EU policies successful at protecting rare birds, study finds.
The EU's biodiversity conservation policies have had a positive impact on the populations of endangered birds in Europe, according to new research. The work, which is published in the latest edition of the journal Science, was partly funded within the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) ALARM (Assessing large scale risks for biodiversity with tested methods) project. The EU's Council Directive on the conservation of wild birds (commonly known as the Birds Directive) was passed in 1979. Although its stated goal is the conservation of all birds, species which are either rare, vulnerable or need special conservation measures are listed in Annex I of the legislation, and EU Member States are obliged to take extra measures to improve the conservation status of these species. These measures could include protecting or enhancing these birds' habitats, for example by setting up special protection areas (SPAs). The Directive itself does not set quantitative targets, so the scientists, led by Paul Donald of the UK's Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), developed five criteria which they believed would show whether the legislation had been effective or not. The criteria were: 1 - Within the EU-15, Annex I species should show a greater population increase than non-Annex I species; 2 - Any improvement in Annex I species relative to non-Annex I species should be greater in the EU-15 than in the parts of Europe where the Directive does not apply; 3 - Trends of both Annex I and non-Annex I species should be more positive within the EU-15 than outside it; 4 - Any positive impacts of being an Annex I species should be most apparent in species that have been listed longest; 5 - Finally, there should be a link across countries between the extent to which the Directive's initiatives have been deployed (for example by looking at the proportion of land designated as an SPA) and trends in bird populations. The study revealed that all five expectations had been met, except number three which had been partly met (populations of Annex I species had more positive trends in the EU-15 than outside of it, but non-Annex I species did not). On the fourth point, the scientists note that there is a considerable time lag of over 10 years between policy intervention and a detectable population-level response. 'The data are therefore consistent with the hypothesis that the Birds Directive has brought demonstrable benefits to bird populations in the EU and that international policy intervention can be effective in addressing conservation issues over large geographical areas,' the researchers write. The Eurasian Spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia), White-tailed Eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) and Spanish Imperial Eagle (Aquila adalberti) are examples of this success. Birdlife International believes that without the Birds Directive and the efforts of governments and conservationists to implement it on the ground, these birds would now face a much bleaker future. However, they warn that more needs to be done to monitor the effectiveness of environmental policies. 'Evaluation of the impact of international conservation policy intervention lags far behind that of most other policy fields, largely because of a paucity of data on the response of the species to which intervention is targeted,' they note. The result is that such policies are often exposed to criticism both from the conservation lobby and elsewhere. There is also little scope for improving the policies. To remedy this situation, the authors of the paper suggest that 'simple yet robust' population monitoring be used more widely to monitor the effectiveness of policies. Furthermore, quantitative, measurable targets should be set when the policy is implemented. 'Until policy and monitoring become more integrated, the success of international conservation policies in protecting the planet's biodiversity [...] will be difficult or impossible to quantify,' the scientists conclude. 'The prognosis for biodiversity is grim because this lack of feedback can only serve to weaken international policy intervention at a time of unprecedented loss.' BirdLife International is hoping that this study will boost government efforts to comply with the Birds Directive, especially in the newer Member States of the EU. The organisation warns: 'insufficient designation and protection of sites, lack of funding for site management and unsustainable agriculture all could reverse the successes of the Birds Directive, perpetuating dramatic declines in Europe's wildlife.'