Conservation of imperial eagles by managing [307006]

Licență

Conservation of imperial eagles by managing [307006]

Byadmin ianuarie 1, 2024

[anonimizat] (“The Financial Instrument for the Environment and Climate Action”) is a [anonimizat]-General. [anonimizat] (EASME).

The contents of the publication “LIFE and Wildlife Crime” do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the institutions of the European Union.

Authors: João Pedro Silva (Nature & Biodiversity expert), Justin Toland (Senior editor), [anonimizat]- tingham, and Carla Travagnin ([anonimizat]- tions Team Coordinator). Managing Editor: Jean-Claude Merciol ([anonimizat], LIFE D.4). LIFE Focus series coordination: [anonimizat]-Zamora (LIFE Communications Coordinators), Valerie O’Brien ([anonimizat]- tions Coordinator). Technical assistance: [anonimizat], [anonimizat], [anonimizat], [anonimizat], and Darline Velghe, (NEEMO EEIG). The following people also worked on this issue: Laszlo Becsy ([anonimizat] D.4.), Anita Fassio (EASME, B.3.1 – LIFE), [anonimizat] ([anonimizat]- tection D.3). Production: Monique Braem (NEEMO EEIG). Graphic design: Daniel Kurth (Atelier Kurth) and Anita Cortés (NEEMO EEIG). Photos database: Sophie Brynart (NEEMO EEIG). Acknowledgements: [anonimizat]. Photos: Unless otherwise specified; [anonimizat]. Cover photo: © 2017 – LIFE14 NAT/PT/000855/ Hugo Marques. All rights reserved. [anonimizat].

[anonimizat]. You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: http://europa.eu/contact

On the phone or by email

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service:

by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),

at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or

by electronic mail via: http://europa.eu/contact

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU

Online

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at: http://europa.[anonimizat]: http://bookshop.europa.eu. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see http://europa.eu/contact).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018

The reuse policy of European Commission documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011,

p. 39). [anonimizat].

Foreword

Wildlife crime has a negative impact on biodiversity across the world. [anonimizat], trapping or trade of species is putting the European Union’s bi- odiversity under pressure. In April 2017, the European Commission adopted the “Action Plan for nature, peo- ple and the economy” to improve the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives and boost their contribution towards reaching the EU’s biodiversity targets for 2020.

The European Commission developed a Roadmap to- wards eliminating the illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds. It aims to prevent and tackle wildlife crime in the European Union and therefore ensure compli- ance with the Birds Directive. The Roadmap also sup- ports the recommendations of the Bern Convention and the implementation of the Convention on Migra- tory Species by outlining four areas in which the Eu- ropean Commission can support Member States to enforce the law.

This new publication shows how LIFE projects have al- ready helped contribute to each of the areas identified in the Roadmap: monitoring and data collection, pre- vention, information exchange, training and awareness- raising, and enforcement and legal aspects.

The aim of the brochure LIFE and EU Wildlife Crime is not only to highlight the actions of specific projects in each of these areas, but also to provide a set of les- sons and best practices that will be of use to all those interested in tackling wildlife crime, with a particular focus on illegal killing (poisoning and poaching) of bird species and large carnivores.

The first chapter focuses on issues relating to tagging of protected birds and the building of national and transnational databases of poisoning cases.

The chapter on prevention brings to the fore the ben- efits of poison detection dog units, anti-poison stake- holder networks, innovative technologies, teams of nest guardians and effective awareness-raising cam- paigns. It also touches on poaching of protected fish species, by highlighting good practices such as anti- poaching protocols and alternatives to illegal fishing.

The third chapter looks at the impact of LIFE projects that have helped to train police, customs officers, prosecutors and judges.

The concluding chapter shows how the LIFE pro- gramme is at the forefront of efforts to make the application of law on wildlife crime more consistent across Europe. Regional action plans to tackle illegal poisoning developed with the support of LIFE are now being incorporated into a European action plan by the European Network against Environmental Crime.

This new publication puts the programme’s knowhow in one place and in an engaging format. We hope that you will find it informative and useful.

Humberto Delgado Rosa

Director for Natural Capital DG Environment, European Commission

1

2

EU wildlife crime policy and international agreements 4

LIFE’s role in tackling wildlife crime 8

LIFE and wildlife crime: monitoring and data collection 12 Overview: best practices and lessons learned 12 Towards a European wildlife crime database 14

Satellite tagging gives conservationists and police key data 18

Know your poison 20

LIFE and wildlife crime: Preventing wildlife crime 22

Overview: best practices and lessons learned 22

Dog patrols deter poisoners 24 Building an anti-poison network 25 Preventive technology works 27

Spreading a positive anti-poaching message 30

Publicity aids preventive action 31 Joint action against illegal hunting and fishing 33 Working with fishermen to save the Danube sturgeon 36

LIFE and wildlife crime: Training, information exchange 38

and evidence gathering

Overview: best practices and lessons learned 38

Legal lessons aid Greek wildlife 40 Targeted training helps customs tackle illegal wildlife trade 42 Tackling illegal killing along migratory flyways 44

LIFE’s canine detectives 46

LIFE and wildlife crime: Enforcement and legal aspects 48 Overview: best practices and lessons learned 48 Building the capacity to prosecute wildlife crimes 50

Hungarian police investigations 52

Portugal’s police fight poison crime 53

Spanish bird crime prosecutions have lessons for EU 55

Featured projects 57

List of available LIFE publications 57

EU wildlife crime policy and international agreements

Crimes against wildlife cause significant damage to the environment.

According to WWF,

wildlife crime is the second most significant threat

to biodiversity after habitat loss/degradation1.

These types of illegal activities can be very profitable for the perpetrators, and they are very hard to detect. Wildlife crime often involves a cross- border aspect.

There is no systematic record of wildlife crime across the whole of the EU. How- ever, several recent initiatives (including some funded by the LIFE programme – see pp.10-13) have increased our under- standing of the scale of this problem. For instance, according to the latest (2017) report from the NGO BirdLife, an estimat- ed 36 million birds are killed illegally every year while migrating in the Mediterranean region. This has led to a 30% decline in the population of some species and the com- plete loss of species from some regions (see map above).

Adapted from: THE KILLING 2.0 – A view to kill. BirdLIife 2017

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/species/prob-r lems/illegal_trade/

4

Wildlife crime legislation

Several pieces of EU legislation regulate the illegal killing of wildlife, including the Birds Directive, Habitats Directive and the Environmental Crime Directive2 (see box).

The EU is also a signatory to several in- ternational agreements on wildlife crime, including the Conventions on the Conser- vation of Migratory Species of Wild An- imals (CMS) and on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). By joining CITES, the EU has become a stronger actor in global efforts to protect the environment and prevent illegal trade.

Illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds in the EU

/ The Bern Convention developed the ‘Tunis Action Plan for the eradication of illegal killing, trapping and trade of wild birds’ (Council of Europe 2013). The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS or Bonn Convention) adopted a Resolution in 2014 and estab- lished an ‘Intergovernmental Task Force to address illegal killing, taking and trade of migratory birds in the Mediterranean’ – MIKT (UNEP/CMS 2014), with the support of the Commission. This task force brings together governmental representatives of CMS Parties around the Mediterranean, in- cluding the EU and other interested parties.

The illegal killing, trapping or trade of birds is a widespread problem in the EU, and it has a negative impact on the populations of certain bird species and in specific lo- cations. Thus, it is a barrier to achieving a measurable improvement in the status of species of EU conservation concern. That is an objective of the Birds Directive (see box), the first target of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and a priority of the re- cent Commission’s action plan for nature, people and the economy.

International activity to address this issue has accelerated in recent years. In 2012, the European Commission published a ‘Roadmap towards eliminating illegal kill- ing, trapping and trade of birds’, updated in 2017. This consists of a set of target- ed actions to be carried out by Member States, stakeholders, and the Commission. In addition, two of the major internation- al agreements on species, the Bern Con- vention and Bonn Convention have taken steps to tackle the problem.

Directive 2008/99/EC on the protection of the environment through criminal law

fte Birds Directive

The Birds Directive bans activities that directly threaten birds, such as deliberate killing or capture, the destruction of nests and taking of eggs, and associated activities such as trading

in live or dead birds, with a few exceptions, listed in Annex III of the Directive. The Directive recognises hunting as a legitimate activity and provides a comprehensive system for its management to ensure that this practice is sustainable. This includes a requirement to ensure that birds are not hunted during the periods of their greatest vulnerability, such as the return migration to nesting areas, and the breeding/fledging season. It requires Member States to outlaw all forms of non- selective and large scale killing of birds, with the proviso that

derogations are available to address specific needs in the absence of other satisfactory solutions. It promotes research to underpin the protection, management and use of all species of birds covered by the Directive.

5

fte EU Roadmap

The Roadmap towards eliminating illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds identifies five main domains where the European Commission can act to support Member States:

Raising awareness of the competent authorities and civil society

Funding projects

Co-ordinating efforts at EU level

Processing data provided by Member States in the context of their reporting obligations or Commission enquiries

Initiating legal procedure

The Roadmap does not aim to set up a comprehensive programme to end the illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds. Such a programme can be found in the Bern Convention’s Action Plan. The Roadmap lists a number of possible actions for the Commission and other concerned parties under four categories:

Monitoring and data collection

Information exchange, training and awareness-raising

Enforcement and legal aspects

Prevention

Photo: LIFE10 NAT/HU/000019/MME/Márton Horváth

CITES

International wildlife trafficking

fte international trade in wild animals and plants is worth billions of euros and includes hundreds of millions of plant and animal specimens. fte trade is diverse, ranging from live animals and plants to products derived from them, including foodstuffs, leather goods, timber, and medicines.

fte Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), signed in 1973, aims to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. It accords varying degrees of protection to more than 30 000 species of animals and plants. CITES works by making international trade in specimens of selected species subject to certain con- trols. ftese include a licensing system that requires authorisation for the im- port and (re-)export of species covered by the Convention.

In February 2016, the European Com- mission adopted a Communication on the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking which sets out a comprehensive blueprint for joined- up efforts to fight wildlife crime inside the EU, and for strengthening the EU’s role in the global fight against these illegal activities. fte plan has three main strands – greater enforcement, better cooperation, and more effective prevention. fte Action Plan is to be implemented jointly by the EU (Com- mission services, EEAS, Europol, Eu- rojust) and its Member States by 2020. fte goal is to develop a more strategic approach to checks and the enforce- ment of rules against wildlife traffick- ing at EU level. fte EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking aims as well to step up efforts to ensure imple- mentation of the EU roadmap towards eliminating the illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds.

EU Sustainable Hunting Initiative

To address the long-standing need for an improved dialogue with and between stakeholders, the European Commission launched the Sustainable Hunting Initi- ative in 2001. An important outcome of this initiative was the EC Guide on Hunt- ing under the Birds Directive (2004). This provides clear and comprehensive guid- ance on how Member States should be reflecting the principles laid down in the Birds Directive in their national measures for regulating hunting.

The initiative also instigated a dialogue be- tween the Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU (FACE) and BirdLife International. This led to a joint agreement in 2004 to recognise the value of the Birds Directive for maintaining wild birds (including huntable species) and their habitats in a favourable conservation status at EU level – with application of the Directive being based on the Commission’s Interpretative Guide.

Established in 1977, FACE represents the interests of Europe’s seven million hunters, with members comprising hunting associ- ations from 34 countries.

“FACE has a zero-tolerance policy towards wildlife crime and illegal killing and this is what we promote within our membership,” emphasises Dr David Scallan, the organi- sation’s senior conservation manager.

Hunters and hunting associations can make a key contribution to combating wildlife crime, he argues. “They are the eyes and the ears to what’s happening in the field, so they can play a role in terms of reporting incidents.”

FACE and the European Landowners Or- ganisation (ELO), jointly provide the sec- retariat of the European Parliament inter- group, ‘Biodiversity, Hunting, Countryside’. Set up in 1985, it is one of the oldest and most active parliamentary platforms, gathering the support of 110 MEPs, includ- ing Karl-Heinz Florenz (see box).

Photo: © European Union 2012 PE-EP

Moreover, hunting associations can com- municate effectively on illegal killing. For example, FACE has focused on the killing of birds in the Mediterranean region, work- ing with hunters to condemn illegal activ-

BirdLife and the illegal killing of birds

ities and to cooperate with investigations.

“FACE is a very valuable partner in fight- ing wildlife crime in the EU and has a par- ticular responsibility as well,” says Wouter Langhout, EU Nature Policy Officer BirdLife. “We need them to send out a message of zero tolerance.”

“Our main focus areas [on wildlife crime] are poisoning and the use of poison baits, the traffic of songbirds and the persecution of raptors. Over the past few years, we’ve invested heavily in the monitoring aspect – the characterisation of wildlife crime and its scale,” explains Mr. Langhout.

“We have produced a report on killing, which documents the extent of illegal killing of birds in the Mediterranean. And we have just launched the killing 2.0 cam- paign, which is covering the whole of Eu- rope, as well as some other countries, and these are the best estimates of the num- bers of birds affected by this type of crime: the number of birds killed as well as the species involved,” says Mr Langhout.

“We are also active in the policy around this. We’ve been putting forward formal complaints to the Commission [re: the Birds Directive], and participating in the Roadmap toward the illegal killing of birds

in the meetings that are regularly held between the Commission and the stake- holders on this topic. We are one of the organisations that implements actions on the Roadmap, so we keep an eye on the monitoring – and we give the Commission an overview on what’s happening on the ground. For example, last time we reported to the stakeholders in Europe on the LIFE projects that are working on the illegal kill- ing of birds – and we do that on a run- ning basis. We participate in the meeting to make sure everyone is up to date with what’s happening,” he concludes.

7

LIFE’s role in tackling wildlife crime in the EU

LIFE has played a pivotal role in piloting actions that can help prevent and reduce wildlife

crime across the EU.

The programme has invested more than 70 million euros in over 40 LIFE projects that have targeted illegal activities connected to wildlife.

1

3 2 2

3

7

3 10

3

Number of wildlife crime projects and location (1992-2017)

Number of projects per annex species (Habitats and Birds Directives)

LIFE is the EU’s financial instrument sup- porting environmental, nature conservation and climate action projects throughout the EU. LIFE is the only financial programme under the EU budget solely dedicated to the environment, and in particular to na- ture conservation. Since 1992, LIFE has co-financed more than 1 650 nature and biodiversity projects, mobilising over 2 bil- lion euros for conservation.

Of the 43 LIFE projects that have target- ed illegal activities connected to wildlife, the majority have addressed the problem of poisoning of protected species, in par- ticular birds, such as raptors and vultures, as well as large carnivores. As the figure at the top of page 9 shows, projects have

also targeted other wildlife crimes, such as illegal hunting, trapping and poaching, and species trafficking, with three projects cov- ering all wildlife crimes.

LIFE projects dealing with wildlife crime have been mainly located in southern and central Europe. This is in line with the high- est incidences of wildlife crimes in Europe, according to BirdLife’s Killing 2.0 report. However, several Member States, in par- ticular in central Europe, have yet to have a LIFE project addressing wildlife crime activities. It is worth noting that some pro- jects have implemented trans-border ac- tions, such as the Bulgarian-led Return of the Neophron project, which is also active in Greece (see pp. 25-26 and 46-47).

8

Poisoning

28

Illegal Hunting

6

Trapping and Poaching

4

Wildlife Traﬃcking

2

All wildlife crimes

3

The objective of this publication is to highlight how LIFE is supporting the im- plementation of EU wildlife crime poli- cy. The majority of the featured projects have developed actions that support the EU Roadmap towards eliminating illegal killing, trapping and trade of birds. The actions in the Roadmap are divided into four categories: monitoring and data col- lection; information exchange, training and awareness raising; enforcement and legal aspects; and prevention.

Examples of LIFE project actions

Monitoring and data collection:

Collection of cases (database) and reporting of wildlife crimes

Identifying which species are targeted and types of illegal activities and location

Information exchange, training and awareness raising:

Training of enforcement officers

Training dogs to detect poison baits – some cross-border

Training in evidence collection (poison kits)

Public information campaigns against the illegal use of poison

Enforcement and legal aspects:

Updating/implementation of legislation, fines and sanctions

Training specialised prosecutors in judicial processes

Helping to establish or resource specialised wildlife crime units within police forces

Prevention:

Setting up surveillance zones in collaboration with local hunters’ associations

Awareness-raising, Information exchange and training

53

Monitoring and data collection

29

Enforcement and legal aspects

15

Prevention

12

9

LIFE project actions framework

1.

Monitoring and data collection

2.

Awareness- raising

2.

Information exchange and training

3.

Enforcement and legal aspects

4.

Prevention

The image above shows how LIFE projects can contribute to the integrated approach outlined in the Roadmap. Projects that collect data on illegal activities and access the problem (1.), can lead to actions that range from training to raising awareness (2.) that are combined in preventive actions (4.). Enforcement and legal com- petences (3.) are the responsibility of Member States. However,

some project actions support the implementation of legal aspects, including training police and customs officers to enable them to uphold the law more effectively. The exemplary VENENO NO pro- ject covered all bases from data gathering to support for enforce- ment and prevention (see pp. 20-21 and 55-56).

Key achievements of LIFE wildlife crime projects

Monitoring and data collection with new satellite tagging technologies

Database of incidents (potential to become pan-European)

Anti-poison detection and prevention patrols in almost all EU Mediterranean countries

Anti-poison networks involving hunters and shepherds etc.

Working with technology and people

Getting the media involved – making people aware wildlife crime is a crime

Awareness-raising campaigns across Member States

Specialised awareness raising and training for statutory authorities, police, customs, public prosecutors, environmental lawyers and judges

Strong and clear penalties, more routinely enforced

10

Promoting action plans for birds

fte EuroSAP project is a wide-ranging three-year initiative bringing together 13 partners, led by BirdLife, to tackle the threats to 16 species. fte aim of this LIFE project is to improve conservation measures for these birds by studying their entire lifecycles, migratory routes and survival pressures

– including wildlife crime, which for many of the species represents a major problem.

“fte prime example is the turtle dove (Streptopelia turtur), where the level of illegal killing is extremely high both inside and outside the EU,” says Wouter Langhout, EU Nature Policy Officer BirdLife.

“Vultures are very vulnerable too, because they are susceptible to poison baits and are able to find these baits over a long distance and some of the populations are very fragile. fte population of the Egyptian vulture in Bulgaria is very susceptible to poisoning and that population is very small. Every individual counts at this point.”

He also emphasises that the high number of incidents of poisoning in Spain remains a great concern for BirdLife. fte approach encouraged by the NGO through the LIFE project, however, is to draw up state-of-the-art action plans. “fteir implementation is the responsibility of the EU Member States and the Commission must make sure that this happens,” he adds.

11

1 2 3

Problem:

Poisoning is the most serious threat to many endangered raptors, such as the imperial eagle in Hungary. Knowledge of when, where, how and why cases are happening is essential to reducing this threat to protected bird species.

Solution:

The HELICON project developed a bird crime database for cases of poisoning, shooting and other illegal activities against birds of prey in Hungary. Follow-on project PannonEagle Life is expanding the database to the regional level.

Outcome:

More than 1 000 bird crime cases in Hungary have been entered in the TOTEM database. In 2018, it will be expanded to include data from Austria, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Serbia. “Theoretically it will be possible to collect data from all over Europe in the future,” says project manager, Márton Horváth.

Read more: http://www.imperialeagle.hu/

14

Photo: MME/Márton Horváth

Gathering the data

HELICON developed three wildlife crime protocols, for vets, police, and field investigators. “We also developed a protocol flowchart for use if someone finds a carcass or poisoned bait in the field. By going through all the yes or no possibilities, you can categorise the data. If it is suspected, accidental or illegal poisoning, it will go into the bird crime database,” explains Dr Horváth. “A common case with [accidental poisoning of] eagles, for example, is that hunters still use lead shots and lead accumulation can cause toxicosis.”

The project beneficiary, MME, established an online reporting sheet, and a dedicated telephone number and email address, so anyone could report suspected illegal poisoning. “We ran a hotline, but to be honest there were very few reports from the public,” says Dr Horváth, “but it serves as a good tool for operating the network.”

The hotline is operated by Gábor Deák, who is in the field several times a week as head of the dog unit (see pp. 46-75). This unit can respond quickly to reports, and is a major source of data for illegal poisonings. It is directly linked to the new online database

Building the TOTEM database

The ongoing LIFE project is allowing the IT team at MME’s monitor- ing centre to develop and programme an online database called TOTEM. “This will incorporate all kinds of mortality data on birds, animals, reptiles and amphibians, but it will have a special section on the poisoning issue,” says Dr Horváth.

The Monitoring Centre is harmonising four databases developed by HELICON (eagle nest, eagle monitoring, satellite-tagged birds, and bird crime), along with other MME databases. A key aim is to channel all the data into a bird atlas for Hungary, within the MAP (Madáratlasz Program) database.

New methods of collecting bird crime data are also being explored. “There is an online app that was prepared by our partner BirdLife Austria, so we already have a mobile app for collecting data, and our plan is to connect this with the TOTEM database,” says Dr Horváth.

via a GPS system, which tracks both dog and handler. We get about 50 calls per year from the public, around 10% of the calls, and 90% from the conservation community, hunters or vets,” explains Mr Deák.

A network of around 250 rangers working in Hungary’s national parks, and 300 volunteers taking part in raptor surveys, provide valuable information on wildlife crime. Rangers also have direct contacts with local farmers, so farmers tend to call rangers who then call the MME hotline. Hunters are encouraged to report bird crime through the Hungarian Hunters’ National Chamber, which is a project partner.

By the end of the HELICON project (2012-2016), the bird crime database held 1 023 records, involving 2 350 specimens (includ- ing 252 Imperial eagles). There were 147 recorded cases of bird poisoning (of which, 89 were illegal, 14 accidental, and 44 sus- pected poisonings).

TOTEM (not an acronym, but a play on words for ‘dead animal’) is constructed around three levels of data, explains Dr Horváth. “The first corresponds to a given case, for example, where a perpetrator sets poison in an area and carcasses are found at different loca- tions.” At this level, TOTEM finds all the relevant documents for the given case (e.g. police and court documentation).

“The second level, which we call an event, has an exact date and location,” he continues. The coordinates in the database for events are linked to Google Maps to visualise locations. “In one location, for example, we found three marsh harriers and two ravens. Every single specimen found will then have a file in the third level. For this, we can upload photos, veterinarian documents about single specimens, concentration of poison, and so on.”

16

Toward a European database

TOTEM (totem.mme.hu) brings big advantages in terms of data reporting, compared to Excel. When a new case is added it instantly appears on maps, for example, while summaries can be automatically generated.

The PannonEagle Life team are overcoming the chal- lenges of merging national databases into a regional database. “We have over 1 080 records now for Hun- gary. In every country our partners are collecting data but in different formats, so we would like to put it all together into the same database,” says Dr Horváth. “Our aim is to finalise the Hungarian version of the database and then, in early 2018, start importing data from the other four PannonEagle countries: Austria, Czech Republic, Serbia and Slovakia.”

The Hunters’ Chamber

The Hungarian Hunters’ National Chamber (HHNC) represents some 3 500 members

of the hunting community. Gábor Kovács from the HHNC explains that the Chamber took part in the LIFE project to demonstrate commitment to protecting the imperial eagle.

The project organised sessions during annual hunters’ training days. “The consequences of illegal killings were demonstrated clearly to the audience. In this regard changes in attitude are perceptible,” says Mr Kovács. “There

are many common interests between game management and nature protection,” he adds.

HHNC’s national scale, means that its ecologically-minded members can make a significant contribution to revealing illegal actions, notes Mr Kovács.

Title: Conservation of imperial eagles by managing

human-eagle conflicts in Hungary Beneficiary: MME BirdLife Hungary Contact: Márton Horváth

Email: horvath.marton@mme.hu Website: http://imperialeagle.eu/ Period: 01-Jan-2012 to 31-Dec-2016 Total budget: € 2 100 000

LIFE contribution: € 1 600 000

Satellite tagging gives conservationists and police key data

The LIFE hen harrier project is giving the RSPB the opportunity to carry out its most far-reaching satellite tagging programme to date for monitoring a raptor species.

LIFE co-funding allowed the UK-based NGO to train up and achieve official tagging licences for seven of its team investigating the high mortality rates among juveniles, many of whom are thought to succumb to illegal shootings on grouse moorlands. “The LIFE tagging allows us to find out why they died and help us under- stand if there is something we can do,” says project manager Cathleen Thomas.

While it is calculated that UK habitat could sustain 30 pairs of the hen harrier (Circus cyaneus), just three pairs successfully bred in 2016. Tagging has also revealed new roosting sites, and yielded fresh insights into the raptor’s behaviour.

Tagging data also plays a crucial role in investigations of illegal killing, as it clearly indicates the location of an incident. The RSPB’s investigation team gathers evidence and passes it on to the police wildlife crime officer. Ms Thomas believes that tagging can also be a deterrent given that the proportion of tagged birds is unknown. In 2016, 12 birds were tagged, of which just five were still alive a year later. Clearly, much progress remains to be made, but sat- ellite tagging is proving to be a key tool in the fight against the persecution of hen harriers.

A tagger’s tale

Tagging of birds is not new, but new technology has made it more reliable and improved the quality of data. Tags are also getting smaller, so that more and more bird species can be safely tagged. In the UK, it takes around three years of training to get a licence from the British Ornithological Society to fit a tag. “The reason why it takes that long is that you’ve got to make sure that the tag fits the bird in a particular way, so that it has no impact at all on that bird, when it has left the nest,” says Mark Thomas an Investiga- tions Officer for RSPB in England, who is officially trained to attach satellite tags to larger birds such as raptors.

Ahead of their first tagging, trainees will practice on model birds, “essentially cuddly toys”, which the RSPB produces for this pur- pose, he explains. “The satellite tag [used in the LIFE project] is like

a rucksack that the bird wears on its back, and the straps for the rucksack go under the bird’s wings and fasten in a particular way.”

Methods vary for different species, and larger birds can carry larg- er tags. The female hen harrier is larger than the male, for ex- ample, and the tags on the female birds in the LIFE project were able to transmit data on a daily basis. The male tagged birds were fitted with a smaller device that only sent information every two to three days.

The timing of the fitting of the tag is crucial: the optimum point is one or two days before the juvenile is able to fly, and to make this judgement the researchers visit the nest site several times ahead of the tagging. Once the tag is in place, the research team

18

Photo: Guy Anderson

should immediately start to receive data from the bird. “Some will immediately go long distances; some will stay within the territory of the nest – but you’ll be able to look at the data on the website every day. If it’s a ‘public-facing’ bird, then we’ll start updating our website and tell people where the bird is and what it’s doing.”

If the tag stops transmitting or gives a signal from the same spot, then the team will suspect that something has happened to the bird and will investigate. If it has been illegally shot, then often the tag will have been destroyed and the individual removed. Some-

times shot birds can be recovered, if they are not killed immedi- ately. “Because the data we’re getting is saying that the voltage is decreasing on the tag and there’s no movement, we’ve gone to the location where we’ve last had a signal, ground searched and found the bird,” explains Mr Thomas.

“Last year, we had Rowan and Carol, two birds tagged by the pro- ject, which were found dead but when we’ve gone to the birds and taken them for analysis, they’ve been found to have been shot.”

Campaigning for better enforcement

Transparency is the watchword of the LIFE project. “If these birds are being killed on grouse moors by gamekeepers, which we know is happening, then our absolute duty is to get that information into the public domain,” says Mr Thomas.

“It’s the right of people to know the nature of what’s going on, and then to campaign and to ask for better police enforcement of wildlife crime.” In fact, the police have registered bird of prey persecution as a national wildlife crime priority, identifying hen harriers as a key species.

The project is also protecting nests by making it harder to ap- proach them. While most nesting sites in recent years have been on land that is managed for conservation – and very few on pri- vate grouse moors – individuals are still vulnerable. Males can hunt up to 15 km away from the nest and can thus be “picked off”

on neighbouring estates, acknowledges Mr Thomas. Nevertheless, the tagging is providing a picture of what is happening to these birds that was previously unavailable. “Clearly, we don’t want birds to be killed within six weeks of tagging, but at least the tag tells us that it is happening.”

LIFE13 NAT/UK/000258

Title: LIFE hen harriers Beneficiary: The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Contact: Nick Folkard Email: nick.folkard@rspb.org.uk

Website: http://ww2.rspb.org.uk/our-work/

conservation/henharrierlife/ Period: 01-Jul-2014 to 30-Jun-2019 Total budget: € 2 270 000

LIFE contribution: € 1 135 000

19

Know your

poison

Others Metamidophos Monocrotophs Methiocarb Fenthion Clorphyrifos Bromadiolone Strychnine

Substances

The VENENO NO project collected extensive data on the poisons used to illegally kill birds.

The resulting database is a valuable resource

Endosulfan

Methomyl

Carbofuran

used as poison Aldicarb

in Spain

(2005-2010)

for understanding

and fighting wildlife crime.

The collection of data on poisoning has allowed us to have a very good picture of what is happening in Spain,” says David de la Bo- dega Zugasti, coordinator of the VENENO NO project (2010-2014) and currently coordinator of the European Network against Envi- ronmental Crime (ENEC) at SEO/BirdLife.

A study conducted by the project, covering the years 2005 to 2010, analysed 4 395 specimens of various species killed by poisoned baits in Spain. The literature shows that only around 7% to 10% of poisoned animals are ever found, so SEO/BirdLife estimated that around 45 000 animals could have been killed by poisons in those five years. The specimens included highly-threatened species, such as red kite (Milvus milvus: 297), Spanish Imperial eagle (Aq- uila adalberti: 30) and bearded vulture (Gypaetus barbatus: 13).

The analysis was conducted in collaboration with IRCE (the Spanish Institute for Game and Wildlife Research), which also helped formulate a standardised protocol for toxicological lab- oratories and wildlife rescue centres to use when dealing with illegal poisoning.

The project’s report revealed that over 70 substances were used to prepare poisoned baits. These were mainly phytosanitary products and biocides. The most commonly used were aldicarb (50%) and carbofuran (22%), both of which are banned in the EU (see figure).

A total of 1 694 poison baits were collected, mainly chunks of meat. The project team sometimes found whole carcasses im-

pregnated with poison and used as bait. Common foodstuffs used as bait included bread, eggs and canned fish. Such baits pose a potential danger to people, particularly when laid in parks and oth- er public spaces.

Analysis of the data showed that over 70% of cases were related to poisons being used to eradicate predators competing with game species (e.g. partridges or rabbits). Further cases were associated with beekeeping (8%), stockbreeding (5%), and urban situations (9%) where family pets (dogs and cats) were the main victims.

Investigations, for example of Internet sales, revealed the exist- ence of a black-market trade from stockpiles of banned pesticides that had not been eliminated. The project team concluded that there was a need for stronger controls over the marketing and use of phytosanitary products, to prevent their use in poisoned baits.

“One of the main developments following the project was a Euro- pean Action Plan to Prevent Illegal Poisoning of Wildlife,” says Mr de la Bodega. “This was based on action plans developed under the LIFE project.”

LIFE08 NAT/E/000062

Title: VENENO NO – Action to fight illegal poison use in the natural environment in Spain

Beneficiary: SEO/BirdLife Contact: David de la Bodega Email: ddelabodega@seo.org Website: http://www.venenono.org

Period: 01-Jan-2010 to 30-Mar-2014

Total budget: € 1 672 000

LIFE contribution: € 647 000

20

VENENO NO: an overview

The goal of the VENENO NO (‘No Poison’) project was to reduce illegal use of poison in Spain. It did this by implementing actions recommended by Spain’s national strategy against the illegal use of poisoned bait in

the countryside. This work focused on three pillars: prosecution of the crime; prevention and deterrence; and refining knowledge and information. The major outcomes of the project have been to build capacity to

investigate and prosecute poisoning cases and to place poisoning of protected wildlife firmly on the political agenda in Spain.

Read more on page 36.

Chapter 2

Preventing wildlife crime

7

6 6

5 4

1 3 1

4 2

5

Dog patrols deter poisoners

More than 20 LIFE projects have shown that creating dog patrols to detect poison can be an effective wildlife crime deterrent. Dog patrols have identified poisoning hot spots

and promoted the reporting

of wildlife poisoning

by the public.

Sardinia’s first anti-poison dog unit was created thanks to LIFE Un- der Griffon Wings, a project to conserve the griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus) on the island. The dog unit is a joint initiative of the vet- erinary medicine department of the University of Sassari, which trains and houses the animals, and the regional environmental protection police, which carries out patrols year round, four to six times per month.

“Dog patrols serve not only to find the proofs of poisoning, but also to let the community know that animal poisoning is a crime and that authorities are committed to prosecuting it,” explains project manager Fiammetta Berlinguer, from the University of Sassari. “Before the patrols, the anti-poison dog unit goes to local towns, distributes leaflets and talks to people so that everyone gets to

know the risk of poisoning and is motivated to eventually report it to the authorities.” More cases are being reported and the pro- ject partners plan to continue GPS-tracked inspections for the foreseeable future.

Poison baits are a big problem for the vulture species targeted by the Return of the Neophron project in Greece. Its dog teams work in (rapid) response to calls from the network of stakehold- ers, which it has created. Elzbieta Kret of WWF Greece, is a dog handler, working with the Malinois, Kiko. She explains that the use of dogs is primarily a preventive measure. “When the public sees a dog sniffing for a poison bait, they can see that forest- ry service and the police care about poison,” she says. And this could make them think twice before laying down poison baits.

Dog teams for wolves

The WOLF IN THE ALPS project has set up anti-poisoning teams of four or five dogs and handlers in both the eastern and west- ern parts of the mountain range. This is de- signed to deter would-be poisoners from killing wolves moving back into these parts of the Alps. The new teams work alongside the anti-poaching teams of park rangers or forestry service guards on poisoning cases.

Currently four major investigations are be- ing carried out thanks to the project.

The support of hunters has been crucial. The project engaged hunting districts, which are supported by a guard paid for by the hunters, to cooperate with the dog teams in their evidence-gathering efforts. “In general, hunters are supportive, espe-

cially in areas where the wolves have just come back,” affirms Francesca Marucco, the project’s technical manager.

She also believes that the dog teams have a deterrent effect: “This is the most impor- tant result of all the work,” she concludes.

24

Egyptian vulture (Neophron percnopterus) • Photo: Bogdan Boev

Building an anti-poison network

A LIFE project has got local stakeholders in north- west Greece directly involved in the fight to stop

the illegal use of poison baits. Haritakis Papaioannou of the Hellenic Ornithological Society (HOS)

is coordinator of the Network of Stakeholders against Wildlife Poisoning in Epirus region.

“I come from this place so I have very good connections with peo- ple who live on the mountains,” explains Haritakis Papaioannou. “Maybe if someone from Athens approached them they would not be as successful in getting people to join!”

The network started in 2012 as part of Return of the Neophron, a LIFE project to conserve the Egyptian vulture (Neophron percnop- terus). “Things progressed little by little,” recalls Mr Papaioannou. “Month after month we added more people. Now we have more than 150 members who live in and have connections with the countryside: shepherds, hunters, border police and so on.”

25

A shepherd’s story

George Spanos is a 56-year old farmer who looks after of his family’s flock of 500 sheep. From late autumn to early summer the sheep graze on Konitsa town plain in Epirus, near the border

with Albania. Each summer Mr Spanos hikes three hours with half of the flock to one of the most remote and mountainous areas of Greece, Aoos Gorge in the Vikos Aoos national park.

Mr Spanos has experienced the unintended negative consequences of poison on several occasions. “The last time was around three years ago when five of my shepherd dogs disappeared over the course of six months. I found one and took it to the vet. It had been poisoned with methomyl, probably set down by wild boar trappers.”

“The use of poison in livestock pastures where there are large carnivores – especially brown bears and wolves – is a big problem

for people like me. When you lose shepherd dogs due to baits, especially mature, experienced dogs, it leaves the whole flock vulnerable to predators,” he says.

‘Since the anti-poison network started, there have been fewer poisonings,” says Mr Spanos. He also believes there are fewer people setting poison baits, “however, those that do, sometimes do it repeatedly.”

Mr Spanos says that the anti- poison network is the best opportunity shepherds have to work together to solve this

issue, while also stopping nature becoming poorer year by year. “Who are the best people to protect rare species? People who live and work permanently

in the countryside, like shepherds,” he proclaims.

Cafes and binoculars

Winning the trust of the local community has been crucial to building the anti-poi- son network. This means meeting people on their own terms and at a time that suits them. “Public meetings are not a good method. It is best to go directly to where the people are, for instance to the cafes where they go after milking in the morning or late in the evening,” explains Mr Papaioannou.

In general, the network has been very well received. “Even if people don’t want to participate, they know that poison is a big problem. Almost all the shepherds and half of the hunters have lost at least one dog because of poisoning,” he says.

“We cooperate directly with the local hunt- ing association, the hunting wardens and the regional hunting council. This makes it easier to convince local hunters to take part,” explains Mr Papaioannou.

The Epirus network also includes repre- sentatives of the main statutory authori- ties and local interest groups: “The associ- ation of friends of mushrooms or a village

LIFE’s legacy

Mr Papaioannou says the anti-poison net- work has already had a noticeable impact. “The fact that these people are outside and discuss with each other – one hunter or shepherd to another – this is the most positive impact. There do seem to be fewer and fewer poison incidents.”

hiking club, for instance,” points out Mr Pa- paioannou. Members of the network phone him when they find a suspected poisoned animal. “Some of them discuss with oth- er shepherds, other hunters, so the people who might use poison know local people are watching and wanting to take care of their area,” he adds.

“I tell all the members of the network to call the closest forest authority or police force to attend the suspected incident. Sometimes the agencies cannot attend in person, in which case I go myself and then pass on the details to the forest service or the police,” explains Mr Papaioannou.

One important role played by the network is to demonstrate that effective alterna- tives to poison exist for guarding live- stock. “We gave 27 electric fences and about 60 pairs of binoculars to the most active members of the network,” he says. “When people feel like they belong they feel a duty to participate, give information and help us.”

“Now people know what to do if they find a poisoned animal. Even without us I think the network would continue,” believes Mr Papaioannou. Return of the Neophron has helped Greece’s national anti-poison task force work in a more intense and system- atic way. “Our next goal is to replicate what we have done here in Epirus in the area of Meteora in Thessaly (east-central Greece).”

26

Preventive technology works

Photo: LIFE10 NAT/GR/000638/HOS/ManoliaVougioukalou

Technology is playing a key role in helping to prevent the illegal killing of endangered bird species, thanks to

innovations such as ‘dead body indicators’

and smart patrol systems as well as established technologies

like camera traps.

Johannes Fritz is leading a LIFE project to reintroduce the northern bald ibis (Geron- ticus eremita) to Europe. During the 2017 autumn migration, the project trialled a prototype technology that enables a rapid response to the loss of a tracking signal.

“The most essential thing is to get infor- mation about an accident as soon as possible. Ideally, as soon as it happens. So we came up with the idea of a ‘dead body indicator’, a sensor that recognises that an accident has happened and im-

mediately transmits the position where this accident happened,” explains Dr Fritz, who is founder and head of the Austrian NGO, Waldrappteam.

27

Once the technology is fully established, if the project team receives a signal from a dead body indicator, it can inform its net- work of about 700 volunteers. The goal is to quickly find out what has happened to the bird, ideally within one to one and a half hours of the alert. “They inform the police and hand over the body of the bird, or whatever has to be done,” says Dr Fritz.

Hunters take care

“We spent a lot of energy and money on the development of the dead body indica- tor,” explains Dr Fritz. The idea is to use it not only for the northern bald ibis, but also to equip other migrating birds with this de- vice. And to communicate the fact that this exists within the hunting community, be- cause this substantially increases the risk for the poacher. We invest money in every bird that is released and so we can define the monetary damage that is caused by shooting one: it is between 20 000 and 70 000 euros per bird. If we can identify a hunter who has shot our birds we go for a civil lawsuit to request compensation for this damage. Just communicating this, that we have the ‘dead body indicators’ and that we have this high monetary damage,

Smart Patrol System

In Greece, a project to safeguard the lesser white-fronted goose (Anser erythropus) in its key staging and wintering sites of Ker- kini Lake and the Evros Delta successful- ly combined technology with people in a so-called ‘Smart Patrol System’ (SPS). The three elements that make up the SPS are a ‘remote unit’ (solar-powered surveillance cameras set up in an area of interest); a ‘control centre’ where trained wardens can view and process images from re- mote units; and a ‘mobile unit’ – a 4×4 pa- trol vehicle equipped with VHF, a mount- ed GPS unit and a tablet device with GPS tracker. The mobile unit is in touch with the control centre and can carry out checks in the field.

No recorded mortality

Thanks to the patrol system and concert- ed awareness-raising activities, there was “zero recorded mortality” of the lesser white-fronted goose during the project, says Ms Vougioukalou. “The SPS also re- vealed a number of illegal and/or poten- tially threatening activities – illegal fish- ing, sea food smuggling and uncontrolled tourism – taking place near roosting sites within the protected areas.”

The LIFE project team is working with Ital- ian lawyers and the country’s leading fo- rensic institute on a training package for the volunteers. There is also a separate taskforce organised by the hunters them- selves and managed by the Federazione Italiana dell Caccia, the largest Italian hunting association.

alerts those hunters out in the field who do not follow rules to care and to be more careful regarding illegal bird hunting.”

The dead body indicator is being developed in collaboration with the Max-Planck Insti- tute for Ornithology in Starnberg in Ger- many and other institutions. The current prototype is a discrete unit; the aim is to integrate it with the GPS tracking device.

“The dead body indicators and the volun- tary network should substantially improve the probability that perpetrators are iden- tified and prosecuted. They can help to im- plement the Italian national plan against illegal bird hunting,” says Dr Fritz.

“The remote unit provides a good over- view of any activities taking place at the area of interest day and night,” says pro- ject manager, Manolia Vougioukalou. The SPS is put to use throughout the months when the lesser white-fronted goose is in Greece (October-March). During the course of the LIFE project, around 2 500 checks of hunters were carried out, most of whom were found to be hunting legally for other species.

Although the LIFE project is now complet- ed, the management authorities of Kerki- ni Lake and the Evros Delta National Park are continuing to use the SPS to protect the wintering sites of the lesser-white fronted goose.

Ms Vougioukalou believes that it was the combination of “remote surveillance” and “human presence in the field” that has

I

Deploying camera traps to stop poaching on Sicily

LIFE ConRaSi is an ongoing project dedicated to stopping predation of Bonelli’s eagle, Egyptian vulture and lanner falcon nests on the island of Sicily. In 2017, the project’s partner Coop. Silene installed 28 camera traps across 21 sites. “These basically broadcast the images they take at the nest over the GSM network. A central team receives the images in real time by email,” explains project manager, Gianluca Catullo.

Without additional support

from volunteers, the project’s surveillance camp at Castel di Iudica saw two Bonelli’s eagle chicks successfully fledge in June 2017. “The method works: This was the first year in a long time in which no nest was poached,” says Mr Catullo. “Poachers are aware of the surveillance operation and it has a deterrent effect,” he believes.

made the SPS such a striking success. “It is only with a genuine interest and will to protect biodiversity that any high-tech sys- tem can be utilised to its full potential.”

28

Extra patrols bring benefits for birds in Cyprus

The LIFE-FORBIRDS project, which ended last year, implemented measures to conserve bird species in lowland forest habitats in Cyprus. Actions included a highly visible awareness campaign about illegal trapping and killing of birds that involved TV spots and roadside billboards, as well as activities in schools.

The project team set up a consultation committee to propose measures to address bird crime within three Natura 2000 network sites. One of the most effective of these was to block access to trapping sites and increase the number of patrols by the Game and Fauna Service. This led to a 57% increase in the detection of bird crimes in the protected areas. Monitoring shows a small increase in the number of breeding pairs of three passerine bird species affected by

trapping since the project’s measures were introduced.

29

Spreading a positive anti-poaching message

Organising activities

in schools has proved to be an effective way of raising awareness of wildlife crime, engaging young minds who go

on to spread the

message of respect for protected species.

Engaging with schoolchildren, students and their teachers is also a way of avoid- ing direct confrontation with poachers and the development of a new generation of poachers. Such an approach was exempli- fied by the project, ‘A safe haven for wild- birds’, which was carried out across several Mediterranean countries. In Italy, the pro- ject beneficiary, the Italian bird protection organisation, LIPU, reached around 3 000 students, with some classes joining LIPU volunteers, the Regional Forestry Guards and the Carabinieri in removing traps from the surrounding woods.

The success of the initiative was due to its “positive approach”, explains project leader Umberto Gallo-Orsi. “We didn’t look directly at the poaching issue but tried to highlight the importance of biodiversity, and eventually the problem of poaching comes up.”

For some schools in Sardinia, the “capital” of poaching, which were concerned about allowing the NGO to speak about this is- sue, such an indirect approach was actual- ly necessary. By avoiding “finger pointing”, the project was able “to open the eyes” of

more people, he emphasises. The project held competitions in classes, along with prize-giving ceremonies in the villages with parents in attendance in an attempt to “break this closed-in culture”.

In Greece and Spain, the project produced educational packages that were available online for teachers to download. Those schools in ‘hot spot’ areas of illegal killing were informed of the package.

‘Birdman’ of Bulgaria

The Return of the Neophron project en- gaged teachers in Bulgaria such as Medjnun Angelov, in support of its efforts to conserve the Egyptian vulture (Neophron percnop- terus). He gave presentations to secondary schoolkids as well as establishing an orni- thology club at his own school in Provadia.

The kids proved to be very receptive. “I saw these little sparks in the eyes of the students when I spoke about the symbol

of the town, the Egyptian vulture, and how important it is for the conservation of the environment,” he says.

“I saw a great opportunity to connect conservation and education… I used each and every opportunity to take the chil- dren out in the field so they could under- stand the causes of the species’ decline, both locally and globally.”

One of the children participated in a spe- cial campaign dedicated to vultures and even travelled to the Eastern Rhodopes to learn more about vulture conservation. An- other pupil created a vulture t-shirt, which led Mr Angelov to organise a workshop for others to have a go and earned him the nickname, the ‘Birdman’.

30

Copyright Notice

© Licențiada.org respectă drepturile de proprietate intelectuală și așteaptă ca toți utilizatorii să facă același lucru. Dacă consideri că un conținut de pe site încalcă drepturile tale de autor, te rugăm să trimiți o notificare DMCA.

Acest articol: Conservation of imperial eagles by managing [307006] (ID: 307006)

Dacă considerați că acest conținut vă încalcă drepturile de autor, vă rugăm să depuneți o cerere pe pagina noastră Copyright Takedown.

Conservation of imperial eagles by managing [307006]

Copyright Notice

2019 UNIVERSITATEA „ALEXANDRU IOAN CUZA” DIN IAȘI Facultatea de Psihologie și Științe ale Educației Specializarea: Pedagogia Învățământului Primar și… [603427]

Centru de educa ție și sport pentru persoane cu dizabilități, or. Chișinău Litera. Coli UTM FUA ARH -131 CAPITOLUL I II Construcția Clădirilor Mod…. [607032]

Numele trandafirului [614830]

Tipologia și organizarea [607387]

Ingineria Produselor Alimentare – Cahul Tehnologii speciale de procesare Note de curs semestrul 2 Prof. dr. ing. Mari a TURTOI Galați 201 8 Maria… [613205]

Considerăm mulțimea {1, 2, 3, …, n}. O măsură potrivită pentru aceasta este numărul de elemente – n. Numărul de elemente poate fi însă considerat… [628527]

Copyright Notice

Similar Posts