mid-February, thus hunting period extends into the breeding seasons which contradicts the EU Birds Directive.

Vision

Compared to the hunting regulations of other European countries one might get the impression that Slovene hunting regulation is modern and advanced. There are 6 huntable bird species on the list. In the Netherlands there are less huntable species (3), otherwise the number of huntable species in all other EU countries range from 7 (Luxembourg) to 59 (France). However, the great question arises why there are any species on the list at all? How can we in modern time justify birds being killed just for fun and sport? There are certain traditions and practices that should be abandoned with the development of the society. It is understandable that those groups, which have material beneﬁt from the ongoing of such “traditional” practices, will ﬁght against their abandonment. However, mankind had seen many such circumstances in the past that were considered normal but with time

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

became completely unacceptable. Slovene hunters are often arguing against hunting regulation using the ﬂawed argument that much more bird species can be hunted in other countries and asking why just Slovenia is so strict and “narrow”? Why don’t we follow other developed European countries and enlarge the list? Considering this issue we are, off course, modern and following here e.g. France (59), Denmark (37) or Spain (34) legislation would be a dramatic drawback. In the nature conservation scene bird hunting is often considered a taboo and only few individuals and organisations “dare to touch the hunters” due to their power and inﬂuence. However, we live in a democratic world where the majority should decide. And what would be the answer of the majority in EU if the question is asked: “Do you agree that wild birds are killed just for fun and sport?” Is the time ready to start asking this question? Or how many millions of birds must die more before the right time will come?

photo: Mar�n Schneider-Jacoby

Spring ﬂooding in Livanjsko Polje, Bosnia and Herzegovina, May 2010. 74

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Habitat loss as a major threat for migratory bird conserva�on along the Adria�c Flyway Ulrich Schwarz FLUVIUS - Floodplain Ecology and River Basin Management, Hetzgasse 22/7, 1030 Vienna, Austria; E-mail: Ulrich.Schwarz@ﬂuvius.com

Summary Coastal wetlands and adjacent karst poljes are the most important habitats for migratory birds along the eastern Adriatic Flyway. In particular, the large river estuaries or deltas, lagoons as well as lakes and poljes in the hinterland still host a great wetland potential. However the loss and destruction of habitats and eutrophication is going hand in hand with bird hunting and reduces signiﬁcantly the ecological functions of those wetlands. The total area loss is not as intensive as for many other Mediterranean regions. The reduction of ﬂoodable area along coastal rivers and estuaries reaches with 69 % the losses of many other regions, but the karst poljes in the hinterland lost only 30 % of their potential extent. The loss of saline habitats is with some 40 % also below other Mediterranean regions, but considering the pressures on the remaining habitats the situation is much worse.

Keywords coastal wetlands, potential ﬂood extent, loss of habitats

Introduc�on

Based on previous assessments such as the habitat mapping of the Bojana-Buna Delta, Lake Skadar, Neretva Delta and Livanjsko Polje as well as a ﬁrst karst polje ﬂood assessment for Bosnia and Herzegovina (BA), the following overview and raw assessment includes neighbouring karst poljes in Slovenia (SI), Croatia (HR) and Montenegro (ME) as well as coastal wetlands along the entire eastern Adriatic coast from the city of Koper in Slovenia to the Albanian-Greece border (including Kalamas Delta and Korfu Island).

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

It should be pointed out that aside of the three detailed areas mentioned above the further analysis focuses on the delineation of actively and potentially flooded areas and not on the distribution or absence of specific wetland habitats or even species. Significant areas are more or less cultivated and the remaining wetland habitats are under pressure of adjacent land use. Many floodplains in Albania still have no strong flood defence works and flooding of significant agricultural areas and even settlements therefore still takes place at many places (e.g. 2010 flood in Shkodra). However, the strong relation of flooded areas and wetlands and even the possible analysis of potential restoration enlarge the scope of the exercise.

Materials and approach

Based on the karst polje flooding analysis for Bosnia and Herzegovina (Schwarz 2014), the same approach was extended to Slovenia, Croatia and Montenegro by using the existing delineation of karst poljes by Stumberger (2010), ASTER2 elevation data, as well as available current and historical maps in comparison with actual high resolution satellite images to delineate areas with wetland habitats and areas with flood defenses. For the first time a similar approach was chosen to delineate coastal wetland areas, considering salinas and significant wetland complexes with an area of at least 10 ha. The approach focuses on the general loss of floodable area and did not consider detailed habitat or species information (e.g. for the Croatian Natura 2000 areas). National data should be assessed to validate the results, but as recognized in many comparable surveys (e.g. of the Mediterranean Wetland Observatory, MWO 2012) the area loss is only the first step of assessing those wetlands, while pressure of ongoing land uses, human activities and climate change/water availability increase the pressures on the remaining (freshwater) wetland areas.

WESTERN BALKAN FLOOD ANALYSIS

Results

The following quantitative figures can be summarised: Karst poljes: The overall size of the analysed 142 karst poljes in SI, HR, BA and ME is about 311,970 ha. The potential flooded area would be 152,570 ha (49 %), the rest is mostly dry. From the potential flooded areas about 107,470 ha are still active flood area, indicating a loss of approximately 30 %. Tab. 1: Area and loss of flood area in karst poljes.

Karst polje total area (142)

311,970 ha

Active ﬂood area (including lake water bodies)

107,470 ha

Potential ﬂood area

152,570 ha

River and lake floodplains, deltas and estuaries as well as freshwater lakes: The potential floodable area is 206,710 ha, which has been mainly reduced by dikes and agricultural use to some 64,460 ha, indicating a loss of 69 %. The boundary between fresh- and saltwater is not precisely determined and was initially assessed by main habitats. Therefore the loss of coastal fresh- and saltwater can vary. However, the reduction of active floodplains and delta areas seems to be at least as significant as those for the particular coastal zone (land-use change e.g. into salinas, seldom into infrastructure such as ports, but see e.g. Ploce in the Neretva Delta).

Tab. 2: Area and loss of riparian habitats (rivers/ﬂoodplains, deltas/ estuaries) and comparison with the extent of major lakes.

Active ﬂood area (without lake water bodies)

64,460 ha

Potential ﬂood area

206,710 ha

Natural lake surface (Skadar Lake and Vransko Jezero, without Krka/ Sibenik mixed water zone)

37,000 ha and 3,020 ha

Lagoons and coastal wetlands: These mainly brackish and salt water influenced habitat types spread over 20,720 ha in the study region. The potential area is some 33,640 ha. Four active salinas can be found, one in SI, two in HR and one in ME. The size of lagoon water bodies is by far the highest in Albania, however these water bodies are subject of eutrophication and manmade changes (dikes, cross dikes, canals). Tab. 3: Area and loss of flood area of coastal wetlands (mainly saltwater influenced)

Active ﬂood area (coastal wetlands)

20,720 ha + 1,940 ha salina

Potential ﬂood area (coastal wetlands)

33,650 ha

Lagoons

13,840 ha

„… from the poten�al ﬂood area of 392,930 ha only 192,650 ha remain, indica�ng an overall loss of 51%“ 76

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

WESTERN BALKAN FLOOD ANALYSIS

Fig. 1: Distribu�on of wetlands in the southeastern part of the Adria�c Flyway. Extract of a map covering the Adria�c coast from Slovenia to northern Greece.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

WESTERN BALKAN FLOOD ANALYSIS

Conclusions

References

In summary, from the potential flood area of 392,930 ha only 192,650 ha remain, indicating an overall loss of 51 %. Flood areas in karst poljes were reduced only by 30 %, those for deltas and adjacent floodplains by some 69 % and those for coastal saltwater habitats by some 38 % (including salinas 42 %). To learn more about the detailed causes of wetland loss, as well as quality and management of remaining wetlands, the first Mediterranean Wetland Observation report by MWO can be recommended (MWO 2012).

MWO (2012): Mediterranean Wetland Observation report. http://www.medwetlands-obs.org/en/content/ mediterranean-wetlands-outlook-ﬁrst-technical-report

The Eastern Adriatic wetlands represent an integral part of the “Blue Heart of Europe”, i.e. of the Balkan rivers which are closely linked to ﬂoodplains and river ﬂooding (Schwarz 2012) and which act as stepping stones within the Adriatic Flyway for migratory birds (Schwarz 2010).

Schwarz U. (2012): Outstanding Balkan River Landscapes – A Basis for Wise Development Decisions. Unpubl. report, ECA Watch Austria/Euronatur Germany/ MAVA Switzerland, Vienna; 150 pp. (101 pp. Annex „River Catalogue“).

To complete the coverage of wetlands in the western and central Balkan as part of the Adriatic Flyway (AF) and beyond, in a last step significant hinterland wetlands should be mapped, including e.g. Lake Ohrid and the Prespa lakes and the major floodplains along the large rivers within the Balkans. Finally, artificial lakes (e.g. Busko Jezero as part of the Livanjsko Polje complex) should also be considered separately, as a significant number was established over the past 50 years, partially covering former wetlands but also other valley land (e.g. in Albania).

Schwarz U. (2010): Habitat mapping of the Livanjsko Polje (BA), the Neretva Delta (HR, BA) and Lake Skadar-Shkoder (ME, AL). In: Denac D., SchneiderJacoby M. & Stumberger B. (eds.), Adriatic Flyway - Closing the Gap in Bird Conservation. Euronatur, Radolfzell; pp. 79 - 87.

Schwarz U. (2014): Flooding analysis of the karst poljes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In: Sackl P., Durst R., Kotrošan D. & Stumberger B. (eds.), Dinaric Karst Poljes – Floods for Life. EuroNatur, Radolfzell; pp. 3944. Stumberger B. (2010): A classiﬁcation of karst poljes in the Dinarides and their signiﬁcance for waterbird conservation. In: Denac D., Schneider-Jacoby M. & Stumberger B. (eds.), Adriatic Flyway - Closing the Gap in Bird Conservation. EuroNatur, Radolfzell; pp. 69 - 78.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

photo: Davorka Kitonic´

WESTERN BALKAN FLOOD ANALYSIS

Hutovo Blato, lower Neretva river valley, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

photo: Mar�n Schneider-Jacoby

Black-winged S�lts (Himantopus himantopus), Neretva Delta, Croa�a.

photo: Iztok Škornik

Aerial view of Sečovlje Salina Nature Park, Slovenia. 80

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Securing a favourable ecological status of species and habitats in tradi�onal salinas: visitor management and saltproduc�on in Sečovlje Salina Nature Park, Slovenia Iztok Škornik1, Andrej Sovinc2 Sečovlje Salina Nature Park, SOLINE d.o.o., Seča 115, 6320 Portorož, Slovenia; E-mail: iztok.skornik@kpss.si (Corresponding author) 2 Sečovlje Salina Nature Park, SOLINE d.o.o., Seča 115, 6320 Portorož, Slovenia; E-mail: andrej.sovinc@soline.si 1

Summary

Keywords

The Sečovlje Salina Nature Park, which covers 750 ha, is situated in the extreme southwestern part of Slovenia, in the north-eastern part of the Adriatic Sea. The area is of high natural, cultural, economic and aesthetic value, and its biodiversity is maintained and regulated through sustainable management. The management of the area for biodiversity and cultural heritage protection subordinates the purely economic goal of salt production and sale.

management, ecology, indicator species, birds, habitats, salt-production, attendance, Sečovlje Salina, protected area

Results of long-term bird monitoring, as well as data on visitation and management of water regimes for salt-production and biodiversity were used to set up management prescriptions for the area. Altogether, 300 bird species were registered at least once at Sečovlje Salina within the 1870–2014 period and data on their occurrence and locations were collected and analysed. In the 2006–2013 period, the Park was visited by 317,743 people and information on their stay in the Park were collected. A cooperation with salters producing salt using traditional methods was launched in order to secure the best possible conditions for wildlife, habitats and economic benefits. The results obtained from monitoring birds, visitation patterns and salt-production were transferred in the management prescriptions. The success of those prescriptions was measured on five indicator bird species (Kentish Plover Charadrius alexandrinus, Blackwinged Stilt Himantopus himantopus, Common Tern Sterna hirundo, Little Tern Sternula albifrons and Pied Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta). It has been demonstrated that the populations of all indicator species are stable or even increasing which confirms that traditional salt-making could be at the same time economically viable and support bio-diversity and cultural heritage protection.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Introduc�on

Owing to their historical, cultural and ecological values, salinas constitute an exceptional landscape element between sea and land, between air and earth. Mediterranean salinas are areas that rest under the water for the greater part of the year due to the salt-making activities carried out in them, which is - compared to other Mediterranean ecosystems - of inestimable value during hot and dry summers. In the Mediterranean salinas conditions for biodiversity can be regulated and maintained. Active salinas are a good example of cohabitation between economic activity, tourism and conservation needs, and at the same time a competitor to the world production of salt in factories. And it is perhaps this very fact that keeps them alive, given that economic aspirations are more than negligible in these areas. Salinas are important areas particularly from the aspect of nature conservation. In the Mediterranean, about half a million birds regularly spend the winter or are on passage there and more than half of these birds occur in salinas (Walmsley 1997). Mediterranean salinas are regularly visited by a good hundred of different bird species belonging to 18 families (Walmsley 1997) and provide habitats for other fauna and ﬂora species. Salinas are unique wetlands with rich biodiversity, and it is no coincidence that many of them have been protected at the national level and some also integrated into the Natura 2000 network. Most of the

SALINA CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT

salinas that are designated as protected areas have acquired their protection status owing to their wellpreserved natural environment and presence of exceptional natural and cultural assets. Very often, different land-use interests are present in salinas, which results in occasionally conflicting interests. Active salt-making process and visitation are two of the commonest activities that have significant influences both on biodiversity conservation and protection of cultural heritage and generation of the incomes for the local communities. In Sečovlje Salina Nature Park, the past and the present still go hand in hand. The ancient manner of saltmaking learnt by Piran salters ages ago from their teachers, the Pag Island salt-makers, is still something very special indeed, even on the World scale. In the park, the basic land use aspects of conservation, cultural heritage protection and economic benefits are intertwined with three main economic activities: salt-making, visitation and recreation. The Government of the Republic of Slovenia has passed the Decree on Sečovlje Salina Nature Park (UL RS 2001) with the purpose of protecting and preserving the typical saltpan ecosystem and its biodiversity. In our study impacts of traditional salt-making processes and visitation on selected biodiversity indicator species are analysed. The results of the analyses were used to define a zoning of the area, provide management prescriptions for biodiversity conservation and adapt measures to guide visitation of the area with a minimum disturbance for wildlife and habitats. We particularly focused on the following issues: 1. In salinas, salt-making activities provide and maintain stable living conditions for halophilous plants and animals living in the water, in the air and on land. By using data on monitoring bird populations our aim was to explore how areas with different phases of the salt-making process sustain favourable conservation status for target breeding birds in the salina.

2. Visitation of the salinas is not signiﬁcant only from the economic, recreational and educational aspects but also enables the local population and visitors from predominantly urban areas with an opportunity for spending their time in a healthy environment and to re-connect with nature. An equilibrium between visitation and conservation needs of the target indicator species was sought to deﬁne principles for guiding visitation in the area.

Descrip�on of the area

The Sečovlje Salina Nature Park, which covers 750 ha, is situated in the extreme southwestern part of Slovenia, i.e. in the northeastern part of the Adriatic Sea. The northern part of the park, where traditional salt production is still practiced, is called Lera. From the park‘s southern part, called Fontanigge, it is separated by the Drnica stream. The area is shown on Fig. 1. Sečovlje salt-pans are part of the park. They cover approximately 620 ha; the area of Lera covers 294 ha and is composed by crystallization basins and seawater condensation basins. Fontanigge extends over 344 ha; this area consists of a network of canals that used to serve as transport waterways, for the supply of seawater to separate salt ﬁelds and for the drainage of excessive waters, used in the salt-making process and drainage of rain water (Škornik 2008). The park has been divided into three areas of conservation (zones) by the government’s decree UL RS 2001: the ﬁrst area of conservation (Fontanigge) is characterized by a strict conservation regime, where no economic activities are allowed. In the second area of conservation (Lera) traditional salt-making must implicitly be carried out in order to protect its natural values, whereas other activities may take place only if not impeding the biodiversity or natural values. In the third area of conservation only traditional use is allowed, if carried out to the extent and in the way that cannot endanger the natural balance in the park.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

SALINA CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT

Se�a Cana l St.

Je rne j

l na Ca de an Gr

LERA

nic

Dr a

Piran Bay rto Cu

ias si

Pi ch et to

FONTANIGGE

ag on ja

Croatia

500 m

1000 m

Border Control Se�ovlje

Fig. 1: Map of Sečovlje Salina Nature Park, with the red line indica�ng the nature park’s boundary.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

SALINA CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT

Methods

Monitoring of birds Birds were selected as the main species for monitoring and measuring impacts of different activities to the natural balance of the area. Among them, Blackwinged Stilt (Himantopus himantopus), Kentish Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus), Common Tern (Sterna hirundo), Little Tern (Sternula albifrons) and Pied Avocet (Recurvirostra avosetta), were determined as indicator species as they are considered as typical birds of wetlands and especially saline ecosystems (Škornik 2012, 2013). Particular attention was given to the identiﬁcation of breeding areas and patterns of the selected indicator bird species. Regular monitoring of bird populations and species is undertaken in the Sečovlje Salina Nature Park. A comprehensive database on birds was established, using available literature sources (from the year 1870 onwards), including data from public collections. The data for the period 1973 – 1983 include mainly random observations. Since 1983, breeding, migration and overwintering of birds in the area has been systematically assessed by various survey and mapping methods. From 2004 to 2014, a regular weekly bird monitoring was carried out. The area of Sečovlje Salina Nature Park has been divided into polygons, i.e. predominantly clearly separated and bounded saltpan basins and other distinct areas. Some of them were given their names already in the distant past and are now used by saltworkers as well. All observed species, together with the number of individuals, was entered into the computer database already in the ﬁeld, using PDAs equipped with GPS receiver and the program “Nature Lister” (Škornik 2012). For the data storage and processing, the software Wildlife Recorder was applied (Škornik 2012).

Data on habitats where birds were observed were geo-referenced and are presented in the form of a distribution map, using the program “DMAP digitizer”. A 100 × 100 m UTM network is used for the mapping of smaller areas. The list of the actual sites gained by GPS enables an increased accuracy level. Statistical methods, including TRIM (Pannekoek & Van Strien 2001), and indexes (Simpson Diversity Index, Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index) (Škornik 2012) were used to further analyse trends in bird distribution and abundance. TRIM converts time series into index numbers and sets the first year the monitoring network was operational as the base year for these indices with a value of 1. The index values therefore make it possible to see very quickly how percentages change with respect to the base year, and to compare the changes for various species. TRIM also establishes a trend over numbers of years and converts the entire slope multiplier into one of the following six trend categories (category depends on the slope and its 95 % confidence interval - the slope + / - 1.96 SE slope): strong increase, moderate increase, stable, uncertain, moderate decline and a large steep decline in the number of counted individuals / nests / pairs (simplified type of population studied).

Shannon-Wiener Index This diversity measure came from information theory and measures the order (or disorder) observed within a particular system. In ecological studies, this order is characterized by the number of individuals observed for each species in the sample plot (e.g., zone on our site). It has also been called the Shannon Index and the Shannon-Weaver Index. Similar to the Simpson Index, the ﬁrst step is to calculate the relative frequency for each category species. You then multiply this number by the log of the number. While you may use any base, the natural log

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

SALINA CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT

is commonly used. The index is computed from the negative sum of these numbers. In other words, the Shannon-Wiener Index is deﬁned as: H = -sum(Pilog[Pi]) Using species richness (S) and the Shannon-Wiener Index (H), you can also compute a measure of evenness: E = H/log(S) Evenness (E) is a measure of how similar the abundances of different species are. When there are similar proportions of all species then evenness is one, but when the abundances are very dissimilar (some rare and some common species) then the value increases.

Simpson‘s Index A measure that accounts for both richness and proportion (percent) of each species is the Simpson‘s Diversity Index. It has been a useful tool to terrestrial and aquatic ecologists for many years and will help us understand the profile of biodiversity across our zones. The index, first developed by Simpson in 1949, has been defined in three different ways in published ecological research. The first step for all three is to calculate Pi, which is the abundance of a given species in a zone divided by the total number of individuals across all species observed in that zone. The Simpson‘s Index is defined as: D = sum(Pi2) i. e. the probability that two randomly selected individuals in the zone belong to the same species. The Simpson‘s Index of Diversity is defined as: 1 - D i. e. the probability that two randomly selected individuals in a zone belong to different species.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

The Simpson‘s Reciprocal Index is deﬁned as: 1/D i. e. the number of equally common species that will produce the observed Simpson‘s Index. D is inﬂuenced by two parameters - the equitability of the percentage of each species present and species richness. For a given species richness, D will decrease as the percentages of all species become more equitable. The researcher must observe the species patterns carefully to interpret the values effectively.

Monitoring of the water regime In the Sečovlje Salina water regimes are not only maintained for the salt-making process, but also to provide optimal conditions for both plants and animals. Water regime management is carried out particularly accurately in places where suitable conditions for animals, plants and their habitats are to be provided. Monitoring of the water regimes is undertaken by measuring special water level sticks in different areas. The water level is regulated by water inlets and outlets through sluice gates and pipes.

Visita�on monitoring Regular monitoring of the visitors of the Sečovlje Salina Nature Park has been introduced in November 2010. The park has two entrances from inland and counting of all visitors is an ongoing activity at the Lera entrance. Data on hourly distribution, country of origin and age structure (children, adults, retired) is collected. Data on visitors entering Fontanigge only cover number of visitors arriving in groups, while numbers of individual visitors only apply for the period between 1 April and 1 November. Numbers of the visitors of the park for the period between 2006 and 2010 have only been estimated, using available data (i.e. number of tickets sold, but with no reference on the visitors who entered the park without payment, for example special groups, including handicapped people, media representatives, VIPs etc.).

SALINA CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT

The information on visitors has been related to the information about weather conditions in the area in order to understand the relationship between visitation trends and weather conditions. Weather monitoring in Sečovlje Salina Nature Park is carried out at two Davis Vantage Pro2 Plus weather stations. Weather data (temperature, wind, humidity, etc.) are taken in 15 min. intervals and stored using the program “WeatherLink”.

Results and discussion

Birds In the period between 1870 and 2014, 300 bird species were recorded in the area of Sečovlje Salina Nature Park. In the area of Fontanigge, 281 species (93.6 % of the total number of species) were recorded. At Lera the number of recorded bird species was 200 (66.6 %). There are 84 bird species that were registered only at Fontanigge and 3 species that were registered only at Lera. In the area of Sečovlje Salina, 53 breeding species were recorded till the end of 2009, 24 of which

breed in the salina, while the remaining ones breed on the land. 39 species are regular breeders, while 6 breed here only occasionally (Škornik 2012). On the basis of his analyses, Škornik (2012) demonstrated that the composition of bird communities in Sečovlje Salina has changed dramatically in the last decades. In the period between 1 January 2003 until 31 December 2012, 251 bird species were registered, 66 of which were passage visitors. A linear trend for the last 10 years indicates a slight rise in the species observed (TRIM: p < 0.05), which is also reﬂected in an increase of the diversity (Fig.2). Kentish Plover, Common Tern, Little Tern, Black-winged Stilt and Pied Avocet are listed as indicator species. Their breeding areas are strictly limited to the salt-pan areas and they also forage mainly in these areas and at the adjacent coast or channels. Figures 3 - 7 present population trends for all the above mentioned species in the Sečovlje Salina Nature Park in the period between 1983 and 2014. Population trends (TRIM) for all indicator species are either moderately or strongly increasing (TRIM: all p-values < 0.05). 250.000

1,4 1,2

Index value

1 150.000

0,8 0,6

100.000

0,4

Number of individuals

200.000

50.000 0,2 0

0 2003

2004

2005

2006

Simpson Diversity Index 1-D

2007

2008

2009

Shannon index H'

2010

2011

2012

Number of individuals

Fig. 2: The Simpson Diversity Index (1 – D), the Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index, and the number of bird individuals in the 2003– 2012 period (Škornik 2012).

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

SALINA CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT

Fig. 3: Number of breeding pairs of the Ken�sh Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus) and popula�on trend from 1983 to 2014 (strong increase, TRIM: p<0.05). The number of breeding pairs in 1983 is set to a TRIM index of 1.

Fig. 4: Number of breeding pairs of Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) and popula�on trend from 1983 to 2014 (moderate increase, TRIM: p<0.01). The number of breeding pairs in 1983 is set to a TRIM index of 1.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

SALINA CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT

Fig. 5: Number of breeding pairs of Li�le Tern (Sternula albifrons) and popula�on trend from 1983 to 2014 (strong increase, TRIM: p<0.01). The number of breeding pairs in 1983 is set to a TRIM index of 1.

Fig. 6: Number of breeding pairs of Black-winged S�lt (Himantopus himantopus) and popula�on trend from 1983 to 2014 (strong increase, TRIM: p<0.01). The number of breeding pairs in 1983 is set to a TRIM index of 1.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

SALINA CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT

Fig. 7: Number of breeding pairs of Pied Avocet (Recurvirostra avose�a) and popula�on trend from 1983 to 2014 (strong increase, TRIM: p<0.01). The number of breeding pairs in 1983 is set to a TRIM index of 1.

For the preparation of the detailed management prescriptions for the salt-making process and the visitation of the park, a map with all the locations of the bird‘s nests in the 100 x 100 m grid in the area of Sečovlje Salina is of extreme importance. The map, shown in Fig. 8, clearly indicates gaps where very few and/or new nesting bird territories are established. Gaps in distribution of the territories of the salina‘s breeding birds and areas with high density of bird nesting species were analysed in terms of different production phases in the salt-making process. Crystallization and seawater condensation basins at Lera are shown in Fig. 8. The intensity of human presence on these basins (different operations in the salt-making

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

process) is characterised by daily maintenance of water regimes, which is done by salters, walking along the edges of the basins, and daily salt-harvesting between June and September. It can be concluded that disturbance by the presence of salters is one of the main reasons why very few breeding birds can be found in the areas with still active salt-production. The opposite can be said for the area of Fontanigge, where the phase of salt-harvesting has been abandoned already in the 1960s and human disturbance is very low as walking outside marked trails is strictly forbidden in the Fontanigge area. This explains why the majority of breeding bird populations are found here.

SALINA CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT

Fig. 8: Map of breeding distribuï¿½on across all species measured with GPS receiver in UTM 100x100 m squares. The green line indicates the area of Lera, where disturbance by the presence of salters is present.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

SALINA CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT

Visita�on In the 2006 – 2013 period, the Se čovlje Salina Nature Park was visited by 317,743 people. As shown in Fig. 9, the number of visitors increased from 2006 to 2012 from approximately 31,500 visitors per year to more than 45,000 visitors per year. The highest numbers of visitors to the Park in the period 2006 – 2010 were recorded in April and August, while during the winter months of December, January and February visitors are few (Fig. 10.). May and October are confronted with several school group visits. The carrying capacity concept is not uniformly defined, for different definitions have been presented by different authors. Chamberlain (1997) defines the tourist carrying capacity as a level of the activities by

man that can somehow still be tolerated by the environment, without this environment getting destroyed and without the local population being affected or the visitors‘ satisfaction reduced. According to the World Tourist Organization‘s deﬁnition, the carrying capacity is stipulated with the maximum number of tourists at a certain tourist destination, which would not yet negatively affect the natural and social environment and reduce the tourists‘ satisfaction (Mangion 2001). With regard to the considered environment‘s ecological capacity, which is linked primarily to the changes of biophysical environment owing to the “tourist use,” and social carrying capacity that presents the attitude of both local population and visitors to the environment, use of natural resources and environmental pollution as well as satisfaction of both with the offer and development of visitation in protected

Fig. 9: Trend of linear increase (TRIM) and Number of visitors (N) in the Sečovlje Salina Nature Park during the 2006 - 2012 period indicates a moderate increase (TRIM: p<0.01) (Škornik 2012). The number of visitors in 2006 is set to a TRIM index of 1.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

SALINA CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT

areas, the Sečovlje Salina Nature Park‘s management stipulated as the upper limit of the still acceptable a maximum of 50,000 visitors per year, which means that 300 visitors at the most can frequent the Park at the same time, or 900 visitors at the most per day.

Fig. 10: Monthly number of visitors to the Sečovlje Salina Nature Park between the years 2006 and 2012 (Škornik 2012).

Škornik (2012) performed detailed analyses of visitation trends for the period between 2010 and 2012. Of the total 127,440 visitors in this period, the area of Lera was visited by 77.9 %, while the area of Fontanigge with the Museum of Salt-making received less than a third of the park’s visitors. The park was entered via land by 91 % of the visitors, while 9 % of them arrived by boat. A good third (33.7 %) of the visitors opted for guided tours. Considering the nationalities of the park’s visitors, 76.0 % of visitors were domestic and 23.7 % were visitors from abroad, the majority of which were English-speaking (13.9 %), followed by Italian-speaking (4.7 %) and Germanspeaking visitors (3.1 %), while a little less than 2.0 % of the guided tours were conducted in other languages (Russian, Croatian etc.). Regarding the structure of

visitors, the most numerous were primary/secondary school children and students (46.3 %), followed by adult visitors (28.1%), journalists and business partners (6.5 %), and retired people (5.8 %). The share of visitors with special needs represented 2.4 % of all visitors of the park. Our expectations that rainfall and temperature would significantly affect the visitation trend have not been confirmed. Detailed monthly analyses for the 2011 – 2012 period (April – October) indicated no significant correlation between the number of visitors and the amount of precipitation and also no correlation between the number of visitors and air temperature (Tab. 1 and 2) (Škornik 2012).

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

(46.3 %), followed by adult visitors (28.1%), journalists and business partners (6.5 (46.3 %),retired followed by adult visitors (28.1%), journalists business (6.5 %), and people (5.8 %). The share of visitors withand special needspartners represented %), and people (5.8 %). The share of visitors with special needs represented 2.4 % of retired all visitors of the park. 2.4 % of all visitors of the park. SALINA CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT Our expectations that rainfall and temperature would significantly affect the visitation Our that rainfall and temperature would analyses significantly the visitation trendexpectations have not been confirmed. Detailed monthly for affect the 2011 – 2012 trend have not been confirmed. Detailed monthly analyses for the 2011 – 2012 period (April – October) indicated no significant correlation between the number of period (April – October) indicated no significant correlation between the number of visitors and the amount of precipitation and also no correlation between the number visitors and theairamount of precipitation and no correlation of visitors and temperature (Tab. 1 and 2) also (Škornik 2012). between the number of visitors and air temperature (Tab. 1 and 2) (Škornik 2012). Tab. 1: Numbers of visitors and amount of precipita�on in the period April - October

 

                 

  

    

  

  

    

  

              

              

              

              

              

              

 

Tab. 2: Numbers of visitors and air temperature in the period April - October

                 

                   

                 

                 

                   

                 

Management prescrip�ons

secure and even improve the conservation status of the target species and habitats, management authoManagement prescriptions Several conclusions and recommendations for marity for the area has to be set in place to control and Management prescriptions manipulate water regimes, maintain habitats, prenagement of biodiversity, maintenance of the cultuSeveral conclusions and recommendations for management of biodiversity, ral heritage and traditional salt-production can be vent disturbance, direct visitor of ﬂows,biodiversity, undertake reSeveral conclusions and recommendations for management maintenance of obtained the cultural heritagebirdand traditional salt-production canover bethe drawn drawn based on data from monitoring gular monitoring and for surveillance area. maintenance of the cultural heritage and traditional salt-production can be drawn based on data obtained from monitoring bird populations, visitation and experience populations, visitation and experience gained from based data obtained from monitoring birdEffective visitation and experience SalinaonNature Park. of a gained on from manipulating with water regimes inpopulations, the Seovlje manipulating with water regimes in the Sečovlje legal background the establishment Nature Park. gained from manipulating with water regimes protected in the Seovlje area with Salina clear management regimes has Salina Nature Park. They can be summarised as following: to be put in place and followed by a long- or midThey be summarised as following: term management plan where certain activities have They cancan be summarised as following:  Mediterranean salinas are man-madeto landscapes; man has created these be banned (hunting, for example).  Mediterranean salinas are man-made landscapes; man has created these areassalinas and has to maintain them for both biodiversity conservation, protection Mediterranean are man-made landscapes; maintain them for both biodiversity conservation, man has areas created and thesehas areastoand has to maintain Management of the salina for biodiversityprotection and cultural them for both biodiversity conservation, protection heritage protection has to subordinate purely econoof cultural heritage and production of salt. In order to mic goals of the salt production and sale. Biodiversity

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

SALINA CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT

indicators are as important as economical ones. The most important factors inﬂuencing coexistence of biodiversity conservation and economically viable processes (production of salt, visitation) are regulation and maintenance of the water regimes and visitor management. Although traditional salt-making process, based on transporting sea-water from large evaporation basins to the crystallisation basins, where salt is harvested using traditional tools and methods, can be considered as sustainable and »natural«, it still poses substantial disturbance, especially for breeding birds (regular presence of salters, managing water regimes and harvesting salt, etc.); in order to provide favourable conservation status for target species and habitats, it is essential that parts of the salina area are set aside as a strict nature reserve where the level of disturbance is almost non-existing (measures include strict prohibition of walking outside designated paths, areas where visitation is not allowed at all, limitations in use of motor vehicles, etc.). Numbers and distribution of visitors have to be controlled and, if needed, some areas have to be temporarily or permanently closed for visitation. Additional measures which minimise negative impacts of visitors to the aims of securing favourable conservation status of targeted species and habitats may include the following:

Motorised access of visitors and staff has to be limited as far as possible while promoting walking and cycling on marked trails and roads only.

Conclusions

Protected areas are considered one of the most important instruments of biodiversity conservation. The objective of proclaiming and managing a protected area is to conserve nature and it’s natural resources, ecosystem services and cultural values (Dudley 2008). Long-term objectives of the management of the Sečovlje Salina Nature Park are directed towards conservation of biodiversity as well as towards protection of cultural heritage and the characteristics of littoral cultural landscape of Slovenian Istria. Management of water regimes for both traditional salt-production and biodiversity conservation, dayby-day management practices, which are based on the outcomes of the long-term monitoring of indicator bird species and visitation and setting aside “no-take” zones, were recognised as a precondition for securing a favourable conservation status of the habitats and species in the area of Sečovlje Salina.

References

The park has to be closed for visitation from evening until morning for the beneﬁts of wildlife (animals are feeding by night)

Chamberlain K. (1997): Carrying capacity, UNEP Industry and Environment 8 (January-June 1997), UNEP, Paris.

Maximum yearly and daily numbers of visitors have to be established; setting up the entrance fee helps in regulating the number of visitors.

Dudley N. (ed.) (2008): Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. IUCN, Switzerland.

Visitors entering the area in groups have to be accompanied by the protected area guide or ranger; numbers of guided tours per day has to be limited, taking into account also weather conditions (no organised tours at extreme weather conditions).

Magnion M. L. (2001): Carrying Capacity Assessment for Tourism in the Maltese Islands. St. Julian’s: Ministry of Tourism.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

SALINA CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT

Pannekoek J. & van Strien A. J. (2001): TRIM 3 Manual. Trends and Indices for Monitoring Data. Research paper no. 0102. CBS Voorburg, The Netherlands: Statistics Netherlands (available at http:// www.ebcc.info/trim.html). Škornik I. (2008): Spoznajmo soline. SOLINE Pridelava soli d.o.o., Seča, Slovenia.

Škornik I. (2013): A contribution to the knowledge of climate change impacts on biodiversity and visitation in Sečovlje Salina Nature Park. In: Vranješ M., Škornik I., Santi S. & Costa M. (eds.), Climate change and management of protected areas: Studies on biodiversity, visitor flows and energy efficiency. SOLINE Pridelava soli, Portorož, Slovenia; pp. 59 – 81. UL RS (2001): Uredba o KPSS. Uradni list RS, št. 29. Walmsley J. G. (1997): Mediterranean salinas. Distribution, salt production and conservation. In: Proceedings Nature & Workmanship, Artificial Wetlands in the Mediterranean Coast. INSULA, UNESCO Building, Paris.

photo: Iztok Škornik

Škornik I. (2012): Favnistični in ekološki pregled ptic Sečoveljskih solin – Faunistic and Ecological Survey of Birds in the Sečovlje Salina. SOLINE Pridelava soli d.o.o., Seča, Slovenia.

photo: Iztok Škornik

Tradi�onal salt harvest, Sečovlje Salina, Slovenia.

Li�le Tern (Sternula albifrons).

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

photo: Fabrizio Borghesi

Sazan Island, Albania, 30 May 2013. 96

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

The breeding bird communi�es of Sazan Island (Albania) Fabrizio Borghesi Medmaravis Associa�on, 96 via S. Sa�a, 07041 Alghero, Italy; E-mail: fab.borghesi@gmail.com

Summary

Until now the avifauna of Albania is poorly documented, while the bird fauna of Sazan Island off Karaburun Peninsula is virtually unknown. During the second Initiative for Mediterranean Small Islands (PIM) one ornithologist stayed for day and night on the island from 28 to 30 May 2013. In the frame of the present survey approximately 18 % of the island’s surface area was explored during daytime and approximately 10 % of the area after sunset. Different methods were used to collect data on the breeding bird communities in different habitats and the relationship between bird species and habitats. On the whole, 39 - 40 species were recorded, while 28 - 29 species were considered as breeding species with different levels of certainty. The paper includes a checklist of all birds found on Sazan Island in May 2013 as well as the results of point counts. Three main ecological elements were identified: the coastal cliffs and habitats as potential breeding sites for many marine and terrestrial species; the complex landscape pattern that supports a rich bird community; the very abundant population of rabbits and the presence of rats that may influence resident and non-resident bird populations. The paper presents first data on the bird fauna of Sazan Island, aims to stimulate further bird studies on the island and rises warnings for the island‘s unique biodiversity in the wake of future change of land-use.

The avifauna of Albania is poorly documented. Published information which date back to the 19th century, mainly contain anecdotal reports and very short lists of species. Later publications by Ticehurst & Whistler (1932) aimed to summarize the knowledge on bird distribution or to add new observations (Thorpe et al. 1936, Whistler 1936). Nowak (1980, 1989) compiled a bibliography of the ornithological literature (most of it in Albanian language) and updated the Albanian checklist. More information is available for waterbirds. Systematic counts in mid-winter 1993 were performed in coastal wetlands (Hagemeijer 1994) and in following winter censuses some inland lakes were included in waterbird surveys, realized by the Tour Du Valat Research Centre (Hagemeijer 1994, Kaiser et al. 1995, 1997, Bino et al. 1996). In addition, an ornithological survey was carried out in 1996 which aimed to gather information on the status of breeding waterbirds (Zekhuis & Tempelman 1998). In the same project a list of 235 species was compiled and distribution maps based on records from breeding waterbird surveys and occasional observations of landbirds were produced (van Winden in Zekhuis & Tempelman 1998).

Keywords Albania, Sazan Island, bird fauna, bird communities, point counts, bird survey

„In this scenario of poor knowledge of bird distribu�on and phenology throughout most of Albania, the bird communi�es of Sazan Island were virtually unknown“ ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Introduc�on

Aside of waterbird counts in major wetland habitats, until now the survey in 1996 remains the ﬁrst coordinated effort of bird monitoring in Albania. Recently, a collection of ornithological observations throughout Albania, basically consisting of travel notes, has been published by Polish researchers (Sachanowicz et al. 2008). In this scenario of poor knowledge of bird distribution and phenology throughout most of Albania, the bird communities of Sazan Island were virtually unknown, before an ornithological survey was carried out during a second survey of the island by the Initiative for Mediterranean Small Island (PIM) in May 2013.

BIRD COMMUNITIES OF SAZAN ISLAND

A first PIM biological survey of the island dates back to September 2012, but during this occasion no bird data were recorded. The first bird dataset for Sazan Island, reported in this paper, is rather small due to the brevity of the field mission, but may be helpful for site management within the framework of information which are already available for the area. Thus, besides the documentation of the bird fauna, another goal of the present paper is to stimulate similar studies in view of future changes of land-use on the island - from military outpost to, for example, an eco-tourism endpoint.

Study area

The 4.8 km long and 2 km wide Sazan Island is, with a maximum altitude of 337 meters a.s.l., the biggest Albanian island (5.70 km2). The island which belongs to the administrative area of the city of Vlora, is included in the “Karaburun-Sazani” Marine Protected Area (MPA). The island is situated 6.5 nautical miles west from the Port of Vlora, and 2.6 nautical miles from Karaburun Peninsula, the closest mainland coast (Fig. 1). The presence of buildings and a huge number of bunkers are a testimony of the complex history of the military occupation of the island. Currently, access to the island is regulated by the Albanian army. For a comparably short period between the 1970s and mid-1980s, about 300 families inhabited the island. At present, except for a small Italian-Albanian military unit, no people live on the island. In addition to marine and coastal habitats (rocky cliffs, sandy and pebbly beaches), Sazan Island is characterized by a heterogeneous landscape of different terrestrial habitats and ecotones. The geomorphology of the island is characterized by two approximately 300 m high hills and two different types of limestone formations.

Fig. 1: Loca�on of Sazan Island in the Strait of Otranto oﬀ the Albanian coast (Crea�veCommon map by Norman Einstein, 2006; h�p://commons.wikimedia.com).

Fig. 2: Map of Sazan Island oﬀ the Karaburun Peninsula, Albania. Survey areas, which were explored in May 2013, are shown (orange = day�me; pink = night-�me surveys). Note that all areas which were explored during night have been also surveyed during the day. All observa�ons of birds are shown as dots (land-based observa�ons) and triangles (observa�ons from the sea). Each point marks at least one or more records. 98

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

BIRD COMMUNITIES OF SAZAN ISLAND

Field methods

Tab. 1: Coordinates (datum WGS84) of the point counts (IPAs).

During the short visit in May 2013, an area of 1.36 km2 was explored during daytime which corresponds to about 18 % of the total surface area of the island. Over half of the area which was surveyed during daytime, was also explored after sunset (0.75 km2, 10 % of total surface area). For the present report the survey area was calculated following to paths which were covered by the observer, by applying a buffer of 50 - 80 m on either side of the path when dense vegetation was present and a buffer zone of 200 m in open areas (Fig. 2).

No.

N coord.

E. coord.

40.49916

19.28476

40.49773

19.28632

40.49569

19.28917

40.49462

19.28321

40.49053

19.28243

40.48997

19.28545

40.50240

19.28127

One ornithologist stayed on the island during day and night from 28 till 30 May 2013. The stay was used to collect data on the breeding birds of the island with standard methods described in Bibby et al. (2000) and to investigate the relationship between species and between species and habitats. Semi-quantitative data on bird abundances were collected during 10 point counts (duration 10 min., unlimited distance) following the “IPA” method (Blondel et al. 1981). During point counts (IPAs) only birds identiﬁed without doubt were counted. Because most areas which were explored were covered by dense vegetation, IPAs were spaced rather closely to each other without incurring relevant risks of double countings. IPAs were conducted only between 5:00 and 8:30 a.m., avoiding windy and rainy conditions (Tab. 1).

40.49961

19.28049

40.50184

19.27820

40.50551

19.27441

Other data were collected while circumnavigating the island with the boat: beaches and cliffs were explored from boat with the help of 10 x 42 binoculars and the position of all birds mapped (triangles in Fig. 2). On 29 May the sea was scanned from the promontory near the southernmost point of the island reachable from land (40.47878 N, 19.28164 E) with a scope (20x - 60x) for shearwaters which may approach the

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

south-western cliffs after sunset. Listening for shearwater calls continued till about 10:00 p.m. After full moon on 25 May, the sky was partly cloudy (ca. 70 %) on 29 May. All observations from standardized ﬁeld surveys and all occasional observations were whenever possible geo-referenced. In addition, during all observations the number of birds and ﬂock size were noted. Birds which were seen from long distances were located on the spot on a printed map using a 20” x 20” grid. A mist-net for small birds (and bats) was available and used when possible. Due to the short time available the priority was given to observe while walking along all paths accessible on the island. Nocturnal birds were recorded after evening sea-watching, during return to base camp after sunset or by listening from a point near base camp close to the port. Taxonomic references are taken from Crochet & Joynt (2012).

BIRD COMMUNITIES OF SAZAN ISLAND

addition, during all observations the number of birds and flock size were noted. Birds which were seen from long distances were located on the spot on a printed map using a 20” x 20” grid. A mist-net for small birds (and bats) was available and used when possible. Due to the short time available the priority was given to observe while walking along all paths accessible on the island. Nocturnal birds were recorded after evening sea-watching, during return to base camp after sunset or by listening from a point near base camp close port. Taxonomic references are taken from The Crochet & Joynt (2012). bird communities of the island were represented 3.to the Results & Discussion mainly by Passeriformes (23), followed by AccipitResults and discussion From 28 to 30 of May 2013, a total of 39 (possibly riformes and Falconiformes (5), Columbiformes (3), Apodiformes (2 - 3), Strigiformes (2), Caprimulgifor40) bird species were recorded on Sazan Island. The From 28 to 30 of May 2013, a total of 39 (possibly 40) bird species were recorded on mes (1), Charadriiformes (1), Coraciiformes (1) and uncertainty on the number of species derives from Sazan Island. The uncertainty on the number of species derives from the doubtful Pelecaniformes (1 species). Notably, four species of the doubtful identiﬁcation of Pallid (Apus pallidus) identification of Pallid (Apus pallidus) and Common Swift with (Apus apus)(Corvus in latemonedula) spring under and Common Swift (Apus apus) in late spring under Corvidae, Jackdaw the most the local conditions. A complete list, including a rough assessment of status the local conditions. A complete list, including a common, were present on the island. on Sazan Island, and theoflocations all bird records rough assessment status on of Sazan Island, and theon the island are shown in Tab. 2 and in Fig. 2, respectively. locations of all bird records on the island are shown in Tab. 2 and in Fig. 2, respectively. Tab. 2: Check-list of bird species recorded on Sazan Island in May 2013. B = Breeding, M Tab. 2: Check-list and of birdV species recorded on Sazan Island in Mayunclear). 2013. B = Breeding, M = Migrant, and V = Visitor (breeding status unclear). = Migrant, = Visitor (breeding status



100

Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii

Cecropis daurica

Accipiter nisus

M?, B?

Oenanthe hispanica melanoleuca

M?, B?

Buteo buteo

Monticola Monticola solitaries solitarius

Aquila chrysaetos

Turdus merula

Falco tinnunculus

Iduna pallida

Falco subbuteo

M?, B?

Sylvia cantillans albistriata

Larus michahellis

V, M? B? E,

Sylvia melanocephala

Columba livia

Sylvia borin

Streptopelia decaocto

Parus caeruleus (Cyanistes caeruleus)

Streptopelia turtur

Oriolus oriolus

M?, B?

Otus scops

Lanius isabellinus

Bubo bubo

Garrulus glandarius

Caprimulgus europaeus

Corvus monedula

Apus apus

Corvus (corone) cornix

Apus pallidus (?)

Corvus corax

Apus melba

Passer domesticus

Merops apiaster

Fringilla coelebs

Ptyonoprogne rupestris

Carduelis chloris

Hirundo rustica

M?, B?

Carduelis carduelis

Delichon urbicum

Carduelis cannabina



The bird communities of the island were represented mainly by Passeriformes (23), ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS followed by Accipitriformes and Falconiformes (4 - 5), Columbiformes (3), Apodiformes (2 -

BIRD COMMUNITIES OF SAZAN ISLAND

Survey from vessel Surprisingly, seabirds appear to be rare, if not absent as breeding birds, on Sazan. From the vessel a few Yellow-legged Gulls (Larus michahellis) and an immature Shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii) were observed, but with no signs for nesting. Additionally, no shearwaters were recorded, except for a Cory’s Shearwater (Calonectris diomedea) that came across while the vessel approached the island from Vlora harbour. Consequently, the species was not included in the check-list in Tab. 2. On the other hand, cliffs and coastal creeks hosted remarkable numbers of breeding swifts, mainly Alpine Swift (Apus melba), swallows, and Rock Doves (Columba livia). The perimeter of the island was also frequented by numerous Jackdaws, presumably 2 - 3 breeding pairs (bp.) of Raven (Corvus corax) as well as 2 - 3 bp. of Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus). Except for a pair of Common Buzzard (Buteo buteo), probably the same that was seen above the woods during the next days, Kestrel was the only diurnal raptor observed from the sea. Blue Rock Thrush (Monticola solitarius) was present at least in sectors C4 and E5 (see grid in Fig. 2).

mainly found at points in ecotones, between grassy and wooded patches or near human settlements. House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) and House Martin (Delichon urbicum) was rather abundant in the vicinity of the port and in deserted villages, while Collared Dove (Streptopelia decaocto), Golden Oriole (Oriolus oriolus), Sardinian Warbler (Sylvia melanocephala), Chafﬁnch (Fringilla coelebs) and Linnet (Carduelis cannabina) were noted only at 1 - 2 points (Tab. 3). Sardinian Warbler was recorded only on that point which was situated in Mediterranean scrubs and most exposed to the sea. Flying Red-rumped Swallows (Cecropis daurica) and Jackdaws were seen in most points all over the island. On observation point no. 1 a total of 255 Alpine Swifts passed the area from SW-NE. Numbers of Alpine Swifts corresponded to an off-shore ﬂock seen in sector E7 (Fig. 2) at sunset. Scavengers, like Common Buzzard, Carrion Crow (Corvus corone cornix), Raven and Jackdaw, are well represented in point counts. However, the western side, where landscape and vegetation are quite different from the eastern side, was lesser explored, therefore this results should not be extended to the whole surface area of Sazan Island.

Point counts Point counts (Tab. 1 and 3) focused on birds of inland habitats. With approximately 2.2 bp./point and 2.0 bp./point, respectively, bird communities in the eastern part of the island were dominated by Greenﬁnch (Carduelis chloris) and Blackbird (Turdus merula) (cf. Tab. 3). In small abundances of ca. 1.2 bp./point for both species Subalpine Warbler (Sylvia cantillans) and Turtle Dove (Streptopelia turtur), and in lower numbers Blue Tit (Parus caeruleus), were regularly found. The latter species, recorded in 50 % of all points, but probably underestimated following to late season, were seen to carry food for chicks. Goldﬁnch (Carduelis carduelis) and Eastern Olivaceous Warbler (Iduna pallida) - 0.6 and 0.4 bp./point, respectively – were

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

„From a biogeographical point of view, Sazan Island seems to cons�tute the westernmost limits of the range for at least two species or subspecies of passerines“

101

BIRD COMMUNITIES OF SAZAN ISLAND

Swifts passed the area from SW-NE. Numbers of Alpine Swifts corresponded to an offshore flock seen in sector E7 (Fig. 2) at sunset. Scavengers, like Common Buzzard, Carrion Crow (Corvus corone cornix), Raven and Jackdaw, are well represented in point counts. However, the western side, where landscape and vegetation are quite different from eastern side, was lesser explored, therefore this results should not be extended to the whole surface area of Sazan Island. Tab. 3: Results of point counts on Sazan Island, May Tab. 3: Results of point counts on 2013 Sazan

Taxon

Buteo buteo

Island, May 2013 4

Streptopelia decaocto

Otus scops

255

20-40

Delichon urbicum

Cecropis daurica

Turdus merula

Iduna pallida

Sylvia cantillans albistriata

Parus caeruleus

Oriolus oriolus

Fringilla coelebs

4-8

Carduelis cannabina

Carduelis carduelis

Species (total)

Passer domesticus

Carduelis chloris

Corvus (corone) cornix

Corvus corax

Frequence (%) 20

Sylvia melanocephala

Corvus monedula

Streptopelia turtur

Apus melba

21 species

Occasional observations of the island. In general, species which were regularly Occasional observa�ons During more than 100 occasional sightings a number of point species which not recorded noted during counts, seemwere to be common also in other parts of Sazan Island. However, where MeDuring more than 100 occasional sightings a number during the boat trip and point counts were seen. An immature Golden Eagle (Aquila ofchrysaetos) species whichwas were seen not recorded boat diterranean scrubs become densewhile and exposed twice,during whilethe exploring grasslands in sector F5 more cell and soaring trip and point counts were seen. An immature Golto the sea Sardinian Warbler appears to gradually reabove sector F7. And additional pair and a further two individuals of Common Buzzard den Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) was seen twice, while place Subalpine Warbler. Conversely, Greenﬁnch and were recorded. Hobby (Falco subbuteo) and Sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus) were noted exploring grasslands in sector F5 cell and while soaring some other species, common in central parts of the only once, while a foraging flock of eight Rockisland, Doves (Columba livia) was seen in sector above sector F7. An additional pair and a further two seem to be scarcer in scrublands. By evidence E3. Evidently lesser common thanHobby other Corvidae, twoin shy and of silent Jays(sectors (Garrulus individuals of Common Buzzard were recorded. the meadows the center the island F5 glandarius) seen in the southern part ofand theG5) island. In remains general, (Falco subbuteo)were and Sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus) and the of aspecies village inwhich sector were G4 were noted only once,during while a foraging ﬂock of eight suitable habitats Houseparts Martin, regularly noted point counts, seem toprovide be common also inforother of House Sazan Rock Doves was seen in sector E3. Evidently lesser Sparrow, and Blue Rock Thrush. In addition, the same Island. However, where Mediterranean scrubs become more dense and exposed to the were used for feeding by Red-rumped Swallows, common than other Corvidae, shy and silent sea Sardinian Warblertwoappears to Jays graduallyareas replace Subalpine Warbler. Conversely, (Garrulus glandarius) were seen in the southern part  102

Alpine Swifts, Jackdaws, Turtle Doves, and European

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS



BIRD COMMUNITIES OF SAZAN ISLAND

Nightjars (Caprimulgus europaeus). Records of European Bee-eater (Merops apiaster), Garden Warbler (Sylvia borin) (an individual with large fat reserves captured during mist-netting) and Isabelline Shrike (Lanius isabellinus) obviously concerned migrants. The latter species is a rare vagrant visitor in the western and central Mediterranean (Fig. 3) and the observation on Sazan Island may be the ﬁrst record for Albania.

Nocturnal birds

sea-watching European Nightjar, Eurasian Scops (Otus scops) and Eagle Owl (Bubo bubo) were recorded (Fig. 4). The concentration of observations of nightjars and Scops Owls in the woods and overgrown areas near the port may result from the longer time spent near the base camp at night. However, during a walk back to base camp in the darkness both species were not noted in well wooded G6 and G7 sectors. At the same time while approaching port on the same occasion singing Scops Owl became more frequent and nightjars were mainly heard in the surroundings of base camp.

After sunset the island hosted much nocturnal bird activity. During observations from ﬁxed observation points and on the walk back to base camp after evening

Fig. 3: Breeding and non-breeding distribu�on of Isabelline Shrike (Lanius isabellinus) according to IUCN (modiﬁed by the author from h�p://maps.iucnredlist.org/). The individual seen on Sazan Island was a migrant; most probably the island is not a regular stop-over site for the species.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

103

BIRD COMMUNITIES OF SAZAN ISLAND

One or two individuals of Eagle Owls could be heard from every place on the island. This may indicate the presence of more Eagle Owls than shown in Fig. 4, since, in May, paired males should be more silent in comparison to unpaired birds. Depending on population ﬂuctuations of mammals, Eagle Owl may interact with at least a part of the bird communities of the island. The presence of a signiﬁcant population of this large predator may explain the absence of breeding Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus) and possibly even the absence of any seabird colony on the island.

studies and for management planning. With different levels of certainty, at least 28-29 species were found to breed on the island. Environmental conditions for the - in comparison to other small islands - rich and diverse bird community are based on three main ecological elements: First, coastal habitats - in particular, on the western side of the island - support breeding populations of Kestrel, Rock Dove, of up to 2 - 3 species of swifts, Crag Martin (Ptyonoprogne rupestris), Blue Rock Thrush, Raven, and Jackdaw. Secondly, in addition to nocturnal insectivorous birds, like European Nightjar and Scops Owl, mosaics of pine and oak forests, Mediterranean scrublands, open grasslands and rocky slopes host a rich and diverse community of passerines. Ruins, bunkers and buildings are used by Red-rumped Swallow, House Martin and House Sparrow for nesting. Highly diverse environmental conditions on Sazan Island rather recall mainland habitats than generally more uniform insular landscapes. From a biogeographical point of view, Sazan Island seems to constitute the westernmost limits of the range for at least two species or subspecies of passerines: Despite the vicinity of the Italian coast (< 75 km), Eastern Olivaceous Warblers and Subalpine Warblers of the subspecies albistriata are abundant on Sazan Island, but are absent in the southern Italy. Similarly, Red-rumped Swallow is an uncommon breeding bird in Apulia, while the species is one of the most common breeding birds on the island.

Fig. 4: Records of nocturnal birds on Sazan Island in May 2013.

Final remarks and recommenda�ons

The present survey in late May 2013 produced the ﬁrst data on the bird fauna of Sazan Island. The coverage of the island surface and knowledge of the island’s bird communities are far from being complete, but the results of this study may be taken as a basis for further

104

And the third ecological aspect, the very abundant population of rabbits and the presence of rats, apparently support a signiﬁcant resident population of raptors, like Eagle Owl. The abundance of prey (mammals and birds) seems further to attract non-resident predators, such as falcons, Sparrowhawk, and Golden Eagle. Rats and the large population of rabbits may also encourage the presence of scavengers, like crows. As a consequence of that complexity, further bird monitoring and ecological studies are desirable.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

BIRD COMMUNITIES OF SAZAN ISLAND

In particular, the presence of breeding and/or feeding seabirds remains to be clariﬁed. A list of essential monitoring activities that should be scheduled in the near future are proposed hereafter:

a wide buffer area has to be identiﬁed. Special actions should be undertaken to prevent dynamite ﬁshing and best practice to reduce incidental catching of seabirds should be adopted.

Seabirds. Focused surveys on shearwater (and other seabird) colonies should be carried out from different lookouts during the breeding period.

If a different outcome is decided for Sazan in the future, the habitats at present known as feeding and nesting areas for a number of bird species will run the risk to be heavily and rapidly altered. It will be necessary to create a zonation concept for the island on the basis of adequate protection levels. In any case, only mild tourism forms are recommended.

The interaction between the resident population of Eagle Owl and the bird community should be clariﬁed, before any change of the management of the island takes place. Monitoring of birds of prey is needed to assess the role of the island for non-breeders, like Golden Eagle and Peregrine Falcon. Rocky hills and remote areas still remain largely unexplored. Focused investigations would be helpful to improve the check-list with breeding species which were not found during the present survey. Moreover, point counts (or transect counts) should be repeated and cover unexplored habitats. Due to its position in the Strait of Otranto and environmental characteristics, Sazan Island may constitute an important stopover site for migrants which cross the central Mediterranean along the Adriatic Flyway. Up to now, this aspect is totally unexplored. In the future, the use of Sazan Island as a military outpost may change. To prevent considerable impacts on the island’s environment and natural values the following measures are recommended: The preservation of coastal habitats as potential nesting habitats for seabirds and raptors should be integrated in the biodiversity and landscape preservation issues of the “Karaburun-Sazani” Marine Protected Area (MPA). In particular, vessels and boats near the western side of the island should be prohibited, except for monitoring and scientiﬁc investigation, and

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

In the case of the establishment of new human settlement, only low-impact facilities should be allowed (phyto-depuration of sewages, micro wind turbines, roof solar panels etc.), and excessive artificial lighting, any chemical and organic pollution, wind farms, extensive solar plants, suspended wires, paved routes etc. should be strictly banned. Any pest control (e.g., against rats or rabbits), in the case of Sazan Island, should be very carefully evaluated. Regarding birds, no exotic species were found. This condition should be guaranteed in the future. The banning of any kind of hunting is highly recommended. A future greater influx of humans on the island inevitably will increase the risk of wildfires. A forest service unit on the island should be settled, equipped with fire prevention systems. At last, but not least the designation of Sazan Island as a protected area and the establishment of an integrated management of the Karaburun-Sazan Marine National Park, including Sazan Island, is highly recommended. A management plan for Sazan is actually prepared by the Conservatoire du littoral within the PIM Initiative and is the subject of discussions with Albanian Authorities.

105

BIRD COMMUNITIES OF SAZAN ISLAND

Acknowledgements Thanks to the colleagues of I.S.P.R.A. (Alessandro Andreotti, Nicola Baccetti, Marco Zenatello, and Lorenzo Serra), for their assistance during the preparation of the mission and their help with the interpretation of the collected data. Among them, I am especially grateful to Nicola Baccetti, for his further help by reviewing and improving the oral presentation and this paper. Thanks to all PIM staff, especially Céline Damery (Conservatoire du Littoral CEL) and Sajmir Beqiraj (University of Tirana/APAWA) for the field logistics that allowed me to maximize the outcome of the fieldwork on Sazan Island, and to Philippe Théou for his cooperation in some field activities. Thanks are further given to Mathieu Thevenet (CEL) who provided me with the opportunity to contribute to this project, and to Céline Damery who critically read the present paper.

References Bibby C. J., Burgess N. D., Hill D. A. & Mustoe S .H. (2000): Bird Census Techniques, 2nd ed., Academic Press, London. Bino T., Tourenq C., Kayser Y., Busuttil S., Crozier J., Dore B. J. & Bego F. (1996): Recensement des oiseaux d’eau hivernants en Albanie. 14-31 janvier 1996. Station biologique de la Tour du Valat, Le Sambuc, Arles, France. BirdLife International (2012): Lanius isabellinus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 10 October 2014. Blondel J., Ferry C. & Frochot B. (1981): Point Counts with unlimited distance. In: Ralph C. J., Scott J. M. (eds.). Estimating Numbers of Terrestrial Birds. Studies in Avian Ecology 6; pp. 414-420.

106

Crochet P. A. & Joynt G. (2012): AERC list of Western Palearctic birds. December 2012 version. Available at http://www.aerc.eu/tac.html Hagemeijer W. (eds) (1994): Wintering waterbirds in the coastal wetlands of Albania, 1993. WIWOReport Nr. 49, Zeist. Kayser Y., Bino T. & Gauthier-Clerc M. (1995): Recensement des oiseaux d’eau hivernants en Albanie. 17 janvier – 7 février 1995. Station biologique de la Tour du Valat, Le Sambuc, Arles, France. Kayser Y., Bino T., Bego F., Fremuth W. & Jorgo G. (1997): Recensement des oiseaux d’eau hivernants en Albanie. 3-19 janvier 1997. Station biologique de la Tour du Valat, Le Sambuc, Arles, France. Nowak E. (1980): Wasservögel und Feuchtgebiete Albaniens (Status, Veränderungen, Nutzung und Schutz). Beitr. Vogelkunde 26: 65-103. Nowak E. (1980): Provisorische Artenliste der Vögel Albaniens. Unpublished manuskript, Mehlem. Sachanowicz K., Ciechanowski M. & Rachwald A. (2008): Ornithological observations (2003-2007) from Albania. Acrocephalus 29 (136): 59-66. Ticehurst C. B. & Whistler H. (1932): On the ornithology of Albania. Ibis, 2: 40-93. Thorpe W. H., Cotton P. T. & Holmes P. F. (1936): Notes on the birds of lakes Ochrid, Malik, and Prespa and adjacent parts of Yugoslavia, Albania, and Greece. Ibis 6: 557-580. Whistler H. (1936): Further observations from Albania. Ibis 6: 335-356. Zekhuis M. J. & Tempelman D. (1998): Breeding birds of the Albanian wetlands, spring 1996. WIWOreport Nr. 64, Zeist.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

photo: Fabrizio Borghesi

BIRD COMMUNITIES OF SAZAN ISLAND

Sazan Island, Albania, 28 Mai 2013.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

107

photo: Peter Sackl

Black-crowned Night-heron (Nyc�corax nyc�corax). 108

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Southern Europe will likely harbour more birds in the future, which up to now winter in Africa Leo Zwarts Altenburg & Wymenga Ecological Consultants, P.O. Box 32, 9269 ZR Feanwâlden, The Netherlands; E-mail: leozwarts@xs4all.nl

Summary

Keywords

A quarter of the European birds winter south of the Sahara. Most of these birds are concentrated in the Sahel region. 59 % of these long-distance migrants are in decline for already dozens of years. These declining trends are apparent in long-distance migrants independent whether they spend the winter in the open savanna, woody savanna or in the Sahelian wetlands. A large part of the declines can be explained by the long-term decline of the rainfall in the Sahel. Many birds do not survive the winter in dry years. However, long-term declines are also due to a loss of habitat. For instance, there are less trees for woodland birds and birds bound to wetlands have lost ﬂoodplains due to embankments and the regulation of rivers. There is no reason to assume that this decline of habitat will not continue in the future. Moreover, the climate models predict for the Sahel a further increase of the temperature and a likely further decline of the rainfall. Hence, migratory long-distance migrants are, and will lose more, ground in Africa. Fortunately, some species, such as Little Egret (Egretta garzetta), White Stork (Ciconia ciconia), Eurasian Spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia) and Western Marsh-harrier (Circus aeruginosus), have discovered that they can also spend the winter in the Mediterranean and southern Europe, where due to the ongoing climate change the risk of severe winter conditions has already declined. For this reason, we expect that southern European countries will harbour in the future more long-distance migrants. Nature conservation in these countries will become even more important than now.

Sahel, migratory birds, climate change, transSaharan migrants

„This equals 8,000 million of postbreeding birds, of which a quarter winter south of the Sahara“

A quarter of the European birds winter in Africa, most of it in the Sahel

Migratory bird species spending the northern winter in Africa are in trouble. The population estimates of European birds in 1970, 1990 and 2000, as compiled by BirdLife International (2004), clearly show the point: most species wintering south of the Sahara are in decline. Of the 127 species crossing the Sahara, 16 show an increase (13 %), the populations of 36 are stable (28 %), but 75 (59 %) are in decline. This compares unfavourably with short-distance migrants (33 % in decline) and residents (28 % in decline). These downward trends were particularly evident in birds wintering in the savanna (large decline in Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus1, Pallid Harrier Circus macrourus, Steppe Eagle Aquila nipalensis, Stonecurlew Burhinus oedicnemus) and wooded savanna (large decline in Black Kite Milvus migrans, European Roller Coracias garrulus, Common Redstart Phoenicurus phoenicurus), but equally so in waterbirds (large decline in Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus, Ruff Calidris pugnax, Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa) (Zwarts et al. 2009). Europe accommodates more than 500 breeding bird species, by estimate some 2 billion of pairs. This equals 8 billion of post-breeding birds, of which a quarter winter south of the Sahara. Africa is of vital importance for long-distance migrants breeding in Europe, but also in Asia, their breeding habitats ranging from the Arctic tundra to Mediterranean scrubland. But, in regard to global climate change, will Africa harbour the same huge numbers of birds in the future? English and scientific bird names according to the checklist of BirdLife International: http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/userfiles/ file/Species/Taxonomy/BirdLife_Checklist_Version_70.zip

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

109

PALEARCTIC MIGRANTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Very few European migrants winter in the Sahara or in the tropical rainforests. As far as the Sahara is concerned, this is what one would expect, given the lack of food and cover. The forests of equatorial Africa, on the other hand, are teeming with birds, overwhelmingly of local origin. Perhaps this is the main reason why northern migrants are so rare here. Collared Flycatchers (Ficedula albicollis) are one of the few Palearctic species not deterred by competition and which coexist with the many other African ﬂycatcher species. Most trans-Saharan migrants do not migrate beyond the transient zone between the desert and the equatorial rainforest. Between these extremes the rainfall gradually increases from north to south, and the landscape changes accordingly. The arid landscape of the

Sahara turns gradually into forest, via dry and treeless savanna, wooded savanna and parkland. This zoning occurs along the entire southern edge of the Sahara, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea, a continentwide swath of 5,500 km. The majority of birds from Eastern Europe spends the winter in the eastern Sahel (and southward to South Africa), while most birds from West Europe winter in the western Sahel (Fig. 1). The Sahel is usually deﬁned as the zone where the annual rainfall varies between at least 100 mm and not more than 700 mm. In the northern Sahel the rainy season is restricted to July-September, while in the southern Sahel the rains start a month earlier and end a month later. In most years, the Sahel is devoid of rain from October to May.

Fig. 1: Long-distance migrants from West Europe on average have a more westerly distribu�on in the Sahel than those from East Europe; the extent of overlap varies between species. This may be illustrated by the recoveries of Glossy Ibis (Plegadis falcinellus) (le�; including some recoveries north of the Sahara) and Western Marsh-harrier (Circus aeruginosus) south of the Sahara (right). Marsh Harriers – and other migrants - passing the Adria�c coast mostly originate from Finland, Poland and the Bal�c countries. From: Zwarts et al. (2009).

110

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

PALEARCTIC MIGRANTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

For migratory birds arriving in August and September, the green, grassy plains gradually turn into dustcovered, bare soil, wetlands become drylands and most trees shed their leaves. From the initially huge numbers of insects, either small (midges) or large (locusts), fewer and fewer remain. The problem faced by trans-Saharan migrants is not how to recuperate from the post-breeding migration hazards, but how to stay alive in the following months and – especially – how to find sufficient food to build up body reserves, necessary for the flight back home across the Sahara and the Mediterranean Sea. The Sahel holds several very large wetlands. During the northern winter, birdlife in these marshes, as well as in the savanna, is dominated by Eurasian migrants. Concerning waterbirds, the numbers of local species (Whistling-duck Dendrocygna sp. and African Comb Duck Sarkidiornis melanotos) pale into insignificance beside the huge numbers of migrants (Garganey Spatula querquedula, Pintails Anas acuta, Northern Shovelers Spatula clypeata). The same is true for waders, where the local Egyptian Plovers (Pluvianus aegyptius) and Greater Painted-snipes (Rostratula benghalensis) are pin-pricks compared with the flocks of Ruff and Little Stints (Calidris minuta). Similarly, in comparison to European passerine migrants, such as Iberian Chiffchaffs (Phylloscopus ibericus), Western Olivaceous (Hippolais opaca), Bonelli’s (Phylloscopus bonelli) and Subalpine Warblers (Sylvia cantillans), the northern Sahel forests harbour few African birds. The Sahel holds large wetlands because a large part of the rains in the northern tropics are drained off by rivers running through the Sahel, i.e. the Senegal and Niger River in West Africa and the Blue and White Nile in East Africa. The Chari and Logone Rivers in the central part of West Africa empty into Lake Chad. These rivers feed the large floodplains and other wetlands in the semi-arid Sahel. The annual discharge of the rivers varies considerably. With precipitation too low in the Sahel to have an impact on river flow, the discharge of rivers does not depend on variations of rainfall in the Sahel, but is closely correlated to the rainfall further south.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Until about 1980, most Sahelian rivers had a natural flow. But this has changed dramatically since then. Due to the construction of the Manantali dam in the Upper Senegal River, a huge reservoir of 11 km3 came into being. During the rainy period a large part of the inflow is stored in the lake and gradually released in the dry months. In this way electricity can be produced and irrigation of farmland is possible during the dry period. The Selingue dam has a similar impact on the Upper Niger River as the Manantali dam on the Senegal, although less dramatic. In North Nigeria and in Cameroon dams have also affected the river flow, with dire consequences for the seasonal floodplains and marshes further downstream. By combining the daily flow of the rivers in the Sahel with satellite images, it was possible to reconstruct the annual surface area of the floodplains and, subsequently, to compare the extension of foodplains with the changes of bird populations.

Winter mortality is related to rainfall in the Sahel

Variations in rainfall have far-reaching consequences for ‘our’ birds in Africa. We have several clues that fewer birds survive the winter in the Sahel in dry years: First, in dry years waterbirds are forced to concentrate in fewer sites, which make them highly vulnerable to catching with standing nets by the local people. In the Inner Niger Delta very few Garganey are offered for sale on the market in wet years, but up to 70,000 are traded in dry years. The same differences were found in Pintail and Ruff. Secondly, all bird species for which we analysed the ring recoveries showed the same pattern: many recoveries in dry years, few in wet years. Since rings reported from the Sahel mainly refer to birds which have been shot or captured, this indicates differential human predation (although not necessarily differential winter survival).

111

PALEARCTIC MIGRANTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Thirdly, that winter survival actually differs between dry and wet years in the Sahel is visible in the return rate of birds on the breeding grounds. From a ringed population of British Lesser Whitethroats (Sylvia curruca), only 4 % of the adult birds returned after the disastrously dry winter of 1984, against 10 – 25 % after wet years. Essentially, the same results were found for White Storks (Ciconia ciconia), Sand Martins (Riparia riparia) and Common Whitethroats (Sylvia communis), all of it showing lower return rates after dry Sahel years. The higher mortality in dry Sahel years is mainly driven by food shortage. Garganey and Ruff suffer from food shortage in dry years. Garganey attempt to compensate food shortages by extending their feeding bouts into daytime, but to no avail; they are in such a poor

condition during extreme droughts that they can be approached closely. While Garganey and Ruff have to increase their body weight by 40 % to be able to fly back to Europe, they are losing weight during droughts and are doomed to die in their wintering quarters. If mortality in long-distance migrants during winter and spring migration depends on the circumstances in the wintering area, annual fluctuations in rainfall and flood extent in the Sahel should be reflected in the breeding population, either directly or with a delay. Indeed, after the dry Sahel winter of 1990/91 Common Whitethroats declined across Europe, on average by 18.5 %. The winter of 1994/95 was wet and the population increased in much of Europe, average by 17 %; Sedge Warblers (Acrocephalus schoenobaenus) even increased by 40 %.

Fig. 2: Number of breeding pairs of the Black-crowned Night-heron (Nyc�corax nyc�corax) in the Camargue (le�-hand axis), compared with the maximum ﬂood extent in the Senegal Delta and Inner Niger Delta in the preceding winter (right-hand axis). From: Zwarts et al. (2009).

112

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

PALEARCTIC MIGRANTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Fig. 3: Numbers of breeding pairs of Sand Mar�ns (Riparia riparia) in Schleswig-Holstein (northern Germany) and The Netherlands show wide ﬂuctua�ons (le�-hand axis). The trends are highly synchronized and related to rainfall in the Sahel during the preceding winter (blue bars; right-hand axis); the rainfall is shown as percent devia�on from the average of the 20th century. From: Zwarts et al. (2009).

Besides rainfall in the wintering areas winter mortality of long-distance migrants depends on population size. In 1968, when rainfall in the Sahel dipped after a series of very wet years, Common Whitethroat numbers crashed. In the much drier years in the 1970s and 1980s, Whitethroats showed a smaller decline. The explanation must be that the population had already declined to very low numbers in 1969, lessening the competition with congeners when conditions further deteriorated. Winter mortality therefore relates to rainfall (and its correlates), but is also density-dependent. A nice example of density-dependence is provided by Black-crowned Night-herons (Nycticorax nycticorax)

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

breeding in the Camargue, where the number of nests since 1967 has varied between 230 and 940 (Fig. 2). The numerical fluctuations closely follow the extent of the floodplains in the Inner Niger Delta where many night-herons winter; for each extra 100 km2 of floodplain, 3.6 nests of night-herons were added to the local population in the Camargue. Population growth was largest after wet Sahel years (up to 50 %) and when numbers were small to begin with (little competition). Declines were noticed after dry years, especially when the breeding population was large (more competition). The same combined impact of winter droughts (measured by rainfall, rather than flood extent as used in Black-crowned Night-herons) and population size was found in Sand Martins (Fig. 3).

113

PALEARCTIC MIGRANTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Rainfall in the Sahel: past, present, future

Rainfall is unpredictable in the Sahel, sometimes limited to only a few cloudbursts in the rainy season. Local variations in the amount of rainfall are enormous. Nevertheless, taking all data from the many rain stations into account, some years and periods clearly stand out across the entire Sahel. 1984, for instance, was catastrophically dry, whilst the 1950s were typiﬁed by high rainfall. Long series of meteorological data collected all over the Sahel are needed to elucidate the overall rainfall pattern. The distribution and number of rain stations allow such an analysis from 1900 onwards. These data allow two conclusions to be drawn: First, there is, on average, a gradual decline of rainfall throughout the 20th century. Over a longer period, the trend is even more pronounced because, according to historical sources, the 19th century must have been rather wet. Secondly, periods with high rainfall (around 1925 and 1955) are alternated with dry periods (around 1910, 1940, 1970). This cycle would predict high rainfall around 1985, but – in contrast - the rain steadily declined (or remained at a low ebb) throughout the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s, only to partly recover since then. When the rainfall in the Sahel started to decline in the 1970s and 1980s, the general opinion was that the people in the Sahel were to blame. Deforestation, increasing livestock numbers and extension of farmland led to erosion and desertiﬁcation, to such an extent that climate change seemed inevitable. Later research discovered, however, that the cause of the presumed regime shift must be sought beyond the Sahel, at least for a large part. Rainfall in the Sahel appears to depend on sea surface temperatures: the Sahel is dry when the oceans in the tropics are relative cool and those in the subtropics relatively warm.

114

If and how global warming is going to affect the Sahel is still uncertain. The most likely scenario predicts a further decline in rainfall by 10 – 20 %, and possibly even by 40 %. Between 1980 and 2005, the average temperature in the Sahel has increased by 1°C, and current predictions allow for another increase of 2 - 7°C in the next 80 years. This should be disastrous in a part of the world which is already disproportionally hot.

The future of migratory birds wintering in Africa

Migratory birds, concentrated in Sahelian floodplains (Black-crowned Night-herons, Purple Herons Ardea purpurea), show a clear relationship between flood extent and population change. However, population changes in bird species found in the savanna (White Stork) or wooded savanna (Eurasian Wryneck Jynx torquilla) correlated better with variations in annual rainfall in the Sahel. Hence, the vicissitudes of wetland-inhabiting long-distance migrants depend largely on the meteorological and hydrological conditions in their wintering area. If corrected for that, the apparent long-term decline in these species disappears. This is very different in migrants wintering in savanna and wooded savanna: the decline remains, independent of rainfall. The Wryneck declined with 75 % between 1965 and 1990 across Europe. Thereafter, the population remained stable, albeit at a low level. The decline was steepest during the drier Sahel years. Small recoveries have been noted in the few years with an above-average rainfall in the Sahel, but such small upsurges were insufficient to prevent a collapse of the population.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

PALEARCTIC MIGRANTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

An even longer time series is available for the Common Redstart. Since 1911 nest-box occupation has been monitored in The Netherlands. Initially, the Redstart was, after the Great Tit (Parus major), the most common bird species occupying 30 % of the boxes. During the 20th century next-box occupation by Common Redstarts gradually decreased to less than 1 % since 1970. Although concomitant changes of the breeding habitat may have played a role, similar trends were found in farmland, orchards, gardens and forests elsewhere in The Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany. Based on ten long time series from West and Central Europe, the Redstart is supposed to have declined by 95 % between 1940 and 2000. The average decline amounted to 4.7 % per year, being largest in dry Sahel years but it was also evident during wet Sahel years. This shows that, besides Sahel rainfall, other factor(s) may be involved. In the Sahel, the Common Redstart is mainly found in open savanna woodlands. We frequently recorded the species in Acacia forests in the Sahel. Redstarts must have lost a considerable part of their winter habitat due to deforestation. If so, we would expect the same trends in Western Olivaceous, Bonelli’s and Subalpine Warbler, species which occupy the same habitat in the Sahel. Bonelli’s Warbler indeed show a decline, but trend data for the other species are lacking or of insufﬁcient length. Redstarts clearly illustrate the point that long time series in monitoring schemes are of vital importance to understand long-term ﬂuctuations in population size: the longer, the more reliable. Although Redstart numbers have been largely stable, or slightly increasing, during the last 20 years, the present population level is still ten times lower than it was 30 - 40 years before. Although the majority of Palearctic long-distance migrants are in steep decline, there are some notable exceptions. Several factors, not mutually exclusive, are suggested as reasons why these species escape the general trend.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

(1) Wintering throughout West Africa and along the coast. The European Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) population has doubled since the mid-1980s, but the number of Ospreys staging in Sahelian wetlands did not increase in proportion, but instead declined. In West Africa, Ospreys winter mostly along the coast and on reservoirs, where they are not affected by droughts in the Sahel. Another predominantly coastal species when wintering in Africa, Eurasian Spoonbills (Platalea leucorodia) of the western East Atlantic Flyway population show a similar increase in numbers. Stable numbers were further reported for several wader species, like Little Stint and Green Sandpiper (Tringa ochropus), which winter widely dispersed across African wetlands including the Sahelian ﬂoodplains.

(2) Recoveries from human-induced declines. Persecution and the use of persistent pesticides in farmland suppressed the breeding numbers of many top predators in Europe to very low levels during much of the 20th century. The upsurges of species such as Little Egret (Egretta garzetta), Osprey, Western Marsh-harrier and Montagu’s Harrier (Circus pygargus) since about the 1970s are in fact recoveries from depletion, made possible through effective protection and bans on the use of organochlorines in agriculture. The effects of ﬂood extent in the West African inundation zones on Western Marsh-harriers breeding in Western Europe became visible only after populations had bounced back to saturation levels set by the breeding grounds.

„The problem faced by trans-Saharan migrants is … how to find sufficient food to build up body reserves, necessary for the flight back home across the Sahara and the Mediterranean Sea“

115

PALEARCTIC MIGRANTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

(3) Shi�ing the centre of gravity of wintering areas northwards. Many Palearctic migrants use wintering grounds scattered from Europe through North Africa and into sub-Saharan regions. The evidence since the early 1990s indicates that the relative importance of subSaharan winter quarters has declined for several bird species in favour of wintering areas in North Africa and in Europe. This shift coincided with a population increase, perhaps suggesting that the carrying capacity of Sahelian winter quarters had been reached (a buffer effect, necessitating the use of other wintering areas) or that a climate-induced shift had occurred, favouring wintering nearer the breeding range, triggered by more relaxed winter weather regimes in Europe after the mid-1980s. This behavioural change has been quite pronounced in Little Egret, White Stork, Eurasian Spoonbill, and Western Marsh-harrier. Migratory ﬂexibility enables birds to adapt to new migration routes and wintering areas arising from environmental change. A stunning example is demonstrated by White Storks, which started to winter in their hundreds (perhaps thousands) in the Libyan desert near Marknusa, Al Kufra and Jalu, regions where fossil water is used to irrigate large tracts of desert. An even more dramatic shift in wintering quarters has been documented for Blackcaps (Sylvia atricapilla) breeding in central Europe, which partly changed their migratory behaviour from wintering in southwestern Europe and Africa to Britain.

More wintering birds in the Mediterranean and south Europe

None of the increases in long-distance migrants was triggered by events occurring in the Sahel, but rather by an improvement of conditions elsewhere. An increasing number of Eurasian Spoonbills nowadays remains in Southwest Europe to winter. Also other species, such as White Stork, Western Marsh-harrier and Little Egret, increasingly winter in southern Europe, where they proﬁt from warmer winters, new food supplies and better protection. A further increase of the wintering numbers of birds around the Mediterranean and elsewhere in southern Europe is to be expected, also of other species. The signiﬁcance of the Sahel as wintering area of long-distance migrants will decline, at the expected decline of rainfall in Africa and further loss of habitat, while at the same time the winters will become milder in southern Europe. Whether southern Europe will, indeed, harbour more birds in winter will depend on the possibilities the birds are given to exploit the available food resources and to use safe roosting sites. Hence, bird protection in southern Europe will become in the future even more important than at present.

References BirdLife International. (2004): Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. BirdLife Conservation Series 12, BirdLife International, Cambridge, U.K.

„The evidence since the early 1990s indicates that the rela�ve importance of sub-Saharan winter quarters has declined for several bird species in favour of wintering areas in North Africa and in Europe“ 116

Zwarts L., Bijlsma R. G., van der Kamp J. & Wymenga E. (2009): Living on the edge: Wetlands and birds in a changing Sahel. KNNV Publishing, Zeist, The Netherlands.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

photo: Peter Sackl

PALEARCTIC MIGRANTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Collard Pra�ncole (Glareola pra�ncola); Salina Ulcinj, Montenegro, July 2015.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

117

photo: Kers�n Sauer

Red-crested Pochard (Ne�a ruﬁna), Common Pochard (Aythya ferina), and Common Coot (Fulica atra), Radolfzell, Lake Constance, Germany, 15 October 2015. 118

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

The status of waterbird popula�ons in the Adria�c Flyway Szabolcs Nagy1, Tom Langendoen1, Stephan Flink1 1

Wetlands Interna�onal, Horapark 9, 6717 LZ Ede, The Netherlands; E-mail: szabolcs.nagy@wetlands.org

Abstract

The present article reviews the status of waterbird populations in the Adriatic Flyway which constitutes a part of the wider Black Sea/Mediterranean Flyway, by using data available for the 6th edition of the AEWA Conservation Status Review. One third of 100 populations reviewed are declining and the conservation status of 40 % of the 77 populations with known population trends for the periods 1983 – 2007 and 1988 – 2012, respectively, has further deteriorated. Hence, the conservation status of waterbird populations is less favourable then in other parts of Europe. What makes matters worst is that the quality of population size and trend estimates is the poorest for this region. Therefore, additional efforts are needed to further strengthen a broadly based monitoring network in the region.

The Adriatic Flyway that is situated on the eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea (Schneider-Jacoby & Stumberger 2009), is used as a breeding ground, as a staging area towards Africa and as a wintering area by different waterbird species depending on their ecological requirements. This area is located in the central part of the wider Black Sea/Mediterranean Flyway. Only a few waterbird populations are restricted to the Adriatic Flyway; the majority are part of larger populations.

Keywords waterbirds, monitoring, status assessment, population trends, International Waterbird Census, IWC, Adriatic Flyway

„“… out of 77 populations with known trend in both periods the status of 31 (40 %) has deteriorated, while the status of 26 populations (33 %) has improved“

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Introduc�on

Methods

For the present assessment we have analysed the status of waterbird populations that either belong to the Black Sea/Mediterranean Flyway or Palearctic populations whose range includes the Adriatic Flyway area. For the delimitation of distinct waterbird populations we used the population deﬁnitions applied for the 5th edition of the Waterbird Population Estimates by Wetlands International (2012). The current assessment is based on material collected for the 6th edition of the AEWA Conservation Status Report (Nagy et al., in prep.) and represents the information available by 31 July 2014. The AEWA Conservation Status Reports use a variety of information sources, but the main ones are the International Waterbird Census (IWC) (Wetlands International 2014), the population size and trend estimates submitted by EU member states to the European Union under the Article 12 reporting obligations and similar estimates submitted by different European countries outside of the EU to BirdLife International under the framework of the European Red List of Birds project. In the case that no updated information was available by 31 July 2014, data from BirdLife International’s (2004) compilation of population estimates for “Birds in Europe” were used.

119

WATERBIRD POPULATION TRENDS

Updated population estimates were available for most EU member states, except Croatia which joined the EU only in 2014. Only partial data were available for Greece and the Czech Republic. Additionally, data were updated only partially for Russia, the Ukraine and Turkey and no current breeding population estimates were available from Moldova, Serbia, Macedonia, Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The African-Eurasian Waterbird Census (AEWC), the relevant regional component of the IWC, is the oldest and most extensive biodiversity monitoring scheme in the African-Eurasian region. It started as an international scheme in 1967 and reached a continent wide coverage in Europe by 1990. In its basic form, it includes a synchronous count per year in mid-January which provides the basis for estimating population size and trends of waterbird populations. It is the most cost-effective and thus most practical way to monitor biogeographic waterbird populations that are difﬁcult to monitor during the breeding season because of the cryptic behaviour of many waterbird species during breeding and of the inaccessibility of breeding areas in the taiga and tundra zones of Eurasia, i.e. the nesting habitats of divers, grebes, geese, ducks, cranes, coots and many waders. Besides the monitoring of population size and trends, the same results can be used to assess the importance of wetlands for wintering waterbirds. If counts are extended to spring and autumn, results can be further used to assess the importance of the site during migration and for monitoring the effectiveness of site management for migratory waterbirds. The IWC involves many thousands of observers who are organized through national coordinators. Larger sites are covered by multiple counting teams following site-speciﬁc monitoring protocols during each

120

count. National coordinators produce national overviews and submit their data to Wetlands International for international overviews (e.g., Wetlands International 2014b). In the Adriatic Flyway region, IWC counts are available from all countries although the regularity of data submission and coverage is variable, but generally improving in recent years. Prior to producing regular AEWA Conservation Status Reports, trend analyses are carried out for each population that is represented well enough in AEWC counts in every three years. The latest trend analyses covered the period 1988 – 2012. The methodology used and results are published in Nagy et al. (2014). The results of trend analyses are triangulated with other sources of information to assess their reliability and form the basis of the population size and trend estimates in the AEWA Conservation Status Report.

Results

In all, 100 populations were allocated to the Black Sea/Mediterranean Flyway for the purpose of this study (Tab. 1). One third of the populations have decreased during the last decade, 29 were stable, less than a quarter has increased, while the trend of 15 % of all populations assessed is unknown Previous trend estimates show a similar overall pattern, i.e. 34 populations have been declining, 26 stable, 26 have been increasing and the trend of 14 populations was unknown (cf. Tab. 1). However, by comparing current (1988 – 2012) with former trends (1983 – 2007), out of 77 populations with known trend in both periods the status of 31 (40 %) has deteriorated, while the status of 26 populations (33 %) has improved (Tab. 2).

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

WATERBIRD POPULATION TRENDS

Tab 1: Popula�on trends of waterbirds within the Black Sea/Mediterranean Flyway for the 1983 – 2007 and 1988 – 2012 periods. STA = stable, FLU = ﬂuctua�ng, INC = increasing, DEC = declining, UNK = unknown.

Species

Population

OldTrend

NewTrend

Red-throated Loon

Gavia stellata

Caspian Black Sea & East Mediterranean (win)

STA

Little Grebe

Tachybaptus ruﬁcollis

ruﬁcollis, Europe & North-west Africa

INC

DEC

Red-necked Grebe

Podiceps grisegena

grisegena, Black Sea & Mediterranean (win)

DEC

Great Crested Grebe

Podiceps cristatus

cristatus, Black Sea & Mediterranean (win)

DEC

STA

Black-necked Grebe

Podiceps nigricollis

nigricollis, Europe/South & West Europe & North Africa

DEC

Great White Pelican

Pelecanus onocrotalus

Europe & Western Asia (bre)

DEC

STA

Dalmatian Pelican

Pelecanus crispus

Black Sea & Mediterranean (win)

INC

Great Cormorant

Phalacrocorax carbo

sinensis, Black Sea & Mediterranean

INC

Pygmy Cormorant

Phalacrocorax pygmaeus

Black Sea & Mediterranean

STA

INC

Grey Heron

Ardea cinerea

cinerea, Central & Eastern Europe

UNK

STA

Great Egret

Casmerodius albus

albus, W C & SE Europe/Black Sea & Mediterranean

INC

Purple Heron

Ardea purpurea

purpurea, East Europe & South-west Asia/Sub-Saharan Africa

DEC

UNK

Cattle Egret

Bubulcus ibis

ibis, East Mediterranean & South-west Asia

UNK

Squacco Heron

Ardeola ralloides

ralloides, C & E Europe/Black Sea & E Mediterranean (bre)

UNK

STA

Little Egret

Egretta garzetta

garzetta, Central & E Europe Black Sea E Mediterranean

STA

Black-crowned Night Heron

Nycticorax nycticorax

nycticorax, C & E Europe/Black Sea & E Mediterranean (bre)

INC

STA

Eurasian Bittern

Botaurus stellaris

stellaris, C & E Europe Black Sea & E Mediterranean (bre)

DEC

Little Bittern

Ixobrychus minutus

minutus, C & E Europe Black Sea & E Mediterranean/Subsaharan Africa

DEC

Black Stork

Ciconia nigra

Central & Eastern Europe/Sub-Saharan Africa

DEC

STA

White Stork

Ciconia ciconia

Central & Eastern Europe/Sub-Saharan Africa

INC

Euraasian Spoonbill

Platalea leucorodia

leucorodia, Cent. & SE Europe/Mediterranean & Tropical Africa

DEC

Greater Flamingo

Phoenicopterus roseus

East Mediterranean

STA

UNK

Mute Swan

Cygnus olor

North-west Mainland & Central Europe

INC

STA

Whooper Swan

Cygnus cygnus

N Europe & W Siberia/Black Sea & E Mediterranean

UNK

INC

Bean Goose

Anser fabalis

rossicus, West & Central Siberia/NE & SW Europe

STA

INC

Greater White-fronted Goose

Anser albifrons

albifrons, Western Siberia/Central Europe

INC

Greater White-fronted Goose

Anser albifrons

albifrons, Western Siberia/Black Sea & Turkey

UNK

Lesser White-fronted Goose

Anser erythropus

Fennoscandia/Eastern Mediterranean

DEC

INC

Greylag Goose

Anser anser

anser, Central Europe/North Africa

INC

Greylag Goose

Anser anser

rubirostris, Black Sea & Turkey

UNK

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

121

WATERBIRD POPULATION TRENDS

Tab 1 - con�nued

Species

122

Population

OldTrend

NewTrend

Red-breasted Goose

Branta ruﬁcollis

Northern Siberia/Black Sea & Caspian

DEC

Ruddy Shelduck

Tadorna ferruginea

East Mediterranean & Black Sea/North-east Africa

UNK

Common Shelduck

Tadorna tadorna

Black Sea & Mediterranean

INC

Eurasian Wigeon

Anas penelope

W Siberia & NE Europe/Black Sea & Mediterranean

STA

Gadwall

Anas strepera

North-east Europe/Black Sea & Mediterranean

INC

Eurasian Teal

Anas crecca

crecca, W Siberia & NE Europe/Black Sea & Mediterranean

INC

Mallard

Anas platyrhynchos

platyrhynchos, Northern Europe/West Mediterranean

INC

Mallard

Anas platyrhynchos

platyrhynchos, Eastern Europe/Black Sea & East Mediterranean

DEC

Northern Pintail

Anas acuta

W Siberia NE & E Europe/S Europe & West Africa

FLU

Garganey

Anas querquedula

Western Siberia & Europe/West Africa

DEC

STA

Northern Shoveler

Anas clypeata

W Siberia NE & E Europe/S Europe & West Africa

INC

FLU

Marbled Duck

Marmaronetta angustirostris

West Mediterranean/West Medit. & West Africa

FLU

UNK

Marbled Duck

Marmaronetta angustirostris

East Mediterranean

DEC

UNK

Red-crested Pochard

Netta ruﬁna

Black Sea & East Mediterranean

UNK

INC

Common Pochard

Aythya ferina

Central & NE Europe/Black Sea & Mediterranean

DEC

Ferruginous Duck

Aythya nyroca

Eastern Europe/E Mediterranean & Sahelian Africa

INC

Ferruginous Duck

Aythya nyroca

West Mediterranean/North & West Africa

UNK

Tufted Duck

Aythya fuligula

Central Europe Black Sea & Mediterranean (win)

DEC

Greater Scaup

Aythya marila

Western Siberia/Black Sea & Caspian

STA

UNK

Common Goldeneye

Bucephala clangula

clangula, North-east Europe/Adriatic

STA

Smew

Mergellus albellus

North-east Europe/Black Sea & East Mediterranean

STA

DEC

Red-breasted Merganser

Mergus serrator

North-east Europe/Black Sea & Mediterranean

STA

Common Merganser

Mergus merganser

merganser, North-east Europe/Black Sea

STA

UNK

White-headed Duck

Oxyura leucocephala

East Mediterranean Turkey & South-west Asia

DEC

Eurasian Crane

Grus grus

grus, North-east & Central Europe/North Africa

INC

Eurasian Crane

Grus grus

grus, Eastern Europe/Turkey Middle East & NE Africa

UNK

INC

Eurasian Crane

Grus grus

(lilfordi), Turkey & Georgia (bre)

DEC

Common Moorhen

Gallinula chloropus

chloropus, Europe & North Africa

STA

Eurasian Coot

Fulica atra

atra, Black Sea & Mediterranean (win)

INC

Eurasian Oystercatcher

Haematopus ostralegus

ostralegus, Europe/South & West Europe & NW Africa

DEC

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

WATERBIRD POPULATION TRENDS

Tab 1 - con�nued

Species

Population

OldTrend

NewTrend

Black-winged Stilt

Himantopus himantopus

himantopus, Central Europe & E Mediterranean/N-Central Africa

STA

Pied Avocet

Recurvirostra avosetta

South-east Europe Black Sea & Turkey (bre)

DEC

FLU

Collared Pratincole

Glareola pratincola

pratincola, Black Sea & E Mediterranean/Eastern Sahel zone

DEC

Northern Lapwing

Vanellus vanellus

Western Asia/South-west Asia, Europe & W Asia (bre)

DEC

Common Ringed Plover

Charadrius hiaticula

hiaticula, Northern Europe/Europe & North Africa

FLU

DEC

Kentish Plover

Charadrius alexandrinus

alexandrinus, West Europe & West Mediterranean/West Africa

UNK

INC

Kentish Plover

Charadrius alexandrinus

alexandrinus, Black Sea & East Mediterranean/Eastern Sahel

UNK

DEC

Common Snipe

Gallinago gallinago

gallinago, Europe/South & West Europe & NW Africa

DEC

STA

Black-tailed Godwit

Limosa limosa

limosa, Eastern Europe/Central & Eastern Africa

UNK

DEC

Slender-billed Curlew

Numenius tenuirostris

Central Siberia/Mediterranean & SW Asia

DEC

UNK

Eurasian Curlew

Numenius arquata

arquata, Europe/Europe North & West Africa

DEC

Spotted Redshank

Tringa erythropus

N Europe/Southern Europe North & West Africa

STA

DEC

Common Redshank

Tringa totanus

Central & East Europe (breeding)

DEC

Marsh Sandpiper

Tringa stagnatilis

Eastern Europe/West & Central Africa

DEC

UNK

Common Greenshank

Tringa nebularia

Northern Europe/SW Europe NW & West Africa

STA

Green Sandpiper

Tringa ochropus

Northern Europe/S & W Europe West Africa

STA

Wood Sandpiper

Tringa glareola

North-west Europe/West Africa

STA

Common Sandpiper

Actitis hypoleucos

West & Central Europe/West Africa

DEC

Little Stint

Calidris minuta

N Europe/S Europe North & West Africa

INC

DEC

Temminck‘s Stint

Calidris temminckii

Fennoscandia/North & West Africa

DEC

STA

Curlew Sandpiper

Calidris ferruginea

Western Siberia/West Africa

INC

DEC

Dunln

Calidris alpina

NE Europe & NW Siberia/W Europe & NW Africa

STA

DEC

Ruff

Philomachus pugnax

Northern Europe & Western Siberia/West Africa

DEC

Mew Gull

Larus canus

NW & Cent. Europe/Atlantic coast & Mediterranean

DEC

Audouin‘s Gull

Larus audouinii

Mediterranean/N & W coasts of Africa

INC

STA

Caspian Gull

Larus cachinnans

Black Sea & Western Asia/SW Asia NE Africa

INC

Yellow-legged Gull

Larus michahellis

Mediterranean Iberia & Morocco

INC

Lesser Black-backed Gull

Larus fuscus

graellsii, Western Europe/Mediterranean & West Africa

INC

DEC

Black-headed Gull

Larus ridibundus

East Europe/Black Sea & East Mediterranean

STA

FLU

Slender-billed Gull

Larus genei

Black Sea & Mediterranean (bre)

STA

DEC

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

123

WATERBIRD POPULATION TRENDS

Tab 1 - con�nued

Species

Population

OldTrend

NewTrend

Little Gull

Larus minutus

Central & E Europe/SW Europe & W Mediterranean

INC

DEC

Little Gull

Larus minutus

W Asia/E Mediterranean Black Sea & Caspian

STA

Gull-billed Tern

Sterna nilotica

Black Sea & East Mediterranean/Eastern Africa

DEC

Caspian Tern

Sterna caspia

caspia, Baltic (bre)

INC

Caspian Tern

Sterna caspia

caspia, Black Sea (bre)

INC

STA

Lesser Crested Tern

Sterna bengalensis

S Mediterranean/NW & West Africa coasts

UNK

Sandwich Tern

Sterna sandvicensis

Black Sea & Mediterranean (bre)

FLU

Little Tern

Sterna albifrons

albifrons, Black Sea & Mediterranean (bre)

DEC

Whiskered Tern

Chlidonias hybrida

Black Sea & East Mediterranean (bre)

STA

Black Tern

Chlidonias niger

Europe & Western Asia/Atlantic coast of Africa

DEC

UNK

Tab 2: Comparison of current and former trends of waterbird popula�ons in the Black Sea/Mediterranean Flyway. DEC = declining, STA/FLU = stable/ﬂuctua�ng, INC = increasing, UNK = unkown.

Old trend 1983 - 2007

124

New trend 1988 - 2012 DEC

STA/FLU

INC

UNK

Total

DEC

STA

INC

UNK

Total

100

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

WATERBIRD POPULATION TRENDS

Discussion

Nagy et al. (2012) found that, in comparison to other flyways, the status of waterbird populations in the Black Sea/Mediterranean Flyway is the worst in Europe. Similarly, the quality of population size and trend estimates for this flyway was the poorest in Europe, although it was generally better than for the West Asia/East African Flyway or the Central Asia and Afrotropical biogeographic regions. This difference can be explained by the more limited capacity and resources available for waterbird monitoring across the flyway starting in Russia and the Ukraine, continuing through the Adriatic Flyway countries and the southern and eastern Mediterranean. These weaknesses are illustrated by the fact that no fully updated datasets were yet available from Adriatic Flyway countries by the end of July 2014 when data collection for this report was closed, and by the limited participation and progress of flyway countries in joining the second European Breeding Bird Atlas project. It is, however, promising that the capacity for monitoring waterbird populations has increased significantly over the last years thanks to the Mediterranean Waterbird Monitoring and the Adriatic Flyway projects supported by the MAVA Foundation. However, important gaps remain and it will be important to improve coverage of the observer network by including at least all Important Bird Areas (IBAs) identified for wintering waterbirds in the area into national IWC schemes and to accelerate data collection and reporting. This could be assisted through the training of observers in bird identification and monitoring which can be substantially supported by the adaptation of the training kit developed by Hecker (2012) for Europe, and by adopting on-line data reporting systems. In particular, the observado.org system has been enabled to collect IWC count data online and can be easily localized and translated into national languages for using national species lists, site definitions, etc. Detailed guidelines are provided by Wetlands International (2013).

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Developing broad-based national waterbird monitoring schemes for wintering waterbirds, colonial and common breeding birds that feed into national and international biodiversity schemes will be essential to establish a sustainable and adaptive management of waterbird populations and their habitats, which, consequently, will enable countries to fulﬁll the requirements of the Bern Convention, the African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement and the EU Birds Directive.

Acknowledgements The author thanks EuroNatur for the kind invitation and for enabling him to attend the Second Adriatic Flyway Conference, the AEWA Secretariat for supporting the work on the AEWA Conservation Status Report, the Swiss Federal Ofﬁce for the Environment for supporting the analysis of the IWC data and the EU LIFE+ NGO Operational Grant that supports the ﬂyway level coordination of the IWC in Europe.

photo: Iztok Sovinc - Pied Avocet

125

WATERBIRD POPULATION TRENDS

References BirdLife International. (2004): Birds in Europe: Population Estimates, Trends and Conservation Status. BirdLife Conservation Series 12, BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK. Hecker N. (2012): Identifying and Counting Waterbirds in Africa. A Toolkit for Trainers. ONCFS, Hirundo-FT2E. France. http://www.oncfs.gouv.fr/IMG/ article_PDF/article_a1437.pdf Nagy S., Delany S., Flink S. & Langendoen T. (2012): Report on the Conservation Status of Migratory Waterbirds in the Agreement Area. UNEPAEWA, Bonn. http://www.unep-aewa.org/sites/ default/ﬁles/document/mop5_14_csr5_0.pdf (Last accessed 19 November 2014). Nagy S., Flink S. & Langendoen T. (2014): Waterbird trends 1988-2012. Results of trend analyses of data from the International Waterbird Census in the African-Eurasian Flyway. http://www.wetlands. org/Portals/0/TRIM%20Report%202014_10_05.pdf (Last accessed 18 November 2014).

Wetlands International (2012): Waterbird Population Estimates, 5th edition. http://wpe.wetlands.org/ Wetlands International (2013): Full manual for setting up and using observation.org for national reporting of IWC counts. http://www.wetlands.org/ LinkClick.aspx?ﬁleticket=M6dC6-bcPcA%3d&tabid =2791&portalid=0&mid=11794 (Last accessed 19 November 2014). Wetlands International (2014a): The AfricanEurasian Waterbird Census. http://www.wetlands. org/AfricanEurasianWaterbirdCensus/tabid/2788/ Default.aspx (Last accessed 18 November 2014). Wetlands International (2014b): International Waterbird Census Count Totals 2010 - 2013: African-Eurasian Region. Online dataset. http://www. wetlands.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=0YKYRi11% 2f0k%3d&tabid=3044 (Last accessed 18 November 2014).

Schneider-Jacoby M. & Stumberger B. (2009): Looking Forward to Saving the Adriatic Flyway. In: Denac D., Schneider-Jacoby M. & Stumberger B. (eds.), Adriatic Flyway – Closing the Gap in Bird Conservation. Euronatur, Radolfzell; pp. 9–18.

„It is, however, promising that the capaci�y for monitoring waterbird popula�ons has increased signiﬁcantly over the last years thanks to the Mediterranean Waterbird Monitoring and the Adria�c Flyway projects supported by the MAVA Founda�on“ 126

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

photo: Peter Sackl

WATERBIRD POPULATION TRENDS

Migra�ng Whimbrels (Numenius phaeopus) coming in from the Adria�c Sea; Ada, Bojana-Buna Delta, Montenegro, 14 March 2014. ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

127

photo: Peter Sackl

Migra�on ﬂock of Ferruginous Duck (Aythya nyroca) and Garganey (Spatula querquedula) oﬀ Ada Island, Montenegro, 9 March 2015. 128

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Spring migra�on of ducks in the Bojana-Buna Delta - a comparison of migra�on volumes and conven�onal count informa�on for a key wetland site within the Adria�c Flyway Peter Sackl1, Dejan Bordjan2, Tilen Basle3, Luka Božič4, Jakob Smole5, Damijan Denac6, Borut Stumberger7 Universalmuseum Joanneum, Biowissenscha�en, Weinzö�elstraße 16, 8045 Graz, Austria; E-mail: peter.sackl@museum-joanneum.at 2 ul. 8. februarja 50, 2204 Miklavz na Dr., Slovenia; E-mail: dejan.bordjan@gmail.com 3 DOPPS - BirdLife Slovenia, Trzaska cesta 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; E-mail: �len.basle@dopps.si 4 DOPPS - BirdLife Slovenia, Kamenškova 18, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia; E-mail: luka.bozic@dopps.si 5 Cafova 4, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia; E-mail: js.lutra@gmail.com 6 DOPPS – BirdLife Slovenia, Trzaska cesta 2, 1000 Ljubljana & Na�onal Ins�tute for Biology, Vecna pot 111, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; E-mail: damijan.denac@dopps.si 7 EuroNatur, Konstanzerstraße 22, 78315 Radolfzell, Germany; E-mail: stumberger@siol.net 1

Summary In the framework of EuroNatur’s Adriatic Flyway project unusually low numbers of ducks (Anatidae), stopping-over during spring migration, were found through seasonal waterbird surveys, 2004 – 2014, in extensive wetland habitats in the hinterlands of the Bojana-Buna river delta (Albania/Montenegro). To test the reliability of current count information the migration volume of waterbirds was estimated through 746 h of ground observations (‘seawatching’) on Ada Island in the mouth of the Bojana-Buna River. During the three-year study, in spring 2010, 2013 and 2014, long-distance migrants that spend the winter in the southern Mediterranean and in sub-Saharan Africa, in particular Garganeys (Spatula querquedula), constituted 66 % of a total of 245,885 individual birds belonging to 85 waterbird species. Annual numbers varied between 39,350 and 112,330 individuals, which approached the river delta in predominately ENE–ESE directions from the Adriatic Sea. Besides Little (Hydrocoloeus minutus) and Mediterranean Gull (Larus melanocephalus), dabbling ducks, constituted the most abundant migrants including 16,500 – 63,500 Garaganeys, and up to 1,900 Ferruginous Ducks (Aythya nyroca) p.a. The migration volume of ducks at the coast exceeded count data from seasonal waterbird surveys in main wetland habitats in the hinterlands of the delta, in particular in the Ulcinj salina, for 87 % to almost 99 %. By comparing daily migration volumes on Ada Island and data from four simultaneous counts in the salt-works in Ulcinj – a key wetland site at the east coast of the Adriatic Sea – overall stopover duration of ducks is estimated at ≤ 3 days. By evidence, the disproportional

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

low numbers of ducks found through conventional waterbird counts derive from high turnover, considerable temporal ﬂuctuations of distinct migration peaks and short-time mass migrations of up to 400 – 3,200 ind./h of Gargeney and Northern Shoveler (Spatula clypeata) across the southern Adriatic Sea. The migration volumes of seven waterbird species, i.e. Ferruginous Duck, Garganey, Northern Shoveler, Eurasian Wigeon (Mareca penelope), Red-throated Diver (Gavia stellata), Little and Mediterranean Gull, surpassed the 1 %-criterion of the Ramsar Convention for the identiﬁcation of wetlands of international importance. The magnitude of visible waterbird migration at the delta front further supports suggestions to protect Velika Plaža, Ada Island and the prodelta of the Bojana-Buna River within the proposed Bojana-Buna Delta Marine Park.

Keywords waterbird census, migration volume, ducks, stopover duration, mass migration, temporal migration pattern, Garganey, Northern Shoveler, Eurasian Wigeon, Ferruginous Duck, Adriatic Flyway

129

VISIBLE MIGRATION OFF THE BOJANA-BUNA DELTA

Introduc�on

International agreements for the conservation of migratory waterbirds are mainly based on the identification of key wetlands on the breeding and nonbreeding grounds of principal flyway populations. In particular, criterion 6 of the Ramsar Convention defines international important wetlands as those “that support regularly at least 1 % of a specific population of a waterbird species” (Convention on Wetlands, Ramsar, Iran, 1971). For most countries of the eastern Adriatic region current assessments of the significance of extensive wetland habitats for resting and wintering waterbirds have been derived from seasonal counts during winter and spring migration. By applying peak counts of seasonal waterbird surveys for four priority sites within the Adriatic Flyway since 2003, Stumberger & Schneider-Jacoby (2010) identified a total of 24 species whose numbers surpass the 1 %-level of their respective flyway populations, i.e. for Livanjsko Polje 4, Neretva Delta 2, Bojana-Buna Delta 16, and Lake Skadar 10 species. Although wetlands along the Adriatic Flyway still harbour significant populations, in comparison to historic reports from the late 19th and early 20th centuries (e.g., Reiser & Führer 1896, Laska 1905, Nowak 1980), the numbers of many waterbird species have declined substantially throughout the eastern Adriatic region (Burfield & van Bommel 2004, Nagy et al. 2015). While, according to Stumberger & Schneider-Jacoby (2010), recent numbers do not match carrying capacity, the suitability of many wetland areas on the western Balkan Peninsular for waterbirds is heavily impaired by bird shooting and poaching by foreign and local hunters (Stumberger et al. 2008/09, Schneider-Jacoby & Spangenberg 2010, Saveljić et al. 2015). Specifically, current information from International Waterbird Censuses (IWCs), conducted in the frame of EuroNatur’s “Adriatic Flyway” project between 2003 and 2014, indicate surprisingly low numbers of ducks (Anatidae) which use the BojanaBuna Delta and Lake Skadar for wintering, staging

130

or stopping-over during migration (sensu Warnock 2010). Because migration peaks differ between species and ﬂuctuate between seasons, and following to the turnover of individuals, maximum numbers from a series of seasonal counts are likely to underestimate the total number of individuals which use a site during a migration episode (Frederiksen et al. 2001). Currently, the study of individually-marked birds and daily counts of departing ﬂocks constitute the only available methods that provide reliable estimates of turnover (e.g., Frederiksen et al. 2001, Navedo & Garaita 2012). Following to the lack of adequate ringing schemes, the extent and inaccessibility of some wetland areas along the Albanian-Montenegrin border, both methods are presently impracticable in the Lake Skadar/Bojana-Buna river corridor. Instead, we tested the reliability of available count information by estimating the magnitude of waterbird migration by studying visible bird migration at the delta front of the Bojana-Buna River. The present paper summarizes data compiled through a three-year study across the main migration season of ducks in the southern Adriatic region, i.e. from late February till early April. Information on seasonal migration volumes will be further applied for re-evaluating and updating recent population estimates by Stumberger et al. (2008) and Stumberger & Schneider-Jacoby (2010).

Study area

The 42 km long Bojana-Buna River forms the border between Albania and Montenegro and connects Lake Skadar (Skadar-Shkoder Lake) with the Adriatic Sea (Fig. 1). Overall, the approximately 220 km2 large delta of the Bojana-Buna is covered by 92 km2 of freshwater and saline wetland habitats (SchneiderJacoby et al. 2006). For a detailed description of the study area and signiﬁcant wetland areas, including Ada Island and the Ulcinj salina, cf. Schneider-Jacoby et al. (2006) and Stumberger et al. (2008).

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

VISIBLE MIGRATION OFF THE BOJANA-BUNA DELTA

Fig 1: The study area at the south-eastern coast of the Adria�c Sea with the observa�on point (black circle) on Ada Island and Lake Skadar in the hinterlands of the Bojana-Buna Delta. Legend: Küste = coastline, Staatsgrenze = interna�onal border; Lagunen, Seen, Saline = lagoons, lakes and the Ulcinj salina; grey = poten�ally ﬂooded areas; Rumija Gebirge = Rumija Mountains.

Materials and methods

Es�ma�ng migra�on volumes by ground observa�ons The volume of waterbird migration was estimated through ground observations on visible bird migration on Ada Island (Montenegro). Ada Island is situated between the river’s southern and northern branch in the mouth of the Bojana-Buna River (Fig. 1). Bird migration was investigated in March 2010 during 183 h and between 25 February and 10 April, in 2013 and 2014, during 275 h and 288 h of observation, respectively. Actively migrating birds and birds that rested along the coast were recorded on a daily routine between sunrise and noon by continuous counts from a constant observation point (‘seawatching’) at the

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

shoreline, close to the mouth of the northern river branch (Mala Bojana). From the observation point we were able to survey most of the sand dunes along the beach (Velika Plaža) and the open sea immediately off the delta front. Besides species and flight directions, as far as possible the sex and age of the birds was recorded (cf. Sackl et al. 2014). In spring 2013 and 2014 digital photographs, particularly of mixedspecies flocks, like that in Fig. 2a-d, were partly used to verify visual identification of numbers per species and sex (Nikon D300, AF-S Nikkor 600 mm 1:4 G).

„With a grand total of 112,905 ind. or 46 % of all counted waterbirds Garganey was by far the most abundant migrant“ 131

VISIBLE MIGRATION OFF THE BOJANA-BUNA DELTA

Conven�onal waterbird counts (IWC) Between 2003 and 2014 in main wetlands throughout the Bojana-Buna Delta and on Lake Skadar waterbirds were counted within the IWC schedule in midJanuary (n = 9) and in March (n = 5). In autumn, i.e. between mid-September and December, and in early summer, from May till mid-July, we performed counts mainly in the Ulcinj salina (Montenegro), a key breeding and resting site for most waterbird species in the delta (Schneider-Jacoby et al. 2006, Stumberger et al. 2008). Additionally, during ground observations three simultaneous waterbird counts were conducted in the Ulcinj salina in March 2010. The survey area for different wetland sites, the survey routes and the location of observation points remained constant across the whole survey period (cf. Stumberger et al. 2008) and most counts (87 %) were conducted by the same observer team, namely D. Dhora, P. Sackl, D. Saveljić, B. Stumberger, and D. Ulqini, assisted by local and foreign volunteers.

Migra�on volume

By including local residents, like Yellow-legged Gull (Larus michahellis) and Hooded Crow (Corvus corone cornix), as well as winter visitors, i.e. Sandwich Tern (Thalasseus sandvicensis), Great Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis) and Great Crested Grebe (Podiceps cristatus)1, 118 species or a total of 251,270 individual birds were noted during ground observations on Ada Island. Of these, 85 species (72 %) and 245,855 individuals (ind.), i.e. 98 % of all birds, concerned waterbird species as deﬁned by Annex 2 of the Ramsar Convention (Tab. 1). In all, 165,773 ind. (66 %) that belong to 42 or 36 % of all species constituted long-distance migrants, like Garganey (Spatula querquedula), Northern Pintail (Anas acuta) and Ferruginous Duck (Aythya nyroca), which spend the winter mainly in sub-Saharan Africa. 1

132

With a grand total of 112,905 ind. or 46 % of all counted waterbirds Garganey was by far the most abundant migrant, followed by approximately 26,700 Northern Shovelers (Spatula clypeata), 12,450 Little Gulls (Hydrocoloeus minutus), 12,120 Mediterranean Gulls (Larus melanocephalus) and 11,550 Eurasian Wigeons (Mareca penelope). Among waders which include many night-time migrating species, Blacktailed Godwit (Limosa limosa), Eurasian Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus), Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), Eurasian Curlew (N. arquata), Dunlin (Calidris alpina) and Ruff (C. pugnax) constituted the most abundant species (Tab. 1). The numbers of many waterbird species fluctuated heavily between years (cf. Tab. 1). Nevertheless, in 2013 and 2014, considerably larger numbers of ducks and of some waders were seen during spring migration. Only Eurasian Wigeons were more common in 2010, and, in spring 2014, unusually low numbers of Northern Pintails were noted off Ada Island (Tab. 1). The higher figures for some species in recent years correspond with longer observation periods, between late February and 10 April in 2013 and 2014, and, generally, later migration peaks in many waders, Little and Mediterranean Gulls in early April, while the main migration of ducks is usually finished till the end of March. Hence, aside of conditions on the wintering grounds and during migration, the larger migration volume of ducks at the delta front of the Bojana-Buna River since 2010 may to some extent result from lower disturbances by bird shooting. Besides our presence at Ada Island, the existing hunting ban along Velika Plaža and in the Ulcinj salina was currently enforced through regular patrols by the Centre for Protection and Research of Birds of Montenegro (CZIP) and the local authorities (Saveljić et al. 2015). Accordingly, in contrast to March 2010, with heavy shooting along the coast and in the Ulcinj salina, we noted considerably fewer hunting activity on Velika Plaža during ground observations in spring 2013 and 2014.

English and scientiﬁc bird names according to del Hoyo & Collar (2014).

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

VISIBLE MIGRATION OFF THE BOJANA-BUNA DELTA

Tab 1: Numbers of waterbirds recorded during ground observa�ons (‘seawatching’) oﬀ the delta front of the Bojana-Buna River, 2010 – 2014.

Species

Residents/resting birds 2010

2013

2014

Migrating birds

Total

2010

2013

2014

105

111

311

< 0,5

Velvet Scoter

Melanitta fusca

Common Scoter

Melanitta nigra

Common Goldeneye

Bucephala clangula

Goosander

Mergus merganser

Red-breasted Merganser

Mergus serrator

< 0,5

Common Shelduck

Tadorna tadorna

158

693

496

1.347

Red-crested Pochard

Netta ruﬁna

< 0,5

Common Pochard

Aythya ferina

308

1.962

1.136

3.406

1,4

Ferruginous Duck

Aythya nyroca

754

1.850

1.913

4.559

1,9

Tufted Duck

Aythya fuligula

144

Greater Scaup

Aythya marila

< 0,5

Pochard indet.

Aythya sp.

Garganey

Spatula querquedula

Northern Shoveler

139

329

16.496

63.533

32.367

112.905

45,9

Spatula clypeata

6.349

9.294

11.033

26.676

10,8

Gadwall

Mareca strepera

185

565

597

1.347

Eurasian Wigeon

Mareca penelope

267

4.330

4.217

2.723

11.548

4,7

Mallard

Anas platyrhynchos

159

398

Northern Pintail

Anas acuta

1.561

2.523

833

4.922

2,0

Common Teal

Anas crecca

759

1.476

1.794

4.031

1,6

3.542

11.437

408

15.387

6,3

2.775

2.777

1,1

< 0,5

729

< 0,5

180

Dabbling ducks indet. Ducks indet.

Anatidae indet.

Red-necked Grebe

Podiceps grisegena

Great Crested Grebe

Podiceps cristatus

Black-necked Grebe

Podiceps nigricollis

Greater Flamingo

Phoenicopterus roseus

Common Coot

Fulica atra

Eurasian Crane

Grus grus

548

651

Red-throated Loon

Gavia stellata

106

1.734

1 155

123

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

234

670

245

712

36 2

1 1

133

VISIBLE MIGRATION OFF THE BOJANA-BUNA DELTA

Tab 1: conďż˝nued

Species

134

Residents/resting birds

Migrating birds

Total

2010

2013

2014

2010

2013

2014

205

317

108

133

< 0,5

Arctic Loon

Gavia arctica

Loon indet.

Gavia sp.

Eurasian Spoonbill

Platalea leucorodia

Glossy Ibis

Plegadis falcinellus

324

331

Black-crowned Night-heron

Nycticorax nycticorax

< 0,5

Squacco Heron

Ardeola ralloides

< 0,5

Cattle Egret

Bubulcus ibis

< 0,5

Grey Heron

Ardea cinerea

173

260

Purple Heron

Ardea purpurea

< 0,5

Great White Egret

Ardea alba

< 0,5

Indet. herons

Ardea sp.

< 0,5

Little Egret

Egretta garzetta

222

Dalmatian Pelican

Pelecanus crispus

< 0,5

Northern Gannet

Morus bassanus

< 0,5

Pygmy Cormorant

Microcarbo pygmaeus

< 0,5

European Shag

Phalacrocorax aristotelis

< 0,5

Great Cormorant

Phalacrocorax carbo

1.526

Eurasian Thick-knee

Burhinus oedicnemus

< 0,5

Eurasian Oystercatcher

Haematopus ostralegus

774

500

728

2.002

Pied Avocet

Recurvirostra avosetta

323

372

774

Black-winged Stilt

Himantopus himantopus

< 0,5

Grey Plover

Pluvialis squatarola

112

< 0,5

Eurasian Golden Plover

Pluvialis apricaria

< 0,5

Common Ringed Plover

Charadrius hiaticula

Little Ringed Plover

Charadrius dubius

Kentish Plover

Charadrius alexandrinus

Whimbrel

Numenius phaeopus

168

Eurasian Curlew

Numenius arquata

165

3 58

132

2 185

828

120

140

179

1 13

< 0,5

1.033

635

1.837

402

1.176

1.744

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

VISIBLE MIGRATION OFF THE BOJANA-BUNA DELTA

Tab 1: con�nued

Species

Residents/resting birds 2010

2013

2014

Migrating birds

Total

2010

2013

2014

< 0,5

2.143

< 0,5

600

1.220

< 0,5

467

1.492

< 0,5

424

460

Indet. curlews

Numenius sp.

Bar-tailed Godwit

Limosa lapponica

Black-tailed Godwit

Limosa limosa

Red Knot

131

403

Calidris canutus

Ruff

Calidris pugnax

542

Sanderling

Calidris alba

Dunlin

Calidris alpina

Little Stint

Calidris minuta

Indet. Calidris

Calidris sp.

Common Snipe

Gallinago gallinago

< 0,5

Common Sandpiper

Actitis hypoleucos

< 0,5

Green Sandpiper

Tringa ochropus

< 0,5

Spotted Sandpiper

Tringa erythropus

< 0,5

Common Greenshank

Tringa nebularia

< 0,5

Common Redshank

Tringa totanus

< 0,5

Wood Sandpiper

Tringa glareola

< 0,5

Marsh Sandpiper

Tringa stagnatilis

< 0,5

Sandpiper indet.

Tringa sp.

110

< 0,5

Collard Pratincole

Glareola pratincola

< 0,5

2 4 1 4

Indet. waders Little Gull

Hydrocoloeus minutus

Black-legged Kittiwake

Rissa tridactyla

Slender-billed Gull

Larus genei

Black-headed Gull

Larus ridibundus

Mediterranean Gull

Larus melanocephalus

Audouin‘s Gull

Larus audouinii

Mew Gull

Larus canus

Lesser Black-backed Gull

Larus fuscus

979

1.609

211

225

1.637

8.989

12.453

5,1

< 0,5

474

1.326

1 3 841

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

< 0,5

561

246

421

513

1.025

3.607

1,5

414

273

5.978

5.455

12.121

4,9

< 0,5

4 4

122

< 0,5

135

VISIBLE MIGRATION OFF THE BOJANA-BUNA DELTA

Tab 1: con�nued

Species

Residents/resting birds 2010

2010

2013

2014

< 0,5

3.634

7.038

2,9

< 0,5

Larus argentatus

Yellow-legged Gull1

Larus michahellis

Caspian Gull

Larus cachinnans

Caspian Tern

Hydroprogne caspia

Black Tern

Chlidonias niger

< 0,5

Common Tern

Sterna hirundo

Sandwich Tern1

Thalasseus sandvicensis

195

351

1.503

Short-eared Owl

Asio ﬂammeus

< 0,5

Osprey

Pandion haliaetus

< 0,5

Western Marsh-harrier

Circus aeruginosus

1 567

927

1.909

507

2.914

332

118

148

< 0,5

3.960

4.759

39.350

112.326

82.576

245.885

100%

Contains, presumably, a considerable por�on of local movements by year-round and/or winter residents.

Spa�al and temporal migra�on pa�erns

Across the three-year study on Ada Island, annual numbers of actively migrating birds and overall migration intensity ﬂuctuated between 39,350-112,330 ind. and 217 ind./h - 445 ind./h, respectively (Tab. 1). Following to large numbers of birds which winter in the southern and western Mediterranean (like Little and Mediterranean Gull), and the high proportion of sub-Saharan migrants (like Garganey, Northern Shoveler and Ferruginous Duck), almost 70 % of all actively migrating birds had obviously crossed the Adriatic Sea before approaching the hinterlands of the Bojana-Buna Delta (Fig 2). With the west coast of the Balkan Peninsular generally running along the SE–NW axis, most birds approached the coast from the sea, i.e. from SSW - WNW directions, heading into ENE–ESE directions in the mainland (Fig. 3). Annual means of migration frequency from the

136

2014

Total

European Herring Gull

Total

2013

Migrating birds

open sea varied between 276 ind./h and 390 ind./h (cf. also Sackl et al. 2014). Between years, overall migration peaks fluctuated for 10 – 20 days. Few waders were noted till mid-March. Migrating waders were mainly seen during the second half of March till the end of the observation period in early April. In spring 2013 and 2014, most ducks passed the Bojana-Buna Delta between 15 - 26 March. However, in 2010 the peak migration of Ferruginous Duck, Garganey and Northern Pintail in early March (cf. Fig. 4) coincided with the approach of the cyclone “Andrea” which moved in March 2010 from the western Mediterranean across the northern Adriatic region towards Central Europe (Sackl et al. 2014). Between years, median dates for the spring migration of Garganey and Ferruginous Duck fluctuated between 3 and 21 March, i.e. for 4 days up to a maximum of 18 days, while the respective figures for Northern Shoveler and Eurasian Wigeon varied for a maximum of 7 days (Fig. 4).

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

photo: Peter Sackl

VISIBLE MIGRATION OFF THE BOJANA-BUNA DELTA

photo: Peter Sackl

Fig. 2a

Fig. 2b

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

137

photo: Peter Sackl

VISIBLE MIGRATION OFF THE BOJANA-BUNA DELTA

photo: Peter Sackl

Fig. 2c

Fig. 2d

138

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

photo: Peter Sackl

VISIBLE MIGRATION OFF THE BOJANA-BUNA DELTA

Fig. 2e Fig. 2: During spring migra�on large numbers of ducks enter the Bojana-Buna river delta (Montenegro/Albania) from the Adria�c Sea. (a) Garganey (Spatula querquedula); (b) mixed-species flock of Northern Pintail (Anas acuta), Ferruginous Duck (Aythya nyroca) and Garganey; (c) Ferruginous Duck; (d) Ferruginous Duck and Garganey off Ada Island, Ulcinj, March 2015; (e) Garganey, Black-headed Gull (Larus ridibundus) and Ruff (Calidris pugnax) stopping-over in flooded pasturelands in Gornij Stoj, Ulcinj, 7 March 2015. Pictures, like that in Fig. 2a-d, were partly used during ground observa�ons on Ada Island to iden�fy numbers per species and sex.

Fig 3: Flight direc�ons of migra�ng waterbirds oﬀ the delta front of the Bojana-Buna River, March 2010 – 2014. The mainland at the Montenegrin-Albanian coast is shown in grey, the Adria�c Sea in white.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

139

VISIBLE MIGRATION OFF THE BOJANA-BUNA DELTA

Aythya nyroca

1.000

2010 2013 2014

Number of birds

800

600

400

200

25 Feb.

3 March

9 March 15 March 21 March 27 March

2 April

8 April

Spatula querquedula

35.000

2010 2013 2014

30.000

Number of birds

25.000

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

25 Feb.

140

3 March

9 March 15 March 21 March 27 March

2 April

8 April

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

VISIBLE MIGRATION OFF THE BOJANA-BUNA DELTA

Spatula clypeata

4.000

2010 2013 2014

3.500

Number of birds

3.000

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000

500

25 Feb.

3 March

9 March 15 March 21 March 27 March

2 April

8 April

Mareca penelope

3.000

2010 2013 2014

Number of birds

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000

500

25 Feb.

3 March

9 March 15 March 21 March 27 March

2 April

8 April

Fig 4: Temporal migra�on pa�ern and median date (broken lines) of the spring migra�on of four duck species at the delta front of the Bojana-Buna River following to ground observa�ons on Ada Island, 2010 - 2014. ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

141

VISIBLE MIGRATION OFF THE BOJANA-BUNA DELTA

Most dabbling ducks of the genus Spatula and Anas passed the delta front within a rather short period of 2 – 5 days (Fig. 4). Besides migration peaks of 9,100 and 5,800 ind. in early and mid-March 2010 (Sackl et al. 2014), spectacular mass migrations of at least 9,560 and 42,180 Garganeys were recorded on 13/14 March 2014 (703 ind./h) and on 24/25 March 2013 (3,196 ind./h). Additionally, in the morning of 23 March 2013 2,780 Northern Shovelers (400 ind./ h) passed the delta front. Like many dabbling ducks, many Ferruginous Ducks approached the coast from the open sea and entered the delta in ENE–ESE directions. With maxima on 3 March 2010 (316 ind.), 13 March 2013 (408 ind.) and on 21 March 2014 (668 ind.) seasonal migration patterns of the species ﬂuctuated heavily across the study (Fig. 4).

„… the migra�on volume at the delta front surpassed count informa�on from the hinterlands for at least 60 - 90 %“

Tab 2: Migra�on volumes of waterbirds, 2010 – 2014, according to ground observa�ons on Ada Island and the results of conven�onal waterbird counts in the Bojana-Buna river delta in March, 2003 – 2010. n

Min.

Max.

Median

25% perc.

75% perc

Migration volume (Ada)

39.400

112.300

82.600

IWC Bojana-Buna Delta

7.500

40.000

15.200

11.000

27.700

IWC Solana Ulcinj

2.800

32.300

10.700

7.300

15.500

Migration volume (Ada)

34.800

97.900

56.500

IWC Bojana-Buna Delta

180

13.100

2.000

1.000

7.600

IWC Solana Ulcinj

120

12.000

1.100

500

3.600

Total waterbirds

Ducks

Migra�on volumes and conven�onal waterbird counts

In Tab. 2 the magnitude of visible waterbird migration off Ada Island is compared with results of conventional waterbird surveys in the Bojana-Buna Delta and in the Ulcinj salina during spring migration, 2003 – 2010. The IWC count information conﬁrms

142

the importance of the salina in Ulcinj where regularly more then two thirds of all staging and stoppingover waterbirds within the Lake Skadar/Bojana-Buna river corridor were noted (Stumberger et al. 2008, Stumberger & Schneider-Jacoby 2010). However, visual counts of migration volumes at the coast, i.e. the minimum number of birds which ap-

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

VISIBLE MIGRATION OFF THE BOJANA-BUNA DELTA

proach the Bojana-Buna Delta during spring migration, considerably exceeded conventional count data and published population estimates derived from conventional waterbird surveys (Stumberger et al. 2008, Schneider-Jacoby & Stumberger 2010). Aside of nighttime migrants, birds which enter the area via the Albanian side of the delta or from the mainland as well as migrants which fly in higher altitudes, i.e. above the visibility of the observer, remained unnoticed during ground observations on Ada Island. Consequently, according to the figures shown in Tab. 2, the migration volume at the delta front surpassed count information from the hinterlands of the delta for at least 60 - 90 %. The difference between stopover populations and the magnitude of visible duck migration even amounted to a minimum of 87 % up to almost 99 % (Tab. 2). A direct comparison of migration volumes and the numbers of stopping-over birds is possible only for spring migration in March 2010 when four conventional counts were conducted simultaneously in the Ulcinj salina (Fig. 5). As expected, the numbers of migrating ducks on Ada Island during 8 day (x = 7,627 ind., SD = 4,975) and 4 day periods (x = 5,792 ind., SD = 3,963) preceding the respective count, exceeded the numbers of resting ducks in the salina (x = 1,134 ind., SD = 1,141). However, the low sample indicates that stopover numbers correspond with the migration volume of ducks at the delta front for the day before the count in the salina (rP = 0.92, P = 0.085, R2 = 0.84, n = 4). Hence, a rather small portion of ducks which may be provisionally estimated at 2 % - 31 % of the migration volume at the delta front, use the salt-works for stopping-over for ≥ 3 days (Fig. 5). Following to four conventional counts, in March 2010, the numbers of ducks in the Ulcinj salina fluctuated between 230 ind. and 4,729 ind. (median = 1,587 ind.). In contrast, by applying the minimal ratio between stopover numbers and daily migration volumes at the coast, a minimum of 11,400 ducks should have approached the Ulcinj salina in March 2010. In contrast to the low numbers of ducks, the overall waterbird numbers in the salina approximated the mi-

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

gration volume on Ada Island in March 2010 (Fig. 5). Besides many migrants, in particular waders, which remained unnoticed through daytime observations on Ada Island, the latter is in line with the presence of large numbers of Yellow-legged Gull and of some winter visitors till April and early May. In addition to resident gulls, Dunlins and Black-headed Gulls (Larus ridibundus) constituted a considerable portion of the total waterbird population in the salina.

Discussion

The flight altitudes of waterbirds vary substantially, depending on species, the nature of migration (i.e. local or seasonal movements) as well as weather conditions, in particular rain and wind components. However, radar observations and measurements of flight altitudes with laser range finders showed that during daytime sea ducks (Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis, scoter Melanitta sp.), Northern Shovelers, Green-winged Teals (Anas carolinensis) and Northern Pintails fly relatively close to ground level, i.e. < 200 m above ground (Cooper & Ritchie 1995, Kahlert et al. 2012). Off the Bojana-Buna Delta, in particular, Garganey and Eurasian Teal (Anas crecca) approached the coastline in very low altitudes < 10 m, while the flight altitudes of most larger ducks varied between 10 - 100 m above the water surface (Sackl et al. 2014). Aside of many species which tend to migrate in higher altitudes and during the night, in comparison to conventional waterbird counts the present data from ground observations on Ada Island provided more reliable estimates of the magnitude of waterbird migration, in particular of ducks which approach the Bojana-Buna river delta from the Adriatic Sea during spring migration. During five seasonal surveys only once more then 13,000 ducks were recorded in the Bojana-Buna Delta, while during four counts in March 2010, a one-time maximum of 4,700 ducks was counted in the saltworks in Ulcinj, a key stopover site in the hinterlands of the delta. Over the same period at least 34,800 ducks

143

VISIBLE MIGRATION OFF THE BOJANA-BUNA DELTA

20.000

Waterbirds (total)

17.500

Number of birds

15.000 12.500 10.000 7.500 5.000 2.500 0

Migration < 8d

Migration < 4d

Migration < 1d

15.000

IWC SAU

Ducks

Number of birds

12.500

10.000

7.500

5.000

2.500

Migration < 8d

Migration < 4d

Migration < 1d

IWC SAU

Fig 5: Numbers of waterbirds in the Ulcinj salina according to conven�onal count data (= IWC SAU) in comparison to migra�on volumes on Ada Island during 1, 4 and 8 day periods (= Migra�on) preceding the respec�ve waterbird survey, March 2010.

144

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

VISIBLE MIGRATION OFF THE BOJANA-BUNA DELTA

approached the Bojana-Buna Delta from the Adriatic Sea, while according to ground observations in spring 2013 and 2014, a minimum of 98,000 and 56,500 ducks (including 63,500 and 32,400 Garganeys) passed Ada Island. Following to the migration volume during 1 – 8 day periods before conventional counts in the Ulcinj salina, the disproportional low numbers of ducks in the hinterlands of the delta appear to result from short stopover duration and, consequently, high turnover of individuals. Migration generally proceeds more rapid in spring, leading to earlier arrival and access to better habitats in the breeding area (Arzel et al. 2006, Drent et al. 2006). In particular, Garganeys perform long non-stop ﬂights (jumps) of thousands of kilometres between successive stopover sites. During overseas crossings, like the Mediterranean Sea, the species and other ducks seem to follow narrow migratory corridors (Guillemain et al. 2004, Kear 2005). Short-time mass migrations across the Adriatic Sea and considerable variation of seasonal migration peaks in Garageny, Northern Shoveler and Ferruginous Duck off the Bojana-Buna Delta illustrate the erratic nature of spring migration (cf. Fig. 4). While the occasional occurrence of short-time, off-shore concentrations of Garganeys at the Sicilian and at the eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea (Iapichino & Massa 1989, Rucner 1998, Sackl et al. 2014) may arise from weather conditions and exhaustion after long-distance movements, seasonal migration patterns and the migration volume of Garganey, Northern Shoveler, Northern Pintail and Ferruginous Duck ﬂuctuated considerably across the three-year study on Ada Island (Tab. 1). For example, in comparison to March 2010 and 2014, Garganeys were two- to fourfold more abundant at the delta front in spring 2013. Hence, besides weather conditions, the duration and distances covered by non-stop jumps and overall population numbers

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

of ducks during spring migration, particularly Garaganey, appears to depend heavily on mortality and the accumulation of fuel stores, i.e. feeding conditions, on the wintering grounds and key stopover sites (Guillemain et al. 2004, Zwarts et al. 2009, Zwarts 2015). Although simultaneous counts across large areas, like the IWC scheme, provide valuable information for whole ﬂyway populations, recent studies by Desholm (1998), Frederiksen et al. (2001) and Navedo & Garaita (2012) showed that the numbers of birds which use small wetland areas for stopover during migration may be heavily underestimated by seasonal counts. In the Bojana-Buna Delta, since 2003, only a single count of 13,100 ind. by conventional waterbird surveys approximated the minimal volume of ducks which cross the area during spring migration. Hence, the importance of the area for duck migration was substantially underestimated by recent count information following to considerable variation of annual migration volumes, ﬂuctuation of temporal migration patterns, distinct migration peaks and short stopover duration.

„… spectacular mass migra�ons of at least 9,560 and 42,180 Garagenys were recorded on 13/14 March 2014 (703 ind./h) and on 24/25 March 2013 (3,196 ind./h), respec�vely“

145

VISIBLE MIGRATION OFF THE BOJANA-BUNA DELTA

The present study on visible bird migration in the Bojana-Buna Delta further complements results from radar observations: During spring migration, i.e. in April and May, Bruderer & Liechti (1999) found high densities of birds flying in easterly directions over the Appennine Peninsular and the Adriatic Sea which matched the radar signals of wader-sized birds and small waterbirds. Most migratory birds appear to benefit by taking the shortest distance between land masses (e.g., Dingel 1996, Arzel et al. 2006). In the central Mediterranean region overseas crossings of numerous wildfowl and some other waterbird species seem to follow a narrow migratory corridor between Tunisia, Italy and the Balkan Peninsular (Adriatic Flyway). Following to high species diversity and flight directions off Ada Island, the Bojana-Buna Delta, like other river deltas, constitutes a significant landmark for bird migration after crossing the Adriatic Sea. Subsequently, complementing recent assessments by Stumberger et al. (2008) and Schneider-Jacoby & Stumberger (2010), the magnitude of visible migration on Ada Island of an additional seven waterbird species surpassed the 1 %-criterion of the Ramsar Convention. Besides large numbers of Red-throated Diver Gavia stellata (1.1 %), Little (9.0 %–36.0 %) and Mediterranean Gull (5.0 %–12.0 %) at the coast, the numbers of Ferruginous Duck (3.8 %), Garganey (3.2 %), Northern Shoveler (2.5 %) and Eurasian Wigeon (1.4 %) exceeded the 1 %-level of their respective flyway populations (Wetlands International 2014).

Conclusions

The comparison between minimal migration volumes at the delta front and conventional count information for main wetland habitats in the hinterlands of the east coast of the Adriatic Sea showed that the numbers of ducks which approach the Bojana-Buna river delta during spring migration was heavily underestimated by seasonal waterbird counts. Aside of considerable ﬂuctuations of annual migration volumes and temporal migration patterns, uncontrolled

146

bird shooting and poaching throughout the Lake Skadar/Bojana-Buna river corridor (Stumberger et al. 2008, Saveljić et al. 2015) appears to be a main driver for short stopover duration and the subsequent high turnover of individuals. Nevertheless, migration volumes at Ada Island of at least seven waterbird species surpassed the 1 %-criterion of the Ramsar Convention (1971) for the identiﬁcation of international important wetlands. Consequently, high species diversity and the concentration of waterbird migration at the delta front where numerous waterbirds enter the hinterlands of the eastern Adriatic’s coast during spring migration, supports the proposal by Schneider-Jacoby et al. (2006) to protect Velika Plaža, Ada Island and the prodelta of the Bojana-Buna River within a marine park.

Acknowledgements Mujo Miličković, Vaso Radović (Ada Resort and Municipality Ulcinj), Drago Rosandić and Ratko Prentić (Solana Ulcinj) generously provided permanent access to the resort on Ada Island and the salina in Ulcinj for the present study. Beside the authors, numerous colleagues from Montenegro, Slovenia and Germany participated in the study across different phases of ‘seawatching’ on Ada Island: Dominik Bombek, Katarina Denac, Romy Durst, Iztok Geister, Jurij Hanžel, Stefan Heidtmann, Snežana Joćić, Mihailo Jovicević, Brane Koren, Tomaž Mihelič, Jure Novak, Matjaž Premzl, Marko Radović, Aleksandar Radunović, Željko Šalamun, Darko Saveljić, Martin Vernik, and Ana Vujović. Fieldwork on Ada Island was supported by the MAVA Foundation within the framework of EuroNatur’s “Adriatic Flyway – Towards a functioning system of stopover sites along the Adriatic Flyway” program.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

VISIBLE MIGRATION OFF THE BOJANA-BUNA DELTA

References Arzel C., Elmberg J. & Guillemain M. (2006): Ecology of spring migrating Anatidae: a review. J. Ornithol. 147: 167 – 184. Bruderer B. & Liechti F. (1999): Bird migration across the Mediterranean. In: Adams N. & Slotow R. (eds.), Proceedings of 22nd International Ornithological Congress, 16 – 22 August 1998, Durban. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg; pp. 1983 – 1999. Burﬁeld I. & van Bommel F. (2004): Birds in Europe – Population Estimates, Trends and Conservation Status. BirdLife Conservation Series 12, BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK. Cooper B. A. & Ritchie R. J. (1995): The altitude of bird migration in east-central Alaska: a radar and visual study. J. Field Ornithol. 66: 590 – 608. del Hoyo J. & Collar N. J. (2014): HBW and BirdLife International Checklist of the Birds of the World. Vol. 1, Non-passerines. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. Dingel H. (1996): Migration - The Biology of Life on the Move. Oxford University Press, New York & Oxford. Desholm M. (1998): Length of stay and volume of autumn staging dunlins (Calidris alpina) at the Tipperne reserve, Denmark. Ornis Svecica 8: 1 – 10.

Drent R. H., Fox A. D. & Stahl J. (2006): Travelling to breed. J. Ornithol. 147: 122 – 134. Frederiksen M., Fox A. D., Madsen J. & Colhoun K. (2001): Estimating the total number of birds using a staging site. J. Wildl. Manage. 65: 282 – 289. Guillemain M., Fritz H., Klaassen M., Johnson A. R. & Hafner H. (2004): Fuelling rates of garganey (Anas querquedula) staging in the Camargue, southern France, during spring migration. J. Ornithol. 145: 152 – 158. Iapichino C. & Massa B. (1989): The Birds of Sicily. BOU Checklist 11, British Ornithologists’ Union, Tring. Kahlert J., Leito A., Laubek B., Luigujõe L., Kuresoo A., Aaen K. & Luud A. (2012): Factors affecting the ﬂight altitude of migrating waterbirds in Western Estonia. Ornis Fennica 89: 241 – 253. Kear J. (2005): Ducks, Geese and Swans. Bird Families of the World, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Laska B. (1905): Das Waidwerk in Bosnien und Herzegowina. Verlag Leon sen., Klagenfurt. Nagy Sz., Langendoen T. & Flink S. (2015): The status of waterbird populations in the Adriatic Flyway (this volume).

„Hence, the importance of the area for duck migra�on was substan�ally underes�mated … following to considerable varia�on of annual migra�on volumes, ﬂuctua�on of temporal migra�on pa�erns, dis�nct migra�on peaks and short stopover dura�on“ ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

147

VISIBLE MIGRATION OFF THE BOJANA-BUNA DELTA

Navedo J. & Garaita R. (2012): Do systematic daily counts reﬂect the total number of birds using stopover sites during migration? A test with Eurasian Spoonbill. J. Nature Conservation 20: 242 – 246. Nowak E. (1980): Wasservögel und Feuchtgebiete Albaniens (Status, Veränderungen, Nutzung und Schutz). Beitr. Vogelkunde 26: 65 – 103. Reiser O. & von Führer L. (1896): Materialien zu einer Ornis Balcanica. Bd. IV, Montenegro. Carl Gerold’s Sohn, Wien. Rucner D. (1998): Ptice hrvatske obale Jadrana. Hrvatski prirodoslovni muzej i Ministrastvo razvitka i obnove, Zagreb. Sackl P., Schneider-Jacoby M. & Stumberger B. (2014): Planbeobachtungen des sichtbaren Vogelzuges vor dem Bojana-Buna-Delta (Montenegro/Albanien) an der südöstlichen Adria im März 2010. Ornithol. Beob. 111: 187 – 232. Saveljić D., Radunović A. & Prakljačić B. (2015): Monitoring of illegal hunting on Ulcinj salina during the hunting season of 2012/2013 and 2013/2014, and monitoring of arrival of foreign hunters through Port Bar by ferry (Bari [IT] – Bar [MNE]) during the season 2013/2014 (this volume).

Schneider-Jacoby M. & Spangenberg A. (2010): Bird hunting along the Adriatic Flyway – An assessment of bird hunting in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia and Serbia. In: Denac D., Schneider-Jacoby M. & Stumberger B. (eds.), Adriatic Flyway – Closing the Gap in Bird Conservation. EuroNatur, Radolfzell, Germany; pp. 33 – 51. Stumberger B., Sackl P., Dervović I., Knaus P., Kitonić D., Schneider-Jacoby M. & Kotrošan D. (2008/09): Primjeri uznemiravanja ptica i kršenja Zakona o lovu u močvarnim staništima krša Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine [Observations of bird disturbance and violation of the Hunting Law in karst wetlands of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina]. Bilten – Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 4/5: 97 – 114. Stumberger B., Sackl P., Saveljić D. & SchneiderJacoby M. (2008): Management plan for the conservation and sustainable use of the natural values of the privately owned Nature Park „Solana Ulcinj“ in Montenegro. Joanneum Zool. 10: 5 – 84.

Schneider-Jacoby M., Schwarz U., Sackl P., Dhora D., Saveljić D. & Stumberger B. (2006): Rapid Assessment of the Ecological Value of the Bojana-Buna Delta (Albania/Montenegro). EuroNatur, Radolfzell, Germany.

148

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

VISIBLE MIGRATION OFF THE BOJANA-BUNA DELTA

Stumberger B. & Schneider-Jacoby M. (2010): International importance of three Adriatic Flyway Priority Sites: Livanjsko Polje, the Neretva Delta and Lake Skadar-Shkoder with the Bojana-Buna Delta. In: Denac D., Schneider-Jacoby M. & Stumberger B. (eds.), Adriatic Flyway – Closing the Gap in Bird Conservation. EuroNatur, Radolfzell, Germany; pp. 53 - 58. Warnock N. (2010): Stopping vs. staging: the difference between a hop and a jump. J. Avian Biol. 41: 621 – 626. Zwarts L. (2015): Southern Europe will likely harbour more birds in the future which up to now winter in Africa (this volume).

Electronic sources Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitats, Ramsar (Iran), 2.2.1971, as amended by the Protocol of 3.12.1982 and the Amendments of 28.5.1987. UNESCO, Director, Office of International Standards and Legal Affairs, Paris, 13 July 1987. http://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/ library/scan_certified_e.pdf (Last accessed on 4 November 2015) Waterbird population estimates. Wetlands International, Wageningen, The Netherlands. http://wpe.wetlands.org (Last accessed on 26 December 2014).

photo: Peter Sackl

Zwarts L., Bijlsma R. G., van der Kamp J. & Wymenga E. (2008): Living on the Edge – Wetlands and Birds in a Changing Sahel. KNNV Publishing, Zeist, The Netherlands.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

149

photo: Kersï¿½n Sauer

Eurasian Spoonbills (Platalea leucorodia), Lake Kerkini, Greece, 16 May 2015. 150

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

The status of Eurasian Spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia) in Bosnia and Herzegovina Dražen Kotrošan1, Ilhan Dervović1, Mirko Šarac2, Jovica Sjeničić3, Goran Topić1, Nermina Sarajlić1 Ornithological Society „Naše p�ce“, Semira Frašte 6, 71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; E-mail: kotrosan@bih.net.ba 2 Associa�on „Naša Baš�na“, Mandino Selo bb, 80240 Tomislavgrad, Bosnia and Herzegovina; E-mail: sarac.mirko@tel.net.ba 3 Society for Research and Protec�on of Biodiversity, Braće Potkonjaka 16, 78000 Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina; E-mail: jovica.sjenicic@gmail.com 1

Summary

The Eurasian Spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia) belongs to two dozens of bird species which stopped breeding in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the past 100 years. Nesting activity was last observed in the area of Bardača, close to the Croatian border, in 1974. Since then, Eurasian Spoonbills were mostly recorded during migration with some occasional winter records. For the period from 2000 - 2014 a total of 101 records of the species were collected in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Overall, 2,890 individuals were registered in 16 sites. The data illustrate that in the south of the country the most important stopover sites are situated in karst poljes, particularly in Mostarsko blato, in Livanjsko and Duvanjsko Polje, as well as in the Bardača area in the north. Since 2000 12 colour-ringed birds were seen of which 6 birds were ringed as nestlings in Hungary, and the rings on six remaining birds could not be read due to poor quality of photographs. Habitat destruction, especially of stopover sites, is the greatest pressure on the population migrating through Bosnia and Herzegovina. At present, no action plan exists for the protection of Eurasian Spoonbills and its signiﬁcant resting and feeding habitats in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Eurasian Spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia) is one of two dozens of bird species which stopped breeding in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the past 100 years. Systematic research on the bird fauna of Bosnia and Herzegovina started only in the late 19th century. First evidence for the nesting of Eurasian Spoonbill were found in Livanjsko Polje by Reiser (1939). On 28 May 1885 Reiser (l.c.) noted the nesting of spoonbills in the Ždralovac area in the northern part of Livanjsko Polje and managed to collect an egg, which is still deposited in the collection of the National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo. More recent nesting activities were observed in the Bardača ponds in Posavina in 1973 and 1974 (Obratil 1974, 1983).

Keywords Eurasian Spoonbill, Platalea leucorodia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, distribution, migration, population numbers.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Introduc�on

Although the Eurasian Spoonbill is one of the most important species, which migrate along the Adriatic Flyway (Stumberger et al. 2013), during the past 30 years in Bosnia and Herzegovina the species was mainly noted during migration with some occasional winter records. Since 2012 observations of Eurasian Spoonbills were collected systematically within the „Identiﬁcation and Promotion of Karst Poljes in Bosnia and Herzegovina as Wetlands of National and International Importance“ and the „Adriatic Flyway 2“ projects, which will help to identify the signiﬁcance of the Adriatic Flyway for the species. For the present paper, based on data gathered since 2000, the current status and migration patterns of the species in Bosnia and Herzegovina was analysed.

151

EURASIAN SPOONBILL IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Materials and methods

The data were collected between 2000 and 2014 during individual and group excursions of the authors and by associates of the Birdwatchers‘ Network in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Observation data include basic information on the numbers of birds, location, altitude, habitat type, ﬂight altitude and direction of ﬂight, the presence of rings and readings of colour rings or other markings. Observations of marked birds were forwarded to associates abroad which in most cases provided the life histories of resighted birds. In addition, a photographic documentation was compiled.

Results

During the period from 7 April 2000 - 25 August 2014 101 records of Eurasian Spoonbills from 16 sites which concern a total of 2,890 individuals (ind.) were collected in Bosnia and Herzegovina (cf. Tab. 1, Fig. 2). The largest numbers of ind. were recorded in the area of Bardača, in Mostarsko blato and on Buško Lake in Livanjsko Polje. The highest daily maximum of 500 flying birds on 20 September 2012 was recorded in Bardača. Although some birds were recorded during the breeding period, no nesting activity was confirmed. Thus, birds from the nearby breeding colony in Croatia enter Bosnia and Herzegovina, particularly the Bardača area, on a daily routine for feeding. In winter smaller flocks up to a maximum of 9 ind. were registered (Tab. 1).

photo: Goran Topić

The most intensive collecting of data was done in the period 2012 - 2014 during activities within EuroNatur‘s „Identiﬁcation and Promotion of Karst Poljes in Bosnia and Herzegovina as Wetlands of National and International Importance“ and „Adriatic Flyway 2“ projects. Data collected regularly during International Waterbird Censuses (IWCs) are also included. Additionally, observation data published as short communications, in reports and technical papers from the following sources were used: Dervović (2008/09), Dervović & Kotrošan (2011/12), Kotrošan & Dervović (2008/09), Kitonić & Sackl (2008/09), Obratil (2000), Sjeničić (2011/12a,b), Sjeničić & Drocić (2013), Stumberger & Sackl (2008/09), Stumberger et al. (2007, 2013), Topić (2013), Topić & Kotrošan (2011/12) and Topić et al. (2011/12).

Fig. 1: Eurasian Spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia) migra�ng over Plivsko jezero, 22 March 2011.

152

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

EURASIAN SPOONBILL IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Tab. 1: Seasonal numbers of Eurasian Spoonbills (Platalea leucorodia) observed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2000 – 2014 (101 records).

Area

Daily maximum per month 1

1. Bardača

2. Duvanjsko polje

Total numbers of birds 8

500

12 2

3. Prnjavor ponds

92 26

4. Drežnica

5. Haljinići

6. Hutovo blato

7. Livanjsko polje (incl. Buško Lake)

107

8. Ljoljići – Pliva river

56 18

1 26

138

868 1

10. Modričko polje (Moriča) 5

26 22

9. Bosna river (Miloševac, Tarevci)

11. Mostarsko blato

784

200

930

12. Tišina and Odmut

13. Popovo polje

14. Plivsko Lake

15. Šipovo – Pliva river

16. Sijekovac

Total

2 5

157

321

11 37

100

572

168

2.890

„The most important stopover sites are situated in karst poljes, i.e. in Mostarsko blato, Livanjsko and Duvanjsko Polje, in the south as well as in the Bardača area in the north of the country“ ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

153

EURASIAN SPOONBILL IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Fig. 2: Loca�on of records of Eurasian Spoonbills (Platalea leucorodia) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2000 – 2014.

Most spoonbills were registered during spring migration (Fig. 2). The migration routes generally coincide with the migration corridor of Eurasian Crane (Grus grus) through Bosnia and Herzegovina and conﬁrms the importance of the Adriatic Flyway for the species (Topić et al., this volume).

154

The most important stopover sites are situated in karst poljes, i.e. in Mostarsko blato, Livanjsko and Duvanjsko Polje, in the south as well as in the Bardača area in the north of the country (Fig. 3). With records of > 200 ind. Mostarsko blato appears to be one of the

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

EURASIAN SPOONBILL IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Fig. 3: Loca�on of records of Eurasian Spoonbills (Platalea leucorodia) in Bosnia and Herzegovina during spring and autumn migra�on, 2010 – 2014.

most important stopover sites of Eurasian Spoonbills in the western Balkans (cf. Stumberger et al. 2013).

nestlings in Hungary (Pigniczki & Karcza 2013). The rings on another 6 birds couldn‘t be read due to poor quality of photographs (Fig. 4).

During the present study records of 12 colour-ringed birds were compiled. Of these 6 ind. were ringed as

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

155

photo: Jovica Sjeničić

EURASIAN SPOONBILL IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Fig. 4: Colour-ringed Eurasian Spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia) in Modričko Polje, 27 June 2010.

Threats and protec�on of spoonbills

The destruction of habitats, which the species uses as stop-over sites during migration or for feeding during summer, is currently the most urgent conservation issue for the Eurasian Spoonbill in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the past few years ﬂoodplain meadows in Bardača – one of the most important summer feeding sites for spoonbills in the country – have been drained and converted into agricultural lands for maize production (Fig. 5 & 6). On the other hand, shooting and poisoning are not as common, although individual cases were registered. In 2011 and 2012, the entity ministries of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Srpska have both initiated projects for the preparation of a Red List, with the task to prepare draft propo-

156

sals. Both drafts were published as ofﬁcial documents (decrees and regulations) which cause some confusion, because it is uncertain if they are ofﬁcial lists or not. The Red List for the Republic of Srpska contains 304 species, including the Eurasian Spoonbill, but is giving no information on the conservation status of the species listed (Anonymus 2012). In the „Red List“ of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Škrijelj et al. 2013) the Eurasian Spoonbill is listed together with 62 migratory, wintering or non-breeding species and labeled as EN (Endangered). At present no action plan for the protection of the Eurasian Spoonbill and its habitats in Bosnia and Herzegovina exists.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

photos: Jovica Sjeničić

EURASIAN SPOONBILL IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Fig. 5 and 6: Destroyed habitats of Eurasian Spoonbill in Bardača, 23 January 2013.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

157

EURASIAN SPOONBILL IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Acknowledgements The authors thank Borut Stumberger, Narcis and Sumeja Drocić, Mato Gotovac, Nataša Crnković, Peter Sackl, Davorka Kitonić and Dejan Kulijer for cooperation and providing their observations for the present study.

Obratil S. (1974): Ornitofauna ribnjaka Bardača kod Srbca. GZM BiH (PN) NS 11/12: 153 - 193. Obratil S. (1983): Avifauna sjeverne Bosne. GZM BiH (PN) NS 22: 115 - 176.

References

Obratil S. (2000): Istraživanja faune ptica na Hutovu blatu u period siječanj – prosinac 2000 god. Nepublikovan izvještaj za projekat “Nova politika gospodarenja močvarom Hutovo blato”.

Anonymus (2012): Crvena lista zaštićenih vrsta ﬂore i faune Republike Srpske. http://www.nasljedje.org/docs/crvenalista

Reiser O. (1939): Materialien zu einer Ornis Balcanica I, Bosnien und Herzegovina. Naturhistorisches Museum, Wien.

Dervović I. (2008/09): Rezultati jednogodišnjih posmatranja ptica na području Haljinića kod Kaknja. Bilten Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 4/5: 55 - 67.

Sjeničić J. (2011/12a): Prvi prilog poznavanju faune ptica Modričkog polja. Bilten - Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 7/8: 31 - 44.

Dervović I. & Kotrošan D. (2011/12): Rezultati zimskog brojanja ptica močvarica u Bosni i Hercegovini u 2011. godini. Bilten - Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 7/8: 44 - 56. Kitonić D. & Sackl P. (2008/09): Prebrojavanje i proljetna seoba ptica vodenih staništa u Mostarskom blatu u aprilu 2008. godine. Bilten - Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 4/5: 90 - 92. Kotrošan D. & Dervović I. (2008/09): Prstenovana žličarka (Platalea leucorodia) na Buškom jezeru. Bilten - Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 4/5: 116. Pigniczki Cs. & Karcza Zs. (2013): Movements of Eurasian Spoonbill based on metal- and colour-ringing recoveries between 1908 and 2012 in Hungary. In: Navedo J. G. (ed.), Proceedings of the Eurosite VII Spoonbill Workshop, Cantabria, Spain.; pp. 59 - 65.

158

Sjeničić J. (2011/12b): Posmatranja kašičara (Platalea leucorodia L.) na području sjeverne Bosne u toku 2010. i 2011. godine. Bilten - Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 7/8: 92 - 93. Sjeničić J. & Drocić N. (2013): Izvještaj o izvršenim istraživanjima faune ptica donjeg toka rijeke Bosne. Izvještaj za projekat «The Research of the Bird Fauna in Potential IBA Areas in the Northern Part of Bosnia and Herzegovina», Društvo za istraživanje i zaštitu biodiverziteta, Banja Luka. Škrijelj R., Lelo S., Drešković N., Sofradžija A., Trožić-Borovac S., Korjenić E., Lukić-Bilela L., Mitrašinović-Brulić M., Kotrošan D., Šljuka S., Gajević M. & Karačić, J. (2013): Crvena lista faune Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine. Knjiga 3. EU “Greenway” i PMF, Sarajevo, http://www.fmoit.gov. ba/download/Crvena%20lista%20Faune%20FBiH. pdf

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

EURASIAN SPOONBILL IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Stumberger B. & Sackl P (2008/09): Rezultati brojanja močvarica i njihov gnijezdeći status na Livanjskom polju 2007-2009. Bilten - Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 4/5: 38 - 54. Stumberger B., Sackl P., Božič L., Lukač G., Kotrošan D., Jovićević M., Velevski M., Kitonić D., Schneider-Jacoby M. & Durst R. (2013): Stop-over sites and migration seasons of Eurasian Spoonbills Platalea leucorodia in the eastern Adriatic region and the Dinaric Karst. In: Navedo J. G. (ed.), Proceedings of the Eurosite VII Spoonbill Workshop, Cantabria, Spain; pp. 53 - 59. Stumberger B., Schneider-Jacoby M. & Gotovac M. (2007): Livanjsko polje. Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands (RIS), Euronatur & Centar Mladih Livno. Topić G. (2013): Rezultati Međunarodnog cenzusa ptica vodenih staništa u Bosni i Hercegovini 2013. godine. Bilten - Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 7/8: 14 - 40. Topić G., Janković M. & Zubić G. (2011/12): Prilog poznavanju ornitofaune Šipova i Novog Sela. Bilten - Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 7/8: 5 - 31. Topi ć G. & Kotrošan D. (2011/12): Rezultati Međunarodnog cenzusa ptica vodenih staništa u Bosni i Hercegovini 2012. godine. Bilten - Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 7/8: 56 - 74. Topić G., Dervović I., Šarac M., Sjeničić J., Sarajlić N., Kotrošan D. (2015): Migration of Eurasian Crane (Grus grus) in Bosnia and Herzegovina – results of the monitoring for the autumn 2012 - spring 2014 period. (this volume)

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

159

photo: Peter Sackl

Eurasian Spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia), Paratuk Island, Montenegro, 20 March 2016. 160

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Improving connec�vity for the conserva�on of the Central European popula�on of the Eurasian Spoonbill: conclusions from the 2nd Adria�c Flyway Conference Csaba Pigniczki1,*, Tibor Mikuska2, Szabolcs Nagy3, Taulant Bino4, Dražen Kotrošan5, Mirko Šarac6, Peter Sackl7, Darko Saveljić8, Claudia Feltrup-Azafzaf9, Michael Smart10, Davide Emiliani11, Romy Durst12, Juan G. Navedo13,14 BirdLife Hungary, Szinyei M. P. u. 2/A, 6000 Kecskemét, Hungary; E-mail: csaba.spoonbill@gmail.com Croa�an Society for Bird and Nature Protec�on, Gundulićeva 19a, HR – 31000 Osijek, Croa�a; E-mail: �bor.kopacki.rit@gmail.com 3 Wetlands Interna�onal, PO Box 471, 6700AL Wageningen, The Netherlands; E-mail: szabolcs.nagy@wetlands.org 4 Polis University, Rr. Bylis 12, Kashar, Tirana, Albania; E-mail: taulant_bino@universite�polis.edu.al 5 Ornithological Society „Naše p�ce”, Semira Frašte 6, 71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; E-mail: kotrosan@bih.net.ba 6 NGO „Naša Baš�na”, Donji Brišnik bb, 80240 Tomislavgrad, Bosnia and Herzegovina; E-mail: sarac.mirko@tel.net.ba 7 Universalmuseum Joanneum, Biowissenscha�en, Weinzö�lstrasse 16, 8045 Graz, Austria; E-mail: peter.sackl@museum-joanneum.at 8 Center for Protec�on and Research of Birds of Montenegro, Veliše Mugoše bb, 8100 Podgorica, Montenegro; E-mail: darkosaveljic@gmail.com 9 Associa�on ’Les Amis des Oiseaux’ (AAO/BirdLife), Bureau C208/209, Ariana 2080, Tunisia; E-mail: aao.org@gmail.com 10 143 Cheltenham Road, Gloucester GL2 0JH, United Kingdom; E-mail: smartmike@b�nternet.com 11 c/o ISPRA, Via Vitaliano Branca� 48, 00144 Roma, Italy; E-Mail: demiliani@racine.ra.it 12 EuroNatur, Konstanzer Straße 22, 78315 Radolfzell, Germany; E-mail: stefan.ferger@euronatur.org 13 Ins�tuto de Ciencias Marinas y Limnológicas, Universidad Austral de Chile; Childe, E-mail: jgnavedo@uach.cl 14 AEWA Eurasian Spoonbill Expert Group Coordinator * Corresponding author: csaba.spoonbill@gmail.com 1 2

Summary During the 2nd Adriatic Flyway Conference a meeting of the AEWA Eurasian Spoonbill Expert Group was held in October 2014. The meeting was visited by experts from all countries, harbouring breeding populations of the Central European population of Eurasian Spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia). According to recent resightings of individually marked birds the Central European population may consist of two distinct ﬂyway populations, but experts agree that more evidence is needed from genetic and better quality data on migration routes and wintering grounds. While breeding populations in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Albania collapsed in recent years, poaching and bird trapping, disturbances by tourism, collision with

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

power lines and deterioration of wetlands in stopover sites, staging and wintering areas were addressed as main conservation problems. To solve these problems more knowledge on stopover sites, particularly in the Western Balkan countries, and on habitat use, foraging ecology and hydrological regimes of wetlands essential for spoonbills are needed. GPS-GSM trackers on spoonbills from Hungary and Croatia would be essential to achieve high quality data for increasing present knowledge.

Keywords Eurasian Spoonbill, Central European population, migration connectivity, conservation

161

CONSERVATION OF EURASIAN SPOONBILL

Introduc�on

The Eurasian Spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia) has two main populations in Europe: the East-Atlantic and the Central and Southeast European one (Triplet et al. 2008). While the East-Atlantic population is growing and its breeding area is expanding (Overdijk et al. 2013), if we are optimistic the Central and Southeast European population is stable (with ﬂuctuations) or shows a moderate decline. Even recently spoonbills have disappeared as breeding birds from Bosnia and Herzegovina and from Albania (Overdijk et al. 2013).

Studies of the migrations of the Central European spoonbill population with metal rings were started by Hungarian ornithologists in 1908. A new approach was a shifting to colour ringing in Italy in 1989 and in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia and Serbia in 2003. Data of colour ringed birds from different breeding grounds substantially enhance the possibilities to study migratory connectivity based on the resightings of PVC-ringed spoonbills (Fig. 1). Furthermore, it allows to start up a network of people engaging in spoonbill monitoring along those countries. Within this framework, a special session was organized during the 2nd Adriatic Flyway Conference in Durrës (Albania) which ended up with the following conclusions.

photo: Csaba Pigniczki

The Adriatic Flyway is of crucial importance for the Central European population. It is used by birds nesting in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Italy and at least by some from Romania (Danube Delta) and Greece (Smart et al. 2007). Most spoonbills from these countries migrate via the Adriatic Sea and/or South Italy to wintering areas in North Africa, mainly in Tunisia, or in South Italy. A small fraction of birds breeding in Central Europe winters in western Turkey, along the Nile or in sub-Saharan Africa (Pigniczki 2010). But, because a fraction of the popu-

lation estimated on the breeding grounds is missing in winter surveys, we still do not know all wintering areas. Some important stopover sites are known in the western Balkans (Stumberger et al. 2013), Italy (e.g., Kralj et al. 2012, Pigniczki & Karcza 2013), and in Tunisia (M.-A. Dakhli & Cs. Pigniczki unpubl. data), but a number of potential stopover sites and staging areas along the Adriatic Flyway are essentially poorly known.

Fig. 1: Hungarian Eurasian Spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia) resighted in the Central European popula�on’s wintering area in Tunisia, 4 December 2014

162

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

CONSERVATION OF EURASIAN SPOONBILL

Overall situa�on

1) The AEWA Single Species Action Plan treats the Central and Southeast European population as one population (Triplet et al. 2008). Due to recent resighting results, it is supposed that this population should be splitted into two distinct populations. Czech, Pannonian and Italian spoonbills may belong to the Central European population, which mainly use the Adriatic Flyway, and share the same wintering grounds in the central Mediterranean Basin (i.e. Tunisia and Italy). It is supposed that breeding birds in Montenegro also belong to this population, but there are more doubts for the status of the Camargue population (Blanchon et al. 2010). The breeding birds of the Danube Delta, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey have different migration routes and different wintering grounds with a little overlap with Central European breeders, and so might belong to a distinct Southeast European population. Nonetheless, more evidence is needed for splitting the Central and Southeast European population into two populations. 2) The current size of the Central and Southeast European population was estimated between 2,750-4,150 pairs in 2012 (Overdijk et al. 2013). Overall, the general situation of the Central and Southeast European population is getting worse (Navedo et al. 2013). However, there are progressive results in this population, namely in Hungary, which has the biggest breeding population in this region, because several habitat reconstructions are going on at the breeding grounds as well in the foraging areas. On the other hand, in certain years the lack of winter precipitation causes negative effects on both the number of breeding pairs and the breeding success in Hungary. The numbers of Hungarian breeding pairs can show big ﬂuctuations depending on the size of suitable wetlands. Breeding populations are rather stable in Croatia and Italy, with problems driven by the ﬂooding of colonies and, in the latter country, by reduced nesting habitats due to water eutrophication and saltwater ingression. Generally, the Pannonian population is very sensitive

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

to dryness and ﬂoods as they are depending on unpredictable continental wetlands during the breeding period and post-ﬂedging dispersal (Pigniczki & Végvári 2015). Unfortunately, the breeding population in Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina collapsed in recent years and in Montenegro only a small breeding population remained. However, most of the former nesting trees in the only nesting site at the eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea in the Bojana/Buna river delta collapsed during summer 2014, thus even the short-term future of the small Montenegrin population is doubtful (Fig. 2). These indicates that there are serious problems in the western Balkans. We have no recent information on the number of the Czech, Austrian, Serbian and Slovakian population. Although the populations in Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina are extinct, there are potentials to restore habitats, which were formerly used for breeding. These areas are: Kune-Vain (Drin Delta, Albania) Bardača (Bosnia and Herzegovina) Livanjsko Polje (Bosnia and Herzegovina) Hutovo Blato (Bosnia and Herzegovina). 3) There are several conservation problems in stopover sites along the Adriatic Flyway: the most important is the poaching by local and foreign hunters. The situation has further deteriorated since 2008, when the Single Species Action Plan was prepared, because poaching became a real problem in Tunisia and Libya, too. Nonetheless, there are some promising developments, such as the current hunting ban in Albania, which may have positive impacts for spoonbills, using the country’s extensive wetlands for stopping-over. Also in the wintering grounds, i.e. in Tunisia, Libya, and in the Sahel, poaching and bird trapping seems to be increasing and currently became a serious problem in North Africa. In addition, pollution may have negative impacts on the birds in North Africa (C. Feltrup-Azafzaf pers. obs.). There are several other

163

CONSERVATION OF EURASIAN SPOONBILL

„Overall, the general situa�on of the Central and Southeast European popula�on is ge�ng worse“

photo: Peter Sackl

negative effects, like the collision with powerlines, disturbances and killing by feral dogs and disturbances by unregulated tourism (quad, horse riding, mass tourism), particularly in Tunisia (M.-A. Dakhli & Cs. Pigniczki pers. obs.), and disturbance by kite surﬁng has a large impact in Croatia (T. Mikuska pers. obs.), as well as habitat deterioration, like the loss of Vrina ﬂoodplain in Butrint, southern Albania, due to land reclamation works aiming for the drainage of Vrina plain (T. Bino pers. obs.).

164

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

photo: Csaba Pigniczki

CONSERVATION OF EURASIAN SPOONBILL

Fig. 2: In the eastern Adria�c region Eurasian Spoonbills (Platalea leucorodia) currently breed only in a mixed-species colony of herons and Pygmy Cormorants (Microcarbo pygmaeus) in the Bojana-Buna Delta. During summer 2014 most nes�ng trees collapsed but spoonbills con�nued breeding on the small island in 2015. Ulcinj, Montenegro, 2 July 2010 and 8 October 2014.

Short-term essen�al guidelines

To solve the problems, described above, we need more knowledge on the habitat use of spoonbills in the breeding grounds. Additionally, the stop-over sites and staging areas used by the Central European population and the exact size of spoonbill populations, which winter in different regions (Carpathian Basin; Balkan; Middle East; Nile river valley; Italy; central Mediterranean coast in North Africa; subSaharan Africa), have to be determined. For planning effective conservation actions further studies on the ecology and biology of spoonbills are needed. We further need more information on habitat use, the foraging ecology, foraging habitats, and hydrological regimes of wetlands essential for spoonbills. More information is needed on subpopulation connectivity and how they function as a metapopulation (Tab. 1). We should, ﬁnally, collect information on the impact of invasive species on spoonbills. We agree that colour ringing is still a very good tool to study spoonbills, but modern techniques add new possibilities to get better quality data to answer our questions. In particular, the use of GPS-GSM transmit-

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

ters could help to answer many questions not yet answered by traditional methods. First data from a study started in 2013 confirmed that adult and juvenile spoonbills from Italian colonies may follow different strategies for migrating and wintering and suggested a high mortality of juveniles wintering in North Africa, i.e. in Algeria and Tunisia (S. Volponi unpubl. data). The Eurasian Spoonbill has a high potential as a symbol of wetland conservation and international cooperation along the Adriatic Flyway, as the spoonbill is a flagship and umbrella species (Schneider-Jacoby 2008, Pigniczki & Végvári 2015). Sharing data, existing knowledge and experiences between experts, NGOs and conservation authorities, like the transfer of knowledge from the East Atlantic spoonbill population, would be important to improve cooperation between Adriatic Flyway countries. A webpage, which offers the possibility to follow the migrations of tracked individuals on a dayby-day basis and to follow the life in breeding colonies through webcams, will significantly raise public awareness for different aspects of spoonbills life-history and the species’ conservation needs. A film and a travel exhibition will further help to inform the public on the necessity of waterbird and wetland conservation.

165

CONSERVATION OF EURASIAN SPOONBILL

Tab. 1: Speciﬁc studies proposed for unraveling migratory and popula�on connec�vity. + countries to be developed. (AT: Austria, CZ: Czech Republic, I: Italy, H: Hungary, SLO: Slovenia, SK: Slovakia, HR: Croa�a, BiH: Bosnia and Herzegovina, SER: Serbia, AL: Albania, MNE: Montenegro, TU: Tunisia) AT

Marking individuals (ideally adults) with satellite transmitters (GPS-GSM) to identify ﬂyways, crucial stopover sites and wintering areas

SLO

Analyses of existing recovery data from this region

BiH

SER

MNE

Encouraging to start or restart colour ringing projects

Estimate the breeding population

Start a project of simultaneous spoonbill counts during migration along the Adriatic Flyway Design, analyse and use the results of blood sample analyses

„ More informa�on is needed on subpopula�on connec�vity and how they func�on as a metapopula�on“ References Blanchon T., Kayser Y., Arnaud A. & Gauthier-Clerc M. (2010): La Spatule blanche Platalea leucorodia en Camargue: nidiﬁcation et hivernage. Ornithos 17: 217 – 222. Kralj J., Zuljevic A., Mikuska T. & Overdijk O. (2012): Movements of immature Eurasian Spoonbills Platalea leucorodia from the breeding grounds of the eastern metapopulation in the Pannonian Basin. Waterbirds 35: 239 – 247.

Navedo J. G., Overdijk O., Smart M., Nagy Sz. & Triplet P. (2013): Implementation of the AEWA Eurasian Spoonbill Action Plan: advances for each population and priorities for the next years. In: Navedo J. G. (ed.), Proceedings of the VII Eurosite Spoonbill Workshop Cantabria, Spain; pp. 15 – 18. Overdijk O., Smart M. & Navedo J. G. (2013): An overview of Eurasian spoonbill situation. In: Navedo J. G. (ed.), Proceedings of the VII Eurosite Spoonbill Workshop, Cantabria, Spain; pp. 13 – 14.

„The Eurasian Spoonbill has a high poten�al as a symbol of wetland conserva�on and interna�onal coopera�on along the Adria�c Flyway“ 166

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

CONSERVATION OF EURASIAN SPOONBILL

Pigniczki Cs. (2010): Magyarországi kanalasgémek (Platalea leucorodia) kóborlása és vonulása fémgyűrűs megkerülések alapján [Dispersion and migration of Hungarian Spoonbills (Platalea leucorodia) based on recoveries of metal-ringed individuals]. Aquila 116117: 17 – 32. (Hungarian, English summary) Pigniczki Cs. & Karcza Zs. (2013): Movements of Eurasian Spoonbill based on metal- and colour-ringing recoveries between 1908 and 2012 in Hungary. In: Navedo J. G. (ed.), Proceedings of the VII Eurosite Spoonbill Workshop, Cantabria, Spain, pp. 59 – 65. Pigniczki Cs. & Végvári Zs. (2015): Dispersal of the Central European population of Eurasian Spoonbill Platalea leucorodia. Ardeola 62: 219-232.

Stumberger B., Sackl P., Božic L., Lukac G., Kotrošan D., Jovicević M., Velevski M., Kitonić D., Schneider-Jacoby M. & Durst R. (2013): Stopover sites and migration seasons of Eurasian Spoonbill in the eastern Adriatic region and the Dinaric Karst. In: Navedo J. G. (ed.), Proceedings of the VII Eurosite Spoonbill Workshop, Cantabria, Spain; pp. 53 – 58. Triplet P., Overdijk O., Smart M., Nagy Sz., Schneider-Jacoby M., Sühendan Karauz E., Pigniczki Cs., Baha El Din S., Kralj J., Sandor A. & Navedo, J. G. (2008): International Single Species Action Plan for the Conservation of the Eurasian Spoonbill. AEWA Technical Series 35, Bonn, Germany; 64 pp.

photo: Kers�n Sauer

Schneider-Jacoby M. (2008): How many birds migrate over the Adriatic Sea? Acrocephalus 29:1 – 3.

Smart M., Azafzaf H. & Dlensi H. (2007): The ’Eurasian’ Spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia) in Africa. Ostrich 78: 495 – 500.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

167

photo: Dietmar Nill

Eurasian Crane (Grus grus). 168

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Migra�on of Eurasian Crane Grus grus in Bosnia and Herzegovina – results of the monitoring for the autumn 2012 - spring 2014 period Goran Topić1, Ilhan Dervović1, Mirko Šarac2, Jovica Sjeničić3, Nermina Sarajlić1, Dražen Kotrošan4 Ornithological Society „Naše p�ce“, Semira Frašte 6, 71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; E-mail: goran.topic84@yahoo.com 2 Associa�on “Naša Baš�na”, Mandino Selo bb, 80240 Tomislavgrad, Bosnia and Herzegovina; E-mail: sarac.mirko@tel.net.ba 3 Society for Research and Protec�on of Biodiversity, Braće Potkonjaka 16, 78000 Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina; E-mail: sarac.mirko@tel.net.ba 4 Na�onal Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Zmaja od Bosne 3, 71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; E-mail: kotrosan@bih.net.ba 1

Summary

Keywords

Between autumn 2012 and spring 2014 the migration of Eurasian Crane (Grus grus) was monitored in Bosnia and Herzegovina. A total of 54,915 individuals (ind.) were registered on 31 sites, of which 7,236 ind. were recorded resting (13 sites) and another 47,679 birds were recorded in flight. The maximal number on a single stopover site was registered on 7 March 2014 in Mostarsko blato (1,740 ind.). The largest number of actively migrating cranes in a single day was counted in Šipovo – 10,400 ind. on 1 November 2013. During autumn migration, birds crossing Bosnia and Herzegovina from Hungary (Hortobágy), Serbia (Slano Kopovo) and Croatia (Jelas Polje) move across Posavina in the direction to the Adriatic Sea and Italy. A few birds were recorded flying through central and eastern Bosnia, but there were no data for Herzegovina for the autumn migration in 2012 - 2014. During spring migration most birds were registered along the Neretva river valley and in eastern Herzegovina, while just a few migrants were seen flying through western Bosnia. Karst poljes, in particular Nevesinjsko Polje, Dabarsko Polje, Gatačko Polje, Mostarsko blato and Duvanjsko Polje, are the most important stopover sites for Eurasian Cranes. The flocks consisting of more than 90 ind. were registered resting together in karst poljes. In central Bosnia, the birds were recorded resting in Haljinići and Kiseljak, but these flocks consisted of less than 100 ind. Most resting flocks were recorded during spring migration.

migration, Eurasian Crane, migration routes, stopover, Bosnia and Herzegovina

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Introduc�on

The Common or Eurasian Crane (Grus grus) is a common migratory bird in the northern parts of Europe. Its breeding range extends from western, central and northern Europe across Asia to western China, northern Mongolia and eastern Siberia (del Hoyo et al. 1996, Johnsgard 1983). For Bosnia and Herzegovina the species is listed as an extinct breeder (Kotrošan 2008/09). Traditional wintering grounds are found in North Africa, Spain and more recently in France (Snow & Perrins 1998). Smaller ﬂocks were recorded wintering in the Pannonian Basin (Šćiban et al. 2011, Šćiban et al. 2012). During migration, the birds use stopover sites near major rivers, lakes, reservoirs, in wet pastures and marshlands. The ﬁrst systematic collection of data on the migration of Common Crane along the Adriatic Flyway, south of the Sava and Danube rivers, were compiled by Martin Schneider-Jacoby in cooperation with local ornithologists, conservationists and ornithological organizations in 2007. These data were presented on the 7th European Crane Conference in Germany (Stumberger & Schneider-Jacoby 2010). After the conference more data were collected by using the same methodology and were presented on the 1st Workshop on Karst Poljes as Wetlands of National and International Importance in Livno in October 2013 (Topić et al. 2013). The present paper summarizes data on the migration of Eurasian Crane in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the autumn 2012 – spring 2014 period.

169

MIGRATION OF EURASIAN CRANE

Material and methods

Surveys of the migration of Eurasian Crane in Bosnia and Herzegovina were organized between autumn 2012 and spring 2014. Both ﬂying, i. e. most probably actively migrating, and resting birds in known stopover sites were counted. In all, 28 observers were involved in the survey. The surveys were part of a regular monitoring of Eurasian Crane migration within EuroNatur’s projects “Identiﬁcation and Pro-

motion of Karst Poljes in Bosnia and Herzegovina as Wetlands of National and International Importance” and “Adriatic Flyway 2”. A part of the present data were further collected during a monitoring of illegal hunting activities in the karst poljes of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Relevant information were noted in the ﬁeld on standard data sheets, which, in addition to date, location, and the numbers of ﬂying or resting birds, contain information on altitude, habitat type and the direction of migration.

Fig. 1: Migra�on and stopover sites of Eurasian Crane (Grus grus) in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the autumn 2012 – spring 2014 period.

170

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

MIGRATION OF EURASIAN CRANE

Fig. 2: Spring and autumn migra�on of Eurasian Crane (Grus grus) between the autumn 2012 and spring 2014 period; stopover sites and ac�vely migra�ng/ﬂying birds as in Fig. 1.

Results

The migration of Eurasian Cranes (Grus grus) in Bosnia and Herzegovina was monitored from autumn 2012 - spring 2014. In 31 sites a total of 54,915 individuals

(ind.) were registered. Of these 7,236 ind. were recorded while resting (13 sites), and another 47,679 ind. were recorded on 25 sites in ﬂight (cf. Fig. 1 – 2). Total numbers per season and site are shown in Tab. 1.

„Most birds, i.e. 26,589 ind., were recorded in the fall of 2012, and the smallest number of 3,922 ind. was counted in spring 2014” ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

171

MIGRATION OF EURASIAN CRANE

Tab. 1: Numbers of Eurasian Crane (Grus grus) recorded in Bosnia and Herzegovina from autumn 2012 to spring 2014. Autumn 2012 Resting Banja Luka

Flying

Spring 2013 Resting

Flying

Autumn 2013 Resting

Flying

Spring 2014 Resting

Bardača

Dabarsko polje Duvanjsko polje

96 500

10,000

Gatačko polje

1,500

168

2,551

1,357

Gradiška 270

Hutovo blato

56 14

Jelah

300

Kiseljak

Konjic

62 150

Kotor Varoš

200 night migration

Kozarska Dubica Livno

5,450

Ljubuški

235

1,500

230

Modriča

1,128

Mostarsko blato

602 1,400

1,740

Mrkonjić Grad

night migration

Nevesinjsko polje

200

Omarska (Prijedor)

Pašića polje

Popovo polje

141

Potkraj (Sanski most)

Prozor-Rama

370

night migration

Šamac

116

Sarajevo

54 1

8,586

14,122

90 50

Trebinje 30

Veliko Blaško (Laktaši) Visoko

260

450

Vukovsko polje TOTAL

172

202

140

Haljinići

Šipovo

Flying

3,273

649

50 501

26,088

3,419

1,051

19,891

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

MIGRATION OF EURASIAN CRANE

Discussion and conclusions

photo: Goran Topić

Between autumn 2012 and spring 2014, overall, 54,915 Eurasian Cranes were registered in a total of 31 sites, with 7,236 ind. recorded while resting (13 sites) and 47,679 ﬂying or actively migrating birds. Of these a total of 46,523 and 8,392 ind., respectively, were registered during both autumn and spring migration. Most birds, i.e. 26,589 ind., were recorded in the fall of 2012, and the smallest number of 3,922 ind. was counted in spring 2014. The maximum number of resting birds per site was registered in Mostarsko blato (1,740 ind.) and the largest number of cranes in ﬂight over one site in a single day was counted in Šipovo (10,400 ind.).

The analysis of migration routes for several seasons indicate that, during autumn migration, the birds take off from stopover sites in Hungary (Hortobágy; Végvári & Tar 2002, Végvári & Hansbauer 2010), Vojvodina (Slano Kopovo; Lukač 2000, Knežev 2010) and Croatia (Jelas Polje; Stumberger & Schneider-Jacoby 2010). In Bosnia and Herzegovina most birds migrate through the Posavina, across Banja Luka, Kotor Varoš, Rama, Šipovo, Mrkonjić grad, and by passing Kupreško, Glamočko, Livanjsko and Duvanjsko Polje towards the Adriatic Sea and Italy. 45,205 ind. or 98.3 % of all cranes recorded during autumn migration were noted along this trajectory, the rest were observed in central, eastern and northwestern Bosnia (Fig. 2). In autumn birds were recorded resting twice in Duvanjsko Polje and once in Šipovo, most likely caused by bad weather conditions.

Fig. 3: Eurasian Cranes (Grus grus) migra�ng over Bosnia and Herzegovina, Šipovo, 14 November 2012.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

173

MIGRATION OF EURASIAN CRANE

While Eurasian Cranes are present in large numbers in Bosnia and Herzegovina during both, spring and autumn migration, numbers of records and population numbers vary significantly between seasons. Of the total number of ind. recorded, 84.7 % were noted in autumn, in contrast to 15.3 % during spring migration. In autumn the birds migrate in large flocks and can be seen more easily. In spring, when returning from the wintering grounds in North Africa, the cranes fly in smaller flocks and may occur anywhere along the eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea. Although cranes are most numerous along the Neretva river valley, significant numbers were noted to the north in Croatia and in Montenegro. In order to collect more detailed and long-term data on the spring and autumn migration of Eurasian Cranes in Bosnia and Herzegovina, it will be necessary to develop a network of local birdwatchers and ornithologists.

photo: Mirko Šarac

A total of 8,392 birds were counted during spring migration. Of these, 6,692 ind. were recorded at stopover sites and 1,700 ind. in ﬂight. Most birds migrated along the Neretva river valley, the rest were seen in Mostarsko blato (1,740 ind.) and in Duvanjsko Polje (1,500 ind.), the later constituting the most important stopover site of Eurasian Cranes in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Topić et al. 2013). 6,671 or 79.5 % of all birds, seen in spring, migrated along this trajectory. Migrating and resting birds were further seen in the vicinity of Trebinje, in Gatačko, Dabarsko and in Livanjsko Polje as well as around Visoko. Although Eurasian Cranes can be seen in the entire territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina in spring, in comparison to autumn migration, the main migration occurs in the east of the country.

Fig. 4: Eurasian Cranes (Grus grus) res�ng in Duvanjsko Polje, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 5 April 2013.

174

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

MIGRATION OF EURASIAN CRANE

In recent years resting Eurasian Cranes were recorded many times in Livanjsko Polje in late autumn (Dervović et al. 2010, Topić et al. 2013). With adequate protection of the most important site for the species in Bosnia and Herzegovina and by restricting threatening factors such as peat extraction and the reclamation of wetlands, the Eurasian Crane might again start to breed in Livanjsko Polje.

„In contrast, shoo�ng on migra�on ﬂocks was registered on several occasions in Herzegovina and in Posavina”

photo: Goran Topić

Given the fact that Eurasian Cranes often rest in agricultural lands, poisoning due to the consumption of grain treated with Furadan stands out as one of the most important conservation issues for the species. Despite regular monitoring of karst poljes which constitute the most important stopover sites for the species in Bosnia and Herzegovina, we have no data on birds which died from poisoning. In contrast, shooting on migration ﬂocks was registered on several occasions in Herzegovina and in Posavina. One bird was shot in Šipovo. According to earlier data (e.g., Stumberger et al. 2008/09, Schneider-Jacoby & Spangenberg 2010, Stumberger & Schneider-Jacoby 2010) illegal hunting and bird shooting is unsustainably intense in the karst poljes, south of the Sava and Danube.

Fig. 5: Eurasian Crane (Grus grus) killed in Šipovo, 19 December 2012.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

175

MIGRATION OF EURASIAN CRANE

Acknowledgements The authors thank Rada Blanuša, Erik Boven, Ana Ćurić, Marinko Dalmatin, Slaven Filipović, Jelena Gotovac, Mato Gotovac, Vojin Kopuz, Nataša Kovačević, Ranko Medić, Nemanja Popović, Dragan Praštalo, Miroslav Radulović, Sanja Radulović, Dalibor Sičanica, Ilija Šarčević, Miro Šumanović, Mirjana Tanasijević, Biljana Topić, Mladen Topić, Josip Vekić and Dario Vukojević for their cooperation and providing their observations for the present study. Further, we are grateful to Borut Stumberger for advice and support as well as Maja Ðorđević for technical assistance.

References del Hoyo J., Elliott A. & Sargatal J. (1996): Handbook of the Birds of the World. Vol. 3, Hoatzin to Auks. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. Dervovic I., Kotrosan D., Sarac M., SchneiderJacoby M., Stumberger B. (2010): Livanjsko Polje - Future at the Edge of Swamp. VII European Crane Conference, Stralsund; p. 84 - 87. Johnsgard P. A. (1983): Cranes of the World. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Knežev M. (2010): Special Nature Reserve „Slano Kopovo“, Novi Bečej, Serbia. In: Nowald G., Weber A., Franke J., Weinhardt E. & Donner N. (eds.), Proceedings of the VIIth European Crane Conference. Crane Conservation Germany, Groß Mohrdorf; pp 174 - 179. Kotrošan D. (2008/09): Updates and corrections to the Bird Checklist of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the species registered from 1888 to 2006. Bilten - Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 4/5: 72 - 85.

176

Lukač Š. (2000): Seoba ždrala (Grus grus) na Slanom Kopovu od jeseni 1998. do proloća 2000. [Crane migration on Slano Kopovo from autumn of 1998 to spring of 2000]. Ciconia 9: 173 - 175. Schneider-Jacoby M. & Spangenberg A. (2010): Bird hunting along the Adriatic Flyway – an assessment of bird hunting in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia and Serbia. In: Denac D., Schneider-Jacoby M. & Stumberger B. (eds.), Adriatic Flyway – Closing the Gap in Bird Conservation. Euronatur, Radolfzell; pp. 33 - 53. Šćiban M, Ðapić D., Sekereš O., Ðorđević I., Ružić M. B., Stanković D., Radišić D., Gergelj J., Janković M., Radaković M., Rudić B., Agošton A., Dajović M. & Simić D. (2011): Results of the International Waterbird Census in 2012 in Serbia. Ciconia 20: 120 - 128. Šćiban M., Sekereš O., Pantović U., Ðapić D., Janković M., Rudić B., Medenica I., Radaković M., Radišić D., Stanković D., Agošton A. & Gergelj J. (2012): Results of the International Waterbird Census in 2013 in Serbia. Ciconia 21: 121 - 128. Snow D. W. & Perrins C. M. (1998): The Birds of the Western Palearctic. Concise Edition, Vol.1, NonPasserines. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Stumberger B., Sackl P., Dervovic I., Knaus P., Kitonić D., Schneider-Jacoby M. & Kotrošan D. (2008/09): Primjeri uznemiravanja ptica i kršenja Zakona o lovu u močvarnim staništima krša Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine. Bilten – Mreže posmatrača ptica u Bosni i Hercegovini 4/5: 97 – 114. Stumberger B. & Schneider-Jacoby M. (2010): Importance of the Adriatic Flyway for the Common Crane (Grus grus). In: Nowald G., Weber A., Franke J., Weinhardt E. & Donner N. (eds.), Proceedings of the VIIth European Crane Conference. Crane Conservation Germany, Gros Mohrdorf; pp. 64 - 68.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

MIGRATION OF EURASIAN CRANE

Stumberger B. & Schneider-Jacoby M. (2010): Karst poljes in the Dinarides and their signiﬁcance for water bird conservation. In: EEA (ed.), Europe’s Ecological Backbone: Recognising the True Value of Our Mountains. EEA Report 6: 151.

Végvári Z. & Tar J. (2002): Autumn roost site selection by the Common Crane Grus grus in the Hortobágy National Park, Hungary, between 1995 – 2000. Ornis Fennica 79: 101 – 110.

photo: Dietmar Nill

Topić G., Vujović A., Ilić B., Medenica I. & Sarajlić N. (2013): Spring migration 2013 of Eurasian Crane Grus grus of the Adriatic Flyway population in the Western Balkans and in the Eastern Adriatic region. In: Sackl P., Durst R., Kotrošan D. & Stumberger B. (eds.), Dinaric Karst – Floods for Life. Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Karst Poljes as Wetlands of National and International Importance, Livno, 30 September - 1 October 2013. EuroNatur, Radolfzell, Germany; pp. 82 - 88.

Végvári Z. & Hansbauer M. H. (2010): The Hortobágy National Park, one of the most important stop-over sites for the Eurasian Crane in Europe: changes and threats. In: ICF–MPSLU (International Crane Foundation — Muraviovka Park for Sustainable Land Use). Abstracts International Workshop Climate-CranesPeople, Russia, May 29–June 3 2010; p. 45.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

177

photo: Hans Glader

European Honey Buzzard (Pernis apivorus), juvenile. 178

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Associa�on BIOM, Preradovićeva 34, 10 000 Zagreb, Croa�a; E-mail: ivan.budinski@gmail.com

Summary

In spring 2013 and 2014 Association BIOM organized spring raptor migration observation camps at two sites in Dalmatia, southern Croatia. Observations were conducted in the Omiška Dinara Mountains in central Dalmatia (2013) and on Gradina Mountain, near the Krnjeza River in the Zrmanja river basin, in northern Dalmatia (2014). In all, 970 birds (515 migrants) were observed during 34 days of observation on Omiška Dinara Mt., while only 167 birds (71 migrants) were observed during 32 days on the Gradina Mt. site in spring 2014. Observations of local breeders were excluded from analysis. At both sites the majority of migrating raptors belonged to only one species, i. e. the European Honey Buzzard (Pernis apivorus). Migrating honey buzzards were not seen before late April. The second most numerous species – again at both sites - was Western Marsh Harrier (Circus aeruginosus). Montagu‘s Harrier (Circus pygargus) and Eurasian Hobby (Falco subbuteo) were present in small numbers on both sites, whilst Red-footed Falcons (Falco vespertinus) were present on Omiška Dinara Mt., only. A comparison of the results for both sites is not reliable as weather conditions were extremely rainy with low visibility in spring 2014 which probably affected migration. The present observations support the opinion of most other researchers that no major bottlenecks for migrating raptors exist along the eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea.

Until now raptor migration across the Central Mediterranean has been mainly studied by Italian ornithologists (e.g., Corso 2001, Panuccio et al. 2004), with almost all observation sites situated in southern Italy and by two sites in Greece (Panuccio 2011). For different reasons the eastern Adriatic region was largely out of focus for similar studies. In contrast to the situation in Italy and Greece, the topography of the eastern coastline of the Adriatic Sea seems not to support the existence of any major migration bottlenecks for raptors. Apparently, the approximately 180 km wide Adriatic Sea with many islands along the Dalmatian coast constitutes no substantial barrier for migrating raptor species, most of it appear to cross the Adriatic in a broad front. Consequently, estimating the numbers of raptors which cross the Adriatic Sea during migration is difﬁcult and many observation sites will be needed to get an idea of the importance of the area for raptor migration.

Keywords raptor migration, Adriatic Sea, Dalmatia, European Honey Buzzard, bottleneck, Adriatic Flyway

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Introduc�on

Methods

Observation sites were chosen according to their accessibility, visibility of the surrounding area, potential bottleneck characteristics and their representativeness for different sub-regions of the Eastern Adriatic. Raptors were observed each day from 9 h till 18 h when weather conditions allowed proper visibility. So far as possible, the age and sex was determined for all birds. Exact hour and the behaviour of each individual or group were recorded along with the distance and direction from the observation point. Observations of Northern Raven (Corvus corax) were also recorded because the species is ecologically similar to raptors and, therefore, often included in raptor surveys. Nevertheless, only individuals positively determined as migrants were included in the present analysis. All observations which may represent multiple observations of locally breeding individuals (ind.) of Common Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus), Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) and Short-toed Snake Eagle (Circaetus gallicus) were excluded from analysis.

179

RAPTOR MIGRATION IN DALMATIA

Tab. 1: Loca�on and al�tude of observa�on sites in Dalma�a, Croa�a. Area Central Damatia Nothern Dalmatia

Location

Summit (Observation)

Latitude

Longitude

Altitude (m)

Omiška

Dinara Mt.

43°26‘ N

16°44‘ E

710

Krnjeza River

Gradina Mt.

44°12‘ N

15°50‘ E

437

„… the topography of the eastern coastline of the Adria�c Sea seems not to support the existence of any major migra�on bo�lenecks for raptors“

Results

Omiška

Krnjeza River

During 34 observation days a total of 970 individual birds were observed on Omiška Dinara (17.4. 20.5.2013). Of these, 515 ind. were deﬁned as actively migrating birds, i. e. 317 European Honey Buzzards (Pernis apivorus), 113 Western Marsh Harriers (Circus aeruginosus), 28 Red-footed Falcons (Falco vespertinus), 23 Montagu’s Harriers (Circus pygargus), 16 Common Buzzards (Buteo buteo), 11 Eurasian Hobbies (Falco subbuteo), 3 Lesser Kestrels (Falco naumanni), 2 Black Kites (Milvus migrans), and 1 Booted Eagle (Hieraaetus pennatus).

In all, 167 ind. were observed at the Krnjeza River site during 32 observation days. Of these, 71 ind. were deﬁned as migrating birds: 50 European Honey Buzzards, 8 Western Marsh Harriers, 7 Montagu’s Harriers, and 6 Eurasian Hobbies.

European Honey Buzzards were not observed until 24 April. The majority of honey buzzards passed the observation point between 29 April and 10 May. All other observed species showed no such regularity (Fig. 1).

180

As at the Omiška site in 2013, migration of European Honey Buzzard was not noted before the end of April. Western Marsh Harriers were noted only during the third decade in April. In the same way, Montagu’s Harriers were seen only in late April, but numbers were too small for further conclusions. A further comparison of the results for both sites is not reliable as weather conditions were extremely rainy with low visibility in spring 2014 which most probably affected the migration behaviour.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

RAPTOR MIGRATION IN DALMATIA

Fig. 1: Numbers of migra�ng raptors observed on Omiška, Dinara Mountains, in April and May 2013. Only species which were observed with ≥ 10 ind. are shown.

Fig. 2: Numbers of migra�ng raptors observed on the Krnjeza River site in April and May 2014. Only species which were observed with ≥ 10 ind. are shown.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

181

RAPTOR MIGRATION IN DALMATIA

Diurnal migra�on pa�erns

photo: Peter Sackl

Across the day migrating European Honey Buzzards were seen mainly in the morning, with a second peak at the Omiška site later in the afternoon (Fig. 3). In contrast, at the Krnjeza River site most honey buzzards passed the observation point till late morning (Fig. 4). Western Marsh Harriers were more abundant during late morning and in the afternoon but, in particular at the Krnjeza River site, this pattern is not well pronounced.

Fig. 3: Diurnal frequencies of migra�ng raptors at the Omiška Dinara site in April and May 2013.

„Hence, the present study at two sites in Dalma�a supports anecdotal evidence that raptors cross the Adria�c Sea in a broad migra�on front“

182

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

RAPTOR MIGRATION IN DALMATIA

Fig. 4: Diurnal frequencies of migra�ng raptors at the Krnjeza River site in April and May 2014.

Discussion

At both observation sites European Honey Buzzard was the most abundant raptor species. Probably, most honey buzzards had crossed the Adriatic Sea before they passed the observation point. Particularly at the Omiška site, Western Marsh Harrier was the second numerous species; other important migrating species included Red-footed Falcon, Eurasian Hobby and Montagu’s Harrier. The complete absence of Redfooted Falcons at the Krnjeza River site was probably caused by bad weather conditions and the shift of migration routes because the species was common in the area in May 2010 (Basrek & Ðud 2010). Overall, the present data are very similar to the results of studies on raptor migration in the central Mediterranean (Panuccio et al. 2004, Denac 2010). Although bottlenecks for the spring migration of raptors have

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

been recognized in southern Italy (Strait of Messina; Corso 2001) and in Slovenia (Breginjski Stol; Denac 2010), no such site was ever recognized in the Eastern Adriatic region. Only Schneider-Jacoby (2001) highlights Lastovo Island (Dalmatia) as a potential bottleneck during autumn migration of European Honey Buzzard. Hence, the present study at two sites in Dalmatia supports anecdotal evidence that raptors pass the Adriatic Sea in a broad migration front, probably using off-shore islands along the Dalmatian coast for thermal soaring and as stopover sites. At Omiška two distinct waves of migrating raptors were noted during the day (Fig. 3). With the nearest distance between the Dalmatian and Italian coast of approximately 170 km, this may be easily explained if the ﬁrst wave in the morning consisted of birds that had spent the previous night on one of the islands off the Dalmatian coast - the furthest island from both observation points is 70 km away. 183

RAPTOR MIGRATION IN DALMATIA

While the second wave in the afternoon may have consisted of birds that crossed the Adriatic Sea on the same day. At the Krnjeza River site only the first wave of European Honey Buzzard was observed in the morning, but the low numbers and the very rainy spring, in 2014, hinder reliable conclusions. By evidence, weather conditions had a strong effect on migration. At the Omiška Dinara site the numbers of passing raptors jumped from none during bad weather to more than 50 ind. during nice weather. Hence, the heavily fluctuating numbers of migrating raptors across the study highlights the plausibility of studies in the frame of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) for the construction of wind parks that include only a handful of days for field observation on raptor migration (e.g., Basrek & Ðud 2010).

References Basrek L. & Ðud L. (eds) (2010): Zbornik radova projekta „Istraživanje bioraznolikosti područja rijeke Zrmanje 2010’’. Udruga studenata biologije BIUS & Javna ustanova ‘’Park prirode Velebit’’. (in Croatian) Corso A. (2001): Raptor migration across the Strait of Messina, southern Italy. British Birds 94: 196 - 202. Denac K. (2010): Census of migrating raptors at Breginjski Stol (NW Slovenia) – the first confirmed bottleneck site in Slovenia. Acrocephalus 31 (145/146): 77 − 92. Panuccio M. (2011): Across and around a barrier: migration ecology of raptors in the Mediterranean basin. Scientifica Acta 5, No. 1, EEG 27 - 36. Panuccio M., Agostini N. & Massa B. (2004): Spring raptor migration at Ustica, southern Italy. British Birds 97: 400 - 414. Schneider-Jacoby M. (2001): Lastovo – a new bottleneck site for the migratory Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus? Acrocephalus 22 (108): 163 – 165. 184

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

photo: JÃ¼rgen Schneider - Female Marsh Harrier (Circus aeruginosus)

RAPTOR MIGRATION IN DALMATIA

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

185

photo: Josef Metzger

Male Red-footed Falcon (Falco vesperï¿½nus). 186

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Importance of the IBA Okanj-Rusanda for breeding Red-footed Falcons Falco vesper�nus Milan Ružić1, Draženko Rajković1 1

Bird Protec�on and Study Society of Serbia, Radnička 20a, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia; E-mail: milan.ruzic@p�cesrbije.rs

Summary Results of total censuses of breeding Red-footed Falcons (Falco vespertinus) in Rusanda Park, Serbia, between 2005 and 2015 are presented. The size of the study area was ca. 10 ha. The survey method was total censuses by checking every single tree and all corvid nests in the park for at least ﬁve times between April and July. We analysed data on the number of breeding pairs, historical changes and on the importance of IBA Okanj-Rusanda for Red-footed Falcons on the national level. During 11 years of research between one and 16 pairs were located. Rusanda Park currently harbours ca. 5 % of the national population, thus, representing one of the most important breeding sites for the species in Serbia.

Keywords population size, census, Vojvodina, Serbia, Redfooted Falcon

Introduc�on

Red-footed Falcon (Falco vespertinus) breeds in open lowlands with trees and plenty of insects, on which it feeds, including steppe and forest-steppe, open woodland, cultivation and pastureland with tall hedgerows or fringed by trees, agricultural areas with shelterbelts and, in the north-east of its range, boggy areas and taiga edges. It is usually colonial, but sometimes also solitary (Fig. 1), breeding in abandond or disused nests of other birds (most commonly Rook Corvus frugilegus). It is found from sea-level up to ca. 300 m a.s.l. in the west, but up to 1,500 m a.s.l. in Asia (Ferguson-Lees & Christie 2001).

In Serbia Red-footed Falcon is a rare and geographically restricted breeding species (Puzović et al. 2003, 2009, Ružić et al. 2009, Šćiban et al. 2015). In the past this small raptor has attracted a lot of the attention of many researchers due to its conservation status, and, partially, due to its connection with Rooks, a species which is recently widespread and is nesting in large colonies in Vojvodina (Tucakov et al. 2010). In 2009 a total of 42 International Bird Areas (IBAs) were registered in Serbia, of which 22 sites are located in Vojvodina Province. One of them is Okanj-Rusanda which is situated in the mid-Banat County (Puzović et al. 2009). This paper aims to show the importance of Okanj-Rusanda IBA for its breeding population of Red-footed Falcons on the local and national level.

Methods

Rusanda Park is an approximately 10 ha large wooded area dominated by non-native tree species such as Black Pine (Pinus nigra), Horse Chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum), Siberian Elm (Ulmus pumila), and Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia). The park is currently inhabited by 120 - 150 breeding pairs of Rooks (Šćiban et al. 2010). Since 2007 detailed surveys of the breeding populations of Common Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus), Redfooted Falcon and Long-eared Owl (Asio otus) were conducted annually in Rusanda Spa Park. At the same time these three species were provided with 55 wooden nest-boxes and wicker baskets for nesting (Fig. 2). Every year, during the breeding season (April - July), we visited Rusanda Park for at least 5 times to monitor breeding populations.

„ The colony in Rusanda Park was among the largest breeding colonies of the species in Serbia holding around 9 % of the na�onal popula�on“ ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

187

photo: József Gergely

RED-FOOTED FALCON IN IBA OKANJ-RUSANDA

photo: Milan Ružić & Katarina Paunović

Fig. 1: Adult male and juvenile Red-footed Falcon (Falco vesper�nus), Vojvodina Province, Serbia, May 2011.

Fig. 2: Nest-boxes used for breeding by Long-eared Owl (Asio otus) and Common Kestrel (Falco �nnunculus) in Rusanda Park, Vojvodina Province, Serbia.

Results

The ﬁrst breeding attempt of Red-footed Falcons in Rusanda Spa Park was observed in 2005 (Ružić et al. 2009). The breeding population grew gradually until 2010, but afterwards remained more or less stable till 2015 (Tab. 1). Despite large conservation efforts and a number of nest-boxes and baskets provided as artiﬁcial nests, Red-footed Falcons remained faithful

188

to Rook nests. Only in 2014 one, but unsuccessful breeding attempt was recorded in a nest-box. In 2009 a total of 164 - 171 breeding pairs of Redfooted Falcon were counted in 22 colonies in Vojvodina, mostly in Rook breeding colonies in small woodlands and parks (Ružić et al. 2009). The colony in Rusanda Park was among the largest breeding colonies of the species in Serbia holding around 9 % of the total national breeding population.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

RED-FOOTED FALCON IN IBA OKANJ-RUSANDA

Tab. 1: Number of breeding pairs of Red-footed Falcon (Falco vesper�nus) in Rusanda Spa Park, 2005 – 2015.

Year

Number of breedings pairs

Source

2005

Ružić et al. 2009

2006

Ružić et al. 2009

2007

4-5

Ružić et al. 2009

2008

Ružić et al. 2009

2009

Ružić et al. 2009

2010

Šćiban et. al. 2010

2011

own data

2012

own data

2013

12 - 14

own data 2006

2014

12 - 14

own data

2015

13 - 15

own data

Discussion

The first confirmed breeding data for Red-footed Falcons in Serbia come from 1909 from the vicinity of Aleksa Šantić (Fernbach 1912). Surveys of breeding colonies in Vojvodina Province were done in the 1930s (Király 1993, Gergelj et al. 2000). Already in the 1960s Red-footed Falcon became a scarce to rare breeding species in Serbia (Ham & Rašajski 2000). Although Red-footed Falcons were known to breed in Central Serbia (Šumadija area) and near Negotin before 1950 (Matvejev & Vasić 1973, Ham & Rašajski 2000), the breeding distribution was soon restricted to Vojvodina Province. A raptor survey in Serbia, carried out 1977 – 1996, showed that the species was present only in the northern province of Vojvodina, with the majority of the breeding population found along the river Tisza in the north-eastern parts of Banat County (Ham & Rašajski 2000). A specific survey of Red-footed Falcon colonies and nests in Vojvodina was done in 1990 and in 1991 by

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Purger (1995, 1996) and Purger & Mužinić (1997). Repeated surveys were conducted a decade later in 2000 and 2001 (Purger 2008) and a drastic population decline was stated for the period 1988 – 2003 (Puzović et al. 2003; Tab. 2). The most apparent decrease was observed in the northern Banat, the former stronghold of the species. The number of breeding pairs decreased considerably at large breeding colonies such as those near Jazovo, Crna Bara and Banatski Monoštor (Ružić et al. 2009); in some cases complete colonies disappeared (Gergelj 2003). A colony of around 40 pairs of Red-footed Falcon existed in the vicinity of Melenci village in 1989 (Lukač & Lukač 1990). This colony disappeared due to illegal logging in the beginning of the 1990s. Purger (1996, 2008) describes a colony north of Melenci which fully collapsed around 2007. This complies with our data which show the spontaneous colonisation of Rusanda Spa Park after the disappearance of the nearby colony.

189

RED-FOOTED FALCON IN IBA OKANJ-RUSANDA

The destruction of suitable nesting habitats caused by the expansion of agricultural lands or the use of timber is amongst the greatest threats for Redfooted Falcons in Serbia (Ferguson-Lees & Christie 2001). Furthermore, it seems that Red-footed Falcons

are forced to breed closer to and even within human settlements following to the destruction and lack of suitable breeding sites in surrounding agricultural ﬁelds (Ružić et al. 2009).

Tab. 2: Popula�on numbers (breeding pairs) of Red-footed Falcon (Falco vesper�nus) in Serbia, 1977 – 2013.

Period

Number of breedings pairs

Source

1977 - 1979

200 - 300

Ham & Rašajski 2000

1986 - 1988

250 - 350

Ham & Rašajski 2000

1990

208

Purger 1996

1991

124

Purger 1996

1994 - 1996

250 - 336

Ham & Rašajski 2000

2000

145

Purger 2008

2001

Purger 2008

1991 - 2002

250 - 350

Puzović et al. 2003

2000 - 2009

100 - 150

Puzović et al. 2003

2008 - 2013

262 - 335

Puzović et al. 2003

References Ferguson-Lees J. & Christie D. A. (2001): Raptors of the World. Christopher Helm, London. Gergelj J., Tot L. & Frank Z. (2000): Birds of Tisa area from Kanjiža to Novi Bečej. Ciconia 9: 121 – 158 (in Serbian with English summary). Gergelj J. (2003): Distribution, numbers and population trend of Red-footed Falcon Falco vespertinus in Potisje and central Bačka. Ciconia 12: 136 – 141 (in Serbian with English summary).

190

Ham I. & Rašajski J. (2000): Siva vetruška (Falco vespertinus). In: Puzović S. (ed.), Atlas ptica grabljivica Srbije. Zavod za zaštitu prirode Srbije, Beograd, pp. 153 – 158 (in Serbian). Király J. (1993): „Ki nem ismer engem Európában?” Csornai Richárd (1903 – 1984) Tóth Lászlóhoz írt levelei [‘Who does not know me in Europe?’ Letters of Richárd Csornai to László Tóth]. LOGOS graﬁkai műhely, Totovo Selo, pp. 76 (in Hungarian). Lukač Š. & Lukač A. (1990): Some notes on nesting of Red-footed Falcon, Falco vespertinus, in Melenci surrounding. Ciconia 2: 77.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

RED-FOOTED FALCON IN IBA OKANJ-RUSANDA

Matvejev S. D. & Vasić V. (1973): Catalogus Faunae Jugoslaviae, IV/3 Aves. Academia Scientiarum et Artium Slovenica, Ljubljana, 123 pp. Purger J. J. (1995): Breeding success of Red-footed Falcons (Falco vespertinus) in Banat (Voivodina, Yugoslavia) based on the ringing data. Ornis Hungarica 5(1/2): 67 – 68. Purger J. J. (1996): Number and distribution of Red-footed Falcon (Falco vespertinus) nests in Voivodina (Northern Serbia). J. Raptor Research 30(3): 165 – 168. Purger J. J. & Mužinić J. (1997): The breeding distribution and migratory movements of the Redfooted Falcon (Falco vespertinus) in province Voivodina (southern part of Carpatian basin). The Ring 19: 1 – 2. Purger J. J. (2008): Numbers and distribution of Red-footed Falcons (Falco vespertinus) breeding in Voivodina (Northern Serbia): a comparison between 1990 – 1991 and 2000 – 2001. Belgian Journal of Zoology 138(1): 3 – 7. Puzović S., Radišić D., Ružić M., Rajković D., Radaković M., Pantović U., Janković M., Stojnić N., Šćiban M., Tucakov M., Gergelj J., Sekulić G., Agošton A. & Raković M. (2015): Birds of Serbia – breeding population estimates for 2008 – 2013 and population trend estimates for 1980 – 2013. Bird Protection and Study Society of Serbia, Novi Sad (in press).

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

Puzović S., Simić D., Saveljić D., Gergelj J., Tucakov M., Stojnić N., Hulo I., Ham I., Vizi O., Sćiban M., Ružić M., Vučanović M. & Jovanović T. (2003): Birds of Serbia and Montenegro – breeding population estimates and trends: 1990 – 2002. Ciconia 12: 35 – 120 (in Serbian with English summary). Puzović S., Sekulić G., Stojnić N., Grubač B. & Tucakov M. (2009): Data on breeding of Red-footed Falcon Falco vespertinus in some colonies in Bačka and Banat in 2009. Ciconia 18: 122 – 127 (in Serbian with English summary). Ružić M., Rajković D., Gergelj J., Barna, K., Skorić S., Kostin P. & Ronto L. (2009): Data on breeding of Red-footed Falcon Falco vespertinus in some colonies in Bačka and Banat in 2009. Ciconia 18: 122 – 127 (in Serbian with English summary). Šćiban M., Ružić M., Radišić D., Rajković D. & Janković M. (2010): An overview of bird fauna of the Lake Rusanda. Ciconia 19: 12 - 32 (in Serbian with English summary). Šćiban M., Rajković D., Radišić D., Vasić V. & Pantović U. (2015): Birds of Serbia – critical list of species. Institute for Nature Conservation of Vojvodina Province and Bird Protection and Study Society of Serbia (in Serbian with English summary). Tucakov M., Radišić D., Šćiban M., Ružić M., Janković M., Hulo I., Horvat F., Sekereš O., Hardi B., Žuljević A., Mere T., Ðapić D., Rajković D., Agošton A., Vig L., Balog I., Ham I., Gergelj J., Barna K. & Medveđ A. (2010): Numbers and distribution of Rook Corvus frugilegus colonies in Bačka. Ciconia 19: 110 – 116 (in Serbian with English summary).

191

photo: Dietmar Nill

European Roller (Coracias garrulus). 192

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

The recovery of the European Roller Coracias garrulus popula�on in Vojvodina Province, Serbia Milan Milan Ružić1, O�o Szekeres², A�la Ágoston³, István Balog⁴, Boris Brdarić⁵, József Gergely1, Dejan Đapić1, Ivan Đorđević1, István Hám⁶, Ferenc Márton², Uroš Pantović1, Dimitrije Radišić1, Draženko Rajković1, Mirjana Rankov³, József Sihelnik⁷, Silvija Šimončik1, Irenke Szekeres², Levente Szekeres², Anita Sučić⁵, Marko Tucakov1, Norbert Vida², Tamás Vinkó², Milivoj Vučanović⁸ Bird Protec�on and Study Society of Serbia, Radnička 20a, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia; E-mail: milan.ruzic@p�cesrbije.rs ² Riparia Associa�on of Environmentalists, Ma�je Korvina 9, 24000 Subo�ca, Serbia; E-mail: otus@�ppnet.rs ³ Eco Center Tisa Novi Kneževac, Srpska 56, 23330 Novi Kneževac, Serbia; E-mail: mirjanarankov@yahoo.com ⁴ Society of Nature Lovers “Falco”, Nikole Pašića 196, 21235 Temerin, Serbia; E-mail: oﬃce@falco.org.rs ⁵ The Associa�on for the Protec�on of Great Bustard, Trg Deve� januar 66, 23305 Mokrin, Serbia; E-mail: udruzenje@velikadroplja.rs ⁶ Local-educa�onal and Environmental Challenge, Vladimira Rolovića 37, 23000 Zrenjanin, Serbia; E-mail: leei.zrenjanin@yahoo.com ⁷ Ecological Society “Arkus”, Školska 2, 24300 Bačka Topola, Serbia; E-mail: mikloscs@yahoo.com ⁸ Naturalists‘ Society “Gea”, Dvorska 28, 26300 Vršac, Serbia; E-mail: geapdvs@hemo.net 1

Summary Due to a constant decline European Roller (Coracias garrulus) became a threatened breeding species in Vojvodina Province, Serbia, in the beginning of the 1980s. Until 2002 the population dropped signiﬁcantly to only 15 – 20 breeding pairs. Between 2003 and 2015 over 400 wooden nest-boxes were placed for the species in suitable habitats. The nest-box scheme helped to recover the European Roller population by increasing to currently 160 - 170 nesting pairs.

Keywords population numbers, population survey, Vojvodina, Serbia, conservation, nest-box scheme, European Roller

Introduc�on

The breeding distribution of the European Roller (Coracias garrulus) extends throughout the temperate, steppe and Mediterranean climatic zones from North-west Africa to the western Himalayas (Cramp & Simmons 1988). In the Western Palearctic region breeding populations are highly fragmented and generally declining (Tucker & Heath 1994). The European Roller (following shortly: roller) is a predominantly

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

lowland species which prefers open forests, old parks, riverine forests, orchards, poplar and willow stands for breeding (Fig. 1). In cultivated lands rollers mostly occur in open Mediterranean habitats, in arable lands and improved grasslands, in steppe habitats, agricultural habitats dominated by perennial crops and in pastoral woodlands (Kovacs et al. 2008). As a hole-breeding species rollers mainly nest in the abandoned nest-holes of woodpeckers (especially Green Woodpecker Picus viridis) or natural cavities in oaks (Quercus sp.), pines (especially Pinus sylvestris), White Poplars (Populus alba), less frequently in willows (Salix sp.), Oriental Plane-tree (Platanus orientalis) and in a number of other tree species (Fry & Fry 1999, Butler 2001, Poole 2007). Where suitable trees are lacking they nest in exposed river banks, stone walls, ﬁssured rock-faces and often in loess and sand cliffs, especially at sites where other hole-nesting birds are present. Occasionally rollers also nest in cavities of buildings, and were seldom observed to nest in the cavities of medium-sized voltage pylons as well (Kovacs et al. 2008). Over the past century rollers have become extinct in several western and northern European countries (Avilés et al. 1999, Glutz von Blotzeim & Bauer 1980, Samwald & Štumberger 1997) and the populations of many other countries are seriously threatened (Sosnowksi & Chmielewski 1996, Samwald & Samwald 1989).

193

photo: O�o Szekeres

EUROPEAN ROLLER CONSERVATION IN SERBIA

Fig. 1: Adult European Roller (Coracias garrulus) on its breeding grounds in Vojvodina, Serbia.

As a consequence, the species is currently listed under Annex 1 of the EU Birds Directive (Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds). As the main cause of the roller’s decline the loss of suitable habitats as a consequence of agricultural intensification has been highlighted (Tucker & Heath 1994, Bousquet 1999). Subsequently, in many European countries artificial nest-boxes which can increase population size significantly were installed in areas where natural cavities are scarce (Avilés et al. 1999). A similar project was initiated in Serbia in 2003.

Methods

Wooden nest-boxes for European Rollers were installed in suitable habitats, i.e. in farmland mosaics and natural grasslands, in Vojvodina Province in northern Serbia during the period 2003 – 2015. The region of 21,500 km2 consists of three historical sub-regions (counties): Banat, Bačka and Srem. Nest-boxes were placed on wooden, concrete or metal electricity

194

pylons, on either solitary trees or trees in tree-lines as well as in small woodlands and parks. Nest-boxes were preferably placed at heights between 3 – 6 meters above ground. The ﬁrst nest-boxes were provided in the surroundings of the town of Subotica in the far north of the country, close to the border to Hungary. Since 2007 every year new boxes were placed in southern and eastern Serbia, mainly in Banat County. In 2013 nest-boxes were further installed in northern and north-western Bačka County, while so far only a few nest-boxes were placed in Srem County (Fig. 2). Between 2007 and 2015 the occupation of nestboxes and roller’s breeding performance, in particular brood size, was monitored at least twice during the breeding season from May – July (Fig. 3). Additionally, adults and juvenile birds were ringed with metal and plastic colour-rings.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

EUROPEAN ROLLER CONSERVATION IN SERBIA

Fig. 2: Loca�ons of nest-boxes provided for European Roller (Coracias garrulus) in Vojvodina, northern Serbia, 2007 – 2015. Coloured dots indicate nest-boxes provided and monitored by diﬀerent par�cipants of the roller conserva�on project.

„ While un�l 2007 nest-boxes were provided only in the area around Subo�ca, from 2007 onwards more than 400 nest-boxes were placed in suitable habitats“

„Thus, in just eight years, … following to the ambitious nest-box scheme the breeding population increased from at least 17 to 152 pairs“ ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

195

photos: Dimitrije Radišić

EUROPEAN ROLLER CONSERVATION IN SERBIA

Fig. 3: Since 2007 all nest-boxes are controlled for occupancy and nes�ng success at least twice during the breeding season between May and July. Vojvodina, Serbia, July 2013 & 2014.

Results

First evidence for rollers breeding in a nest-box was found shortly after the ﬁrst boxes were installed in Vojvodina Province in 2003. While until 2007 nestboxes were provided only in the area around Subotica, from 2007 onwards more than 400 nest-boxes were placed in suitable habitats such as arable lands and natural grasslands (alkaline meadows) in many other parts of the country (cf. Methods).

196

A systematic monitoring of nest-box occupancy was conducted in Vojvodina Province between 2007 and 2015. Overall, since the start of the conservation project the number of breeding pairs of European Rollers in Vojvodina Province which breed in artiﬁcial nest-boxes, increased from a single pair in 2013 to 152 in 2015 (Tab. 1). Thus, in just eight years, since 2007, following to the ambitious nest-box scheme the breeding population increased from at least 17 to 152 pairs or for almost the nine-fold of the origi-

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

EUROPEAN ROLLER CONSERVATION IN SERBIA

Tab. 1: Number of breeding pairs of European Rollers (Coracias garrulus) nes�ng in ar�ﬁcial nest-boxes in Vojvodina Province, 2007 – 2015.

Year

Number of breedings pairs in nest-boxes

Annual increase %

2007

2008

200.0

2009

158.8

2010

122.2

2011

145.6

2012

112

116.7

2013

131

117.0

2014

147

112.2

2015

152

103.4

nal population size in 2007. Currently the majority of the roller population in Vojvodina is nesting in nestboxes (Sekereš 2009), although some pairs may use other artiﬁcial or natural nesting substrates (Sekereš 2008). We therefore estimate the current breeding population in Vojvodina at 160 – 170 pairs (Tab. 2).

photo: Dimitrije Radišić

During the last 13 years a minimum of 1,300 chicks ﬂedged from nest-boxes (Fig. 4) and the birds have slowly started to occupy natural nest-holes in remaining trees in feeding areas around nest-boxes. Every year new breeding pairs are found 5 – 15 km to the South and East outside of the previously known breeding range in Vojvodina, indicating relatively high site ﬁdelity in the species.

Fig. 4: Broods of different age of European Roller (Coracias garrulus) in nest-boxes in Vojvodina Province, Serbia, in early July 2013 (con�nued on next page).

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

197

photos: Dimitrije Radišić

EUROPEAN ROLLER CONSERVATION IN SERBIA

Discussion

Across Europe, following a moderate population decline during 1970 – 1990, the European Roller has continued to decline for up to 25 % of its population numbers between 1990 and 2000, including key populations in Turkey and European Russia. Within three generations (15 years) the decline of the European population is estimated to exceed 30 % with particularly severe declines and local extinctions in several central European countries (Kovacs et al. 2008). For Serbia Matvejev (1950) has stated that the European Roller was a common breeding species and that in Vojvodina the species has nested in “holes

198

in the ground” where trees with suitable nest-holes were missing. Rollers were considered to nest regularly in old willow stands along the Tisa River and in mature oak forests around Sombor (Pelle et al. 1977). According to Ham (1977) the breeding population in Vojvodina is stable. But shortly after Ham’s estimate in 1977, Garovnikov & Ham (1980) listed the European Roller as a threatened nesting species in Vojvodina. Following to Kanjo (2002) the species was extinct in western Bačka County in 1984. Also Purger (1998) considered that rollers breed only in Banat County. By that time only a handful of nesting pairs were left in the northern part of Banat County (Matović & Sekereš 2002; cf. Tab. 2). Recently sporadic data on roller breeding sites in Vojvodina were also reported by Purger (2006).

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

EUROPEAN ROLLER CONSERVATION IN SERBIA

Tab. 2: Es�mated numbers of breeding pairs of European Rollers (Coracias garrulus) in Vojvodina Province, 1996 – 2015.

Period

Breeding population size

Source

1996

8 - 11

Matović & Sekereš 2002

1997

10 - 13

Matović & Sekereš 2002

1998

11 - 14

Matović & Sekereš 2002

1999

10 - 13

Matović & Sekereš 2002

1998 - 2002

15 - 20

Puzović et al. 2003

2000 - 2009

60 - 80

Puzović et al. 2003

2012 - 2013

155

Puzović et al. 2003

2015

160 - 170

this paper

In many hole-breeders in which population densities are limited by the availability of natural nest-sites, the installation of artificial nest-boxes can lead to population increases (Avilés et al. 2000). In particular, in southern Spain the installation of nest-boxes for rollers proved to be an efficient method to replace the lack or the loss of natural nesting sites (Avilés et al. 2000), while other studies reported lesser success of nest-box programs (Sosnowski & Chmielewski 1996) or even identified that nest-boxes may serve as ecological traps and reduce the reproductive success of individuals of lower individual quality (Rodríguez-Ruiz et al. 2011). Although in some areas the installation of nest-boxes may simulate an increase of the population by luring formerly unknown breeding pairs to artificial nest-sites, our study shows a clear positive effect of conservation intervention with nest-boxes for European Rollers.

Acknowledgments Parts of the present study were conducted within the framework of the “Conservation management and animal health monitoring of Natura 2000 Bird Species” (HU-SRB 0901/122/120) and “Conservation

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

of the European Roller (Coracias garrulus) in the Carpathian Basin” (LIFE13/NAT/HU/000081) project.

References Avilés J. M., Sanchez J. M., Sanchez A. & Parejo D. (1999): Breeding biology of the Roller Coracias garrulus in farming areas of the southwest Iberian Peninsula. Bird Study 46: 217 – 223. Avilés J. M., Sanchez J. M. & Parejo D. (2000): Nest-site selection and breeding success in the Roller (Coracias garrulus) in the Southwest of the Iberian Peninsula. J. Ornithology 141: 345 – 350. BirdLife International (2015): European Red List of Birds. Ofﬁce for Ofﬁcial Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Bousquet G. (1999): Rollier d’Europe (Coracias garrulus). Oiseaux menacés et à surveiller en France. In: Yeatman-Berthelot D. & Rocamora G. (eds.), Liste rouges et recherche des priorités: Populations, Tendances, Menaces, Conservation. Société d’Études Ornithologiques de France & Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseau, Paris; pp. 260 - 261.

199

EUROPEAN ROLLER CONSERVATION IN SERBIA

Cramp S. & Simmons K. E. L. (1988): The Birds of the Western Palearctic, Vol. V. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Garovnikov B. & Ham I. (1981): Prva “Crvena lista” ptica Vojvodine. Priroda Vojvodine N° VI-VII: 59 – 63. Glutz von Blotzheim U. M. & Bauer K. M. (1980): Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas, Bd. 9. Akademische Verslagsgesellchaft, Wiesbaden. Ham I. (1977): Avifaunal dynamism in Vojvodina. Arhiv bioloških nauka 29 (1/2): 83 − 87 (Serbian, with English summary). Kanjo B. (2002): Last cases of breeding of Roller in western Bačka. Ciconia 11: 149 – 150 (Serbian with English summary). Kovacs A., Barov B., Orhun C. & Gallo-Orsi U. (2008): International Species Action Plan for the European Roller Coracias garrulus garrulus. BirdLife International. Matović Č. & Sekereš O. (2002): Census of breeding pairs of Roller in northeastern Bačka and northern Banat. Ciconia 11: 146 – 149 (Serbian with English summary). Pelle I., Ham I., Rašajski J. & Gavrilov T. (1977): Überblick über Brutvögel der Vojvodina. Larus 29/30: 171 − 197 (Serbian with German summary). Purger J. J. (1998): Observation of Roller (Coracias garrulus) during breeding period in Banat. Ciconia 7: 115 – 116 (Serbian with English summary).

Purger J. J. (2006): Observations of European Roller Coracias garrulus in Bačka and Banat during the nesting period from 2000 to 2006. Ciconia 15: 114 – 115 (Serbian with English summary). Puzović S., Simić D., Saveljić D., Gergelj J., Tucakov M., Stojnić N., Hulo I., Ham I., Vizi O., Šćiban M., Ružić M., Vučanović M. & Jovanović T. (2003): Birds of Serbia and Montenegro – breeding population estimates and trends: 1990 – 2002. Ciconia 12: 35 – 120 (Serbian with English summary). Puzović S., Sekulić G., Stojnić N., Grubač B. & Tucakov M. (2009): Important Bird Areas in Serbia. Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning of Serbia, Belgrade, Institute for Natural Conservation of Serbia, Belgrade, Provincial Secretariat for Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development of Vojvodina, Novi Sad (Serbian). Puzović S., Radišić D., Ružić M., Rajković D., Radaković M., Pantović U., Janković M., Stojnić N., Šćiban M., Tucakov M., Gergelj J., Sekulić G., Agošton A. & Raković M. (2015): Birds of Serbia – breeding population estimates for 2008 – 2013 and population trend estimates for 1980 – 2013. Bird Protection and Study Society of Serbia, Novi Sad (in press). Radaković M., Popović M., Rudić B. & Božinović N. (2011): Observations of European Roller Coracias garrulus in Central Serbia. Ciconia 20: 100 – 101 (Serbian with English summary). Rodríguez-Ruiz J., Avilés J. M. & Parejo D. (2011): The value of nestboxes in the conservation of European Rollers Coracias garrulus in southern Spain. Ibis 153: 735 – 745. Samwald O. & Samwald F. (1989): Die Blauracke (Coracias g. garrulus) in der Steiermark - Bestandsentwicklung, Phänologie, Brutbiologie. Egretta 32: 37 - 57.

200

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

EUROPEAN ROLLER CONSERVATION IN SERBIA

Samwald O. & Štumberger B. (1997): Roller (Coracias garrulus). In: Hagemeijer W. J. M. & Blair M. J. (eds.), The EBCC Atlas of European Breeding Birds: Their Distribution and Abundance. T. & A. D. Poyser, London; pp. 436 – 437.

Sekereš O. (2009): Breeding of European Roller Coracias garrulus in breeding boxes in Vojvodina and factors which cause nest failures. Ciconia 18: 143 – 146 (Serbian with English summary).

Sekereš O. (2008): The nest of European Roller Coracias garrulus in the wall. Ciconia 17: 99 – 100 (Serbian with English summary).

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

photo: Dietmar Nill

Sekereš O. (2003): The ﬁrst case of breeding of Roller in nest-box in northern Bačka. Ciconia 12: 195 – 196 (Serbian with English summary).

Sosnowski J. & Chmielewski S. (1996): Breeding biology of the Roller Coracias garrulus in Puszcza Pilicka Forest (central Poland). Acta Ornithologica 31: 119 – 131.

ADRIATIC FLYWAY - BIRD CONSERVATION ON THE BALKANS

201

ISBN 978-3-00-055897-9