2oi2 Acrocephalus - : letnik 33 številka 154/155 strani 141-336 volume 33 number 154/155 pages 141-336 4 DOPPS BiixlLife INTERNATIONAL Acrocephalus glasilo Dru{tva za opazovanje in prou~evanje ptic Slovenije Impresum / Impresum Journal of DOPPS - BirdLife Slovenia ISSN 0351-2851 Lastnik / Owned by: Izhajanje in naročnina: V letniku izidejo 4 {tevilke. Letna naro~nina Društvo za opazovanje in proučevanje ptic Slovenije (DOPPS - BirdLife za ustanove je 126,00 EUR, za posameznike 50,00 EUR. Slovenia), p.p. 2990, SI-1001 Ljubljana, Slovenija Annual publications and membership subscription (abroad): One Oddaja rokopisov / Manuscript submision: volume comprises 4 numbers. Annual subscription is 126,00 EUR for DOPPS - BirdLife Slovenia, p.p. 2990, SI-1001 Ljubljana, Slovenija institutions and organisations, and 50,00 EUR for individuals. e-mail: luka.bozic@dopps.si Vaš kontakt za naročnino / Your contact for subscription: Glavni urednik / Editor-in-Chief: DOPPS - BirdLife Slovenia (za Acrocephalus) Luka Božič p.p. 2990 e-mail: luka.bozic@dopps.si SI-1001 Ljubljana, Slovenija tel.: +386 1 4265875, fax: +386 1 4251181 Gostujoči uredniki / Guest Editors: e-mail: dopps@dopps.si doc. dr. Al Vrezec (SI) Guy Duke (GB) Poslovni račun: SI5602018-0018257011 dr. Paola Movalli (IT) dr. Andras Kovacs (HU) International Girobank: Nova Ljubljanska banka No. SI5602018-0018257011 Uredniški odbor / Editorial Board: doc. dr. Damijan Denac (SI) Sofinancer / Co-financed by: Javna agencija za knjigo Republike Janez Gregori (SI) Slovenije / Slovenian Book Agency, European Science Foundation / dr. Bojidar Ivanov (BG) Evropska znanstvena fundacija prof. dr. Franc Janžekovič (SI) dr. Primož Kmecl (SI) Revija je indeksirana / the journal is indexed in: dr. Jelena Kralj (HR) AGRICOLA, AQUATIC SCIENCES AND FISHERIES ABSTRACTS, BIOSIS prof. dr. Lovrenc Lipej (SI) PREVIEWS, BOSTAO SPA SERIALS, COBIB, DLIB.SI, ORNITHOLOGICAL dr. Gordan Lukač (HR) WORLDWIDE LITERATURE, ORNITHOLOGISCHE SCHRIFTENSCHAU, Tomaž Mihelič (SI) RAPTOR INFORMATION SYSTEM, ZOOLOGICAL RECORDS dr. Roger H. Pain (GB) dr. Nikolai V. Petkov (BG) prof. dr. Jenö J. Purger (HU) Published by: V E R S 1 T A dr. Peter Sackl (AT) doc. dr. Peter Skoberne (SI) dr. Tomi Trilar (SI) © Revija, vsi v njej objavljeni prispevki, tabele, grafikoni in skice so prof. dr. Peter Trontelj (SI) avtorsko zavarovani. Za rabo, ki jo zakon o avtorskih pravicah Marko Tucakov (RS) izrecno ne dopušča, je potrebno soglasje izdajatelja. To velja posebej doc. dr. Al Vrezec (SI) za razmnoževanje (kopiranje), obdelavo podatkov, prevajanje, shranjevanje na mikrofilme in shranjevanje in obdelavo v Lektor in prevajalec / Language editor and translator: elektronskih sistemih. Dovoljeno je kopiranje za osebno rabo v razi- Henrik Ciglič skavah in študijah, kritiko in v preglednih delih. Mnenje avtorjev ni nujno mnenje uredništva. Oblikovanje / Design: Jasna Andrič Prelom / Typesetting: Tadeja Smrtnik, Camera d.o.o. Tisk / Print: Schwarz d.o.o. Partner: BirdLife International Naklada / Circulation: 1500 izvodov / copies Revijo je omogočil: Grand Hotel Union Ilustracija na naslovnici / Front page: planinski orel / Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos, velika uharica / Eagle Owl Bubo bubo risba / drawing: Jurij Mikuletič Ilustracija v uvodniku / Editorial page: kragulj / Goshawk Accipiter gentilis risba / drawing: Jurij Mikuletič Special issue on a preliminary inventory of monitoring for raptors in europe Posebna številka o preliminarnem pregledu monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Evropi The papers in this special issue of Acrocephalus derive from the workshop "Inventory of existing raptor monitoring in Europe" held in Murcia, Spain, in February 2012, under the auspices of EURAPMON (www.esf.org/ eurapmon and www.eurapmon.net), a European Science Foundation (ESF) "Research Networking Programme" on Research and Monitoring for and with Raptors in Europe. The aim of EURAPMON is to strengthen the contribution of research and monitoring for and with raptors in Europe to delivery of biodiversity, environmental and human health benefits, including maintenance and recovery of raptor populations and their habitats, and reduced chemicals threats to ecosystem and human health. By monitoring for raptors, we refer to monitoring that focuses on raptor populations and trends. By monitoring with raptors, on the other hand, we refer to monitoring which focuses on using raptors to monitor contaminants and other environmental pressures. EURAPMON was launched in May 2010 and will run for 5 years. It builds on a workshop held in Sicily, Italy in October 2006, proceedings of which were published in a Special Issue of Ambio in 2008 (Ambio 37 (6) 2008; http://www. bioone.org/toc/ambi/37/6). EURAPMON participants are drawn from most ESF member countries and from key international organisations, including BirdLife International, MEROS and the Raptor Research Foundation. EURAPMON has access to a significant proportion of leading and emerging expertise and facilities for such work in Europe. EURAPMON's objectives are: (1) to establish a sustainable and resource-efficient Europe-wide network for monitoring for and with raptors, linked to international networks, (2) to establish consensus on Europe-wide priorities for monitoring for and with raptors, based on a comprehensive inventory of existing monitoring and of needs of key users (policy makers, risk assessors, environmental managers), (3) to spread best practices and build capacities in Europe for harmonised monitoring for and with raptors, and (4) to build a web-based database, populated with interoperable data (not raw data) on European raptor populations and (contaminant and other) pressures on raptors in Europe, and to produce European- and EU-scale analytical outputs, which meet priority user needs. The current publication is a key contribution towards preparing the inventory of existing raptor monitoring. The papers herein have been written by National Coordinators appointed by EURAPMON across Europe (most, but not all, countries have National Coordinators). The papers cover the following countries, organised by geographic region: - Southern Europe: Portugal, Spain, Italy, Malta, Greece - Central Europe: Poland, Slovak Republic, Austria, Hungary - Northern Europe: Sweden, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia — Southeastern Europe: Bulgaria, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina - Western Europe: Ireland, Belgium, France, United Kingdom — Eastern Europe (east to the Urals): Russia, Belarus, Georgia Each paper provides an overview of the main players, the extent of national coverage, species monitored, strengths and weaknesses, priorities and capacity-building. An overview paper pulls together the information provided in the individual country papers and draws out key findings in relation to the above questions. The current issue of Acrocephalus provides a first and preliminary overview of the state of monitoring for raptors in Europe. We hope that it will give added stimulus to development of more comprehensive monitoring schemes in European countries and contribute to providing a baseline for development of common pan-European raptor monitoring network for the benefit of raptors and humans, towards delivering the EURAPMON's aim. Acknowledgements EURAPMON is funded by 15 European research academies, governments and non-governmental organisations through the European Science Foundation: Danish Council for Independent Research, Natural Sciences (FNU); Estonian Science Foundation; Academy of Finland Research Council for Biosciences and Environment; Hungarian Academy of Sciences (HAS); Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA); Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea, Directorate General for Nature Protection, Italy; Comune di Castellammare del Golfo, Italy; National Research Fund, Luxembourg (FNR); Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NOW); Research Council of Norway; Society for Wild Animals "Falcon", Poland; Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), Portugal; National University Research Council (CNCSIS), Romania; Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS); Ministry of Science and Innovation (MICINN), Spain; Swedish Research Council (VR); Swedish Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences & Spatial Planning (FORMAS); Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH), UK. We thank Dr Dan Osborn for his constructive support in the early stages of EURAPMON. The proposal for EURAPMON was supported by a European Commission Marie Curie Fellowship to Dr Paola Movalli. We wish to thank Prof Antonio Garcia-Fernandez, Dr Emma Martinez-Lopez and their colleagues at the University of Murcia who were the local organisers of the workshop, the Autonomous Region of Murcia and the Spanish Ministry of Research for workshop co-funding, CEMACAM (the workshop venue), the EURAPMON National Coordinators and their raptor monitoring compatriots who contributed to this publication and all other workshop participants for their valuable contributions. We thank Dr Paola Campus and Marie-Laure Schneider of the European Science Foundation for their support. Special thanks also to Luka Božič, the Editor-inChief of Acrocephalus for his constructive collaboration. *** Prispevki v tej posebni izdaji Acrocephalusa so plod delavnice "Pregled obstoječega monitoringa ptic roparic v Evropi", ki je potekala februarja 2012 v Murciji (Španija) v organizaciji projekta EURAPMON (www.esf. org/eurapmon in www.eurapmon.net) Evropske znanstvene fundacije, ki se posveča raziskavam in monitoringu ptic roparic v Evropi. Namen projekta EURAPMON je povečati prispevek raziskav in monitoringa za in ^ pticami roparicami v Evropi pri zagotavljanju biotske pestrosti ter koristi za okolje in zdravje ljudi, vključno z ohranjanjem in obnavljanjem populacij ptic roparic in njihovih habitatov ter ohranjanjem ekosistemov in varstvom človekovega zdravja zaradi uporabe kemikalij v naravi. Kadar govorimo o monitoringu za ptice roparice, imamo v mislih monitoring, ki se osredotoča na populacije in trende teh ptic, medtem ko monitoring f pticami roparicami pomeni prek monitoringa ptic roparic spremljati stanje v naravi zaradi onesnažil in drugih pritiskov na okolje. Projekt EURAPMON je zaživel maja 2010 in bo trajal pet let. Njegovi zametki so nastali na delavnici, ki je oktobra 2006 potekala na Siciliji, in na osnovi razprav s te delavnice, ki so bile leta 2008 objavljene v posebni številki revije Ambio (Ambio 37 (6) 2008; http://www.bioone.org/toc/ambi/37Z6). Pri projektu EURAPMON združujemo raziskovalce iz večine držav članic Evropske znanstvene fundacije in ključnih mednarodnih organizacij, vključno z organizacijama BirdLife International in MEROS in Raptor Research Foundation iz ZDA. EURAPMON ima odprto pot do pomembnega deleža strokovnega znanja in orodij za takšno delo v Evropi. Cilji projekta EURAPMON so: (1) osnovati trajnostno vseevropsko omrežje z učinkovito uporabo virov za monitoring za in f pticami roparicami, povezano z mednarodnimi omrežji, (2) doseči soglasje o vseevropskih prioritetah za monitoring za in f pticami roparicami, temelječe na celostnem pregledu obstoječega monitoringa in potreb ključnih uporabnikov (oblikovalcev politike, ocenjevalcev tveganj, okoljskih upraviteljev), (3) razširjati primere najboljše prakse in ustvarjati kapacitete v Evropi za usklajen monitoring za in f pticami roparicami, in (4) zgraditi na spletu temelječo bazo podatkov z medsebojno povezljivimi podatki o evropskih populacijah ptic roparic in pritiskih nanje v Evropi (z onesnažili in podobno) ter pripraviti analize na evropski in EU-ravni, ki bodo zadovoljevale prednostne potrebe uporabnikov. Pričujoča publikacija je ključni prispevek k pripravi celostnega pregleda obstoječega monitoringa ptic roparic. Članke so napisali nacionalni koordinatorji, imenovani v okviru projekta EURAPMON po vsej Evropi (nacionalne koordinatorje ima večina držav, ne pa vse). Razprave zadevajo naslednje države (po geografskih regijah): — Južna Evropa: Portugalska, Španija, Italija, Malta, Grčija — Srednja Evropa: Poljska, Slovaška, Avstrija, Madžarska — Severna Evropa: Švedska, Norveška, Finska, Estonija, Latvija — Jugovzhodna Evropa: Bolgarija, Slovenija, Hrvaška, Bosna in Hercegovina — Zahodna Evropa: Irska, Belgija, Francija, Združeno kraljestvo — Vzhodna Evropa (do Urala): Rusija, Belorusija, Gruzija Vsak članek vsebuje pregled glavnih protagonistov, obsega nacionalne pokritosti, vrst ptic roparic, vključenih v monitoring, prednosti in slabosti, prednostnih nalog in krepitev zmogljivosti. Pregledni članek združuje informacije, zbrane v člankih posameznih držav, in povzema ključne ugotovitve glede na gornja vprašanja. Pričujoča številka Acrocephalusa prinaša prvi in predhodni pregled stanja populacijskega monitoringa ptic roparic v Evropi. Ob tem upamo, da bo prinesla dodatno spodbudo za razvoj bolj celostnih shem monitoringa v evropskih državah in prispevala k pripravi izhodišč za razvoj skupnega vseevropskega monitoringa ptic roparic tako v njihovo dobro kot dobro ljudi — k izpolnitvi ciljev, zastavljenih v okviru projekta EURAPMON. Guy Duke Scientific Organiser of Murcia 2012 Workshop, Chair of EURAPMON (20102012), External Expert of EURAPMON (2012-) / znanstveni organizator delavnice Murcia 2012, predsednik EURAPMON-a (2010-2012), EURAPMON-ov zunanji izvedenec (2012-) Andräs KovÄcs Scientific Organiser of Murcia 2012 Workshop, Member of EURAPMON Steering Committee / znanstveni organizator delavnice Murcia 2012, član EURAPMON-ovega projektnega odbora Al Vrezec Chair of EURAPMON (2012-) / predsednik EURAPMON-a (2012-) Paola Movalli Coordinator of EURAPMON (2010-2012), External Expert of EURAPMON (2012-) / koordinatorka EURAPMON-a (2010-2012), EURAPMON-ova zunanja izvedenka (2012-) Overview of raptor monitoring activities in Europe Pregled monitoringa ptic roparic v Evropi Al Vrezec1, Guy Duke2, Andräs KovÄcs3, Pertti Saurola4, Chris Wernham5, Ian Burfield6, Paola Movalli7 & Irena Bertoncelj1 1 National Institute of Biology, Večna pot 111, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, e-mail: al.vrezec@nib.si, irenabertonceljnib@gmail.com 2 Oxford University Centre for the Environment, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QY, United Kingdom, e-mail: guy.duke@skynet.be 3 Koszoru u. 46, H-3300 Eger, Hungary, e-mail: andras.kovacs.ecol@gmail.com 4 Finnish Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 17, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland, e-mail: saurola@cc.helsinki.fi 5 British Trust for Ornithology (Scotland), School of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, Scotland, e-mail: chris.wernham@bto.org 6 BirdLife International, Wellbrook Court, Girton Road, Cambridge CB3 0NA, United Kingdom, e-mail: ian.burfield@birdlife.org 7 Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), VU University, De Boelelaan 1087, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands, e-mail: paola.movalli@skynet.be Despite the key role of raptors (including birds of prey Falconiformes and owls Strigiformes) in ecosystems and their sensitivity to environmental change, a well coordinated, Europe-wide monitoring of raptors is lacking. EURAPMON, a Research Networking Programme of the European Science Foundation, was launched with the aim of establishing a sustainable Europe-wide network for monitoring of raptors. An overview of current monitoring schemes for raptor populations in 28 European countries, as reported by EURAPMON National Coordinators at the workshop in Murcia (Spain) in 2012, showed existing monitoring schemes to be limited to a restricted number of species (mostly diurnal and rare raptor species). The most widely monitored species are the Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos amongst diurnal raptors and the Eagle Owl Bubo bubo amongst owls. Broad coverage of a species range across Europe is reached only for restricted-range species. The key driver for monitoring, which is mostly coordinated by NGOs, is conservation, and the main end users are governmental institutions. International collaboration in the field of monitoring of raptors is mainly regional and not yet pan-European in scale. The involvement of volunteers in raptor monitoring was perceived as the main strength of many schemes, but insufficient manpower and a focus on rare species were recognised as the main weaknesses across Europe as a whole. Among priorities identified for the future development of monitoring schemes are: improvements to national coordination; support to increase the number of volunteers; and assurances of stable funding. Further analysis of EURAPMON questionnaires will identify knowledge gaps, which will steer good practice guidance on survey methodologies; the need for the latter was identified as the main benefit that National Coordinators expect to gain from international networking. Key words: Europe, raptor monitoring scheme, birds of prey, owls, monitoring inventory Ključne besede: Evropa, monitoring ujed in sov, pregled shem monitoringa 1. Introduction As top predators, raptors are key species in ecosystems, for which large positive relationships with overall biodiversity have been shown (Sergio et al. 2005). However, the benefits for conservation science of focussing on raptors can be two-fold (Movalli et al. 2008). First, as top predators they are vulnerable to ecosystem degradation and can respond rapidly to biodiversity loss lower down the food chain (KovÄcs et al. 2008). Second, due to contaminant biomagnification processes, they can act as valuable sentinels of environmental pollution (Helander et al. 2008). Both perspectives are crucial in assessment of the state of ecosystems, since biodiversity loss and contamination have significant environmental, social and economic impacts. Indeed, raptor monitoring can provide relevant information to inform assessment of the effectiveness of EU environmental policy and law aimed at nature conservation and at the prevention of environmental contamination (Duke 2008). Despite this, due to the need for specific survey protocols, raptors are usually poorly covered by more generic common bird censuses (Hardey et al. 2009). Monitoring schemes for raptors are not spread uniformly across Europe, apply diverse methods, and are conducted at quite different scales, from intensive academic research projects to broad-scale volunteer surveys (KovÄcs et al. 2008). There is a need to reinforce national and sub-national initiatives and improve coordination of raptor monitoring at pan-European scale. This applies both to monitoring largely focused on the health of raptor populations themselves (which we subsequently refer to as "monitoring for raptors") and to monitoring largely focused on what raptors can tell us about the environment ("monitoring with raptors"). These issues prompted the initiation of EURAPMON, a recently established Research Networking Programme of the European Science Foundation. Traditionally, only birds of prey (order Falconiformes) were considered as raptors following Hartert's (1912) taxonomic division of order Accipitres. However, following modern discussions over the role of raptorial birds as top predators in ecosystems, and due to their similar predatory habits, owls (order Strigiformes) are often also considered as raptors (e.g. Burfield 2008, Saurola 2008). Thus, birds of prey and owls belong to the same ecological guild, i.e. a group of ecologically similar species exploiting the same environmental resources in a similar way as defined by Root (1967), within which strong competitive and even intraguild predation interactions are described (Carotheres & Jaksic 1984, Sergio et al. 2003, Vrezec & Tome 2004, Sergio & Hiraldo 2008). Some recent views on raptor assemblages define raptors even more broadly, including some passerine groups: shrikes (Laniidae), as indicated by publications in the Journal of Raptor Research; and even some corvids (Corvidae), i.e. Raven Corvus corax (Hardey et al. 2009). In this sense, ecologically based views are actually repeating old taxonomic considerations of raptors as the former order Accipitres, comprising birds of prey, owls and shrikes (Linnaeus 1758). For the purposes of the EURAPMON programme and this paper, however, only top predator species with an apex role in ecosystems are included, which require specific methodological approaches for monitoring: birds of prey (Falconiformes; diurnal raptors) and owls (Strigiformes; mainly nocturnal raptors). The EURAPMON inventory of raptor population monitoring (monitoring for raptors) in Europe was initiated in 2012. The inventory will form the basis of future development of common monitoring approaches, including good practice guidance on survey methodologies and analysis of data. It will assist in setting priorities and is complementary to, and will be used in conjunction with, a similar inventory of with raptor monitoring schemes across Europe (GoMEZ-RAMfREZ et al. submitted) to foster cross-cooperation between these two monitoring communities. A network of National Coordinators has been established for the monitoring for raptors, who have the combined role of facilitating data provision for the inventory and promoting common pan-European raptor monitoring activities. The for raptors monitoring inventory was launched at a workshop held in Murcia, Spain, 7-10 February 2012, organized by EURAPMON to bring together the National Coordinators for the first time to report on the monitoring schemes existing in their countries (EURAPMON 2013). This paper aims to provide an overview of the main insights arising from the National Coordinators' reports, providing a first up to date review of current monitoring activities for raptors across Europe. A further paper will synthesize the results of a subsequent questionnaire survey of those carrying out raptor monitoring across Europe and provide more detail on the particular biological parameters that are monitored, variation in survey methods across Europe and individual species coverage. 2. Material and methods At the workshop held in Murcia in 2012, the appointed National Coordinators each provided a PowerPoint presentation reviewing the current status of monitoring for raptors within their country (available at http://www.eurapmon.net), following this with papers summarising the current state of knowledge (published within this issue of Acrocephalus). The workshop participants were asked to answer a set of standard questions under five topics, covering a range of relevant monitoring issues: (1) Main players — Who are the main actors in monitoring for raptors in your country? — Which are the main countries with which you collaborate, within your region, within Europe and/or globally? — Who are the main users of the data obtained from this monitoring and for what purpose do they use the data? (2) National coverage — Is there any national co-ordination? By whom? — Is there a national network for monitoring for raptors? — How comprehensive or patchy, spatially, is monitoring across the country? (3) Key species and key issues — What are the key species addressed by monitoring for raptors in your country? — What are the key issues (threats) addressed by monitoring for raptors in your country? — For which, if any, of these species and issues might your country most benefit from international networking? (4) Strengths and weaknesses — What are the main strengths and weaknesses of monitoring for raptors in your country? — What are the main gaps (species, regions, threats...) in monitoring for raptors in your country? — Are there specific areas of weakness, or challenges, for which your country might benefit from international sharing of good/best practice? (5) Priorities, capacity-building — What are the priorities to strengthen monitoring for raptors in your country? — What are the main capacity-building needs to strengthen for monitoring for raptors in your country? The responses have been summarized and pooled into groups containing related answers. Some questions were not answered for all countries, so in the analysis we have excluded those countries in which National Coordinators have skipped certain questions. The scale of international collaboration was measured as distances between capital cities of collaborating countries. The scale was estimated by comparing actual collaboration distances with all possible distances between capital cities in Europe, assuming that the latter would reflect a pan-European collaboration scale. Non-parametric and /2 statistical tests have been used whenever needed for numerical evaluation of the data. The known presence of breeding raptor populations in European countries followed BirdLife International (2004), and only for poorly known countries have recent updates been taken into account, e.g. Bosnia and Herzegovina (Kotrošan & Hatibovic 2012). In the paper we deal especially with monitoring of breeding populations and less with migration and wintering monitoring issues, which were less comprehensively covered with the current survey approach. 3. Results and discussion Within this overview we have collected reports of raptor monitoring activity from 28 European countries (in alphabetical order; see also Figure 2): Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom. Surveyed countries comprise 58% of all countries and 83% of the whole territory of Europe covered by EURAPMON (which includes Europe east to the Urals, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey). 3.1. Main players In more than 90% of surveyed countries, monitoring for raptors is conducted by non-governmental organisations (NGOs), such as ornithological societies, BirdLife Partners and other associations (Figure 1 left). However, in 75% of countries, governmental (i.e. ministries, environmental agencies, protected areas administrations) and research institutions (i.e. universities, research institutes, museums) are also involved in running monitoring schemes. In some countries, further monitoring activities are the result of the enthusiasm of individuals, and monitoring is conducted only via private initiatives. The latter monitoring schemes are usually small-scale, but not necessarily short-term. Large-scale, country-wide monitoring schemes usually incur higher costs, such that stable financing is necessary to conduct them in the long-term. For this reason, the needs of users of monitoring data are crucial 3 > o ra o ° 2 & £ (C O ** C W ® "D <£ O 100 -| 90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 Governmental Institutions Research Institutions NGO private initiative 100 n 90-■80706050403020100 Governmental Institutions Research Institutions NGO private companies Main actors / Glavni protagonisti Main users / Glavni uporabniki Figure 1: Main actors conducting monitoring for raptors in Europe (n = 28 countries) and main users of data of monitoring for raptors in Europe by the percentage of the surveyed countries (n = 26 countries). Each country can appear more than once in each graph. Slika 1: Glavni protagonisti monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Evropi (n = 28 držav) in glavni uporabniki podatkov monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Evropi po odstotkih sodelujo~ih držav (n = 26 držav). Vsaka država je lahko upo{tevana ve~ kot enkrat v obeh grafikonih. to consider when setting up monitoring schemes. In 88% of the surveyed European countries, the main identified users of monitoring data are governmental institutions (Figure 1 right), particularly for implementing their international monitoring obligations set by, for example, EU Directives (see an overview in Duke 2008). However, National Coordinators also reported large user needs for monitoring data within NGOs, particularly for assessing species' conservation status and other conservation issues (e.g. Burfield 2008). Research institutions are in general less involved with the analysis and management of monitoring data (Figure 1 right), and this was reported as one of the main weaknesses of monitoring schemes by many National Coordinators (see later). Due to obligations to assess the environmental and biodiversity impacts of development, many private companies are also involved in monitoring activities as both data users and monitoring funders (e.g. to carry out work to assess the impacts of wind farms, power lines etc.), although such monitoring activities are usually undertaken at a local scale only. According to information obtained from National Coordinators, there is some existing network of international collaboration for the monitoring for raptors in Europe, with 102 different contacts reported (Figure 2). Our measure of the scale of this network (measured as distances between capital cities) has shown that this network represents more or less regional, but not pan-European, scale collaboration, with the majority of contacts restricted to neighbouring countries (Figure 3). The current network is significantly (Mann-Whitney U = 26,290, P < 0.0001) limited to short distance collaboration (median distance 680 km, n = 102 connections) compared to potential overall pan-European collaboration (median distance 1,314 km, n = 946 connections; see Figure 3). Long distance collaborations reported usually involved the monitoring of migrating raptors, with collaboration for monitoring of breeding populations less evident. Aside from EURAPMON, there are few existing collaborative initiatives aimed at moving towards pan-European monitoring for raptors: the MEROS programme and initiatives by BirdLife International and the European Bird Census Council (EBCC) are relevant in this respect (KovÄcs et al. 2008). Despite this, some countries reported intercontinental collaboration with South America, Africa and Asia, suggesting some global networking already exists for monitoring for raptors. These global connections were not targeted specifically within the current survey, and are thus probably underestimated in our results. 3.2. National Coverage At least some national coordination of monitoring activity exists in 71% of surveyed countries. Most of the coordination is limited to one or a restricted number of species (43% of surveyed countries), while comprehensive coordination for monitoring Figure 2: The current international collaboration network in Europe for monitoring for raptors, showing reported collaboration contacts between countries. Countries from which data were obtained are shaded grey. Slika 2: Trenutno omrežje mednarodnega sodelovanja v Evropi v okviru monitoringa populacij ptic roparic s sporo~animi stiki sodelovanja med državami. Države, od katerih so bili pridobljeni podatki o monitoringu, so obarvane sivo. of the whole raptor community or of the majority of raptor species within countries is less frequent (36% of surveyed countries). National coordination of monitoring schemes for raptors is mainly confined to NGOs (85% of the countries with reported national coordination). Only in a few countries is the national coordination conducted by research or governmental institutions (Figure 4), for example the comprehensive monitoring scheme (national Raptor Grid) in Finland, which is coordinated by the Finnish Museum of Natural History, University of Helsinki (Saurola 2008). 3.3. Key species Monitoring activity exists for 50 (90%) of the 56 known breeding raptor species in Europe. Among the species monitored in most European countries are the Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos, White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla and Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus (Table 1). Considering species range coverage, the whole European range is monitored for just two species: the Spanish Imperial Eagle A. adalberti and Steppe Eagle A. nipalensis, both of which are range-restricted in Europe to one or two countries only (BirdLife International 2004). The results suggest that for 62% of diurnal raptors, more than half of the species range is monitored in Europe, 0.40 n o > 0.35® Range of distances / Razredi razdalj (km) Figure 3: Range of international collaboration between European countries for monitoring for raptors, measured as distances between capital cities of collaborating countries. Dark columns show the actual collaboration detected, and light columns show the potential for collaboration if all possible connections between countries in Europe were made. The relative count is the proportion of the number of distances within actual or potential collaboration. Slika 3: Razpon mednarodnega sodelovanja med evropskimi državami pri monitoringu populacij ptic roparic, izmerjen z razdaljami med glavnimi mesti sodelujo~ih držav. Temni stolpci prikazujejo dejansko sodelovanje, svetli stolpci pa potencialno sodelovanje, ~e se vzpostavijo vsi možni stiki med državami v Evropi. Relativno {tevilo je delež {tevila razdalj znotraj dejanskega ali potencialnega sodelovanja. Table 1: Monitoring schemes for bird of prey species (Falconiformes) established in Europe (only species breeding in surveyed European countries are shown; according to BirdLife International (2004), Kotrošan & Hatibovi} (2012). The number of countries and estimated percentage of the species range in Europe covered by monitoring schemes as reported in the survey are shown (monitoring coverage of European range is calculated as the percentage of countries with a species population in which monitoring is conducted). Tabela 1: Sheme monitoringa za ujede (Falconiformes), osnovane v Evropi (prikazane so samo vrste, ki gnezdijo v sodelujo~ih evropskih državah; po BirdLife International (2004), Kotrošan & Hatibovic (2012). Tabela prikazuje {tevilo držav in ocenjene odstotke arealov vrst v Evropi, ki jih pokrivajo sheme monitoringa, kot je bilo sporo~eno v popisih (obseg monitoringa v evropskem arealu je izra~unan kot odstotek držav s populacijami vrst, v katerih je bil opravljen ali poteka monitoring). Species / Vrsta No. of countries / Št. držav Monitoring coverage of E Obseg monitoringa v evro Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos 18 75 White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla 17 81 Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 17 68 Montagu's Harrier Circus pygargus 12 50 Kestrel Falco tinnunculus 12 43 Osprey Pandion haliaetus 11 85 Red Kite Milvus milvus 11 61 Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus 10 40 Goshawk Accipiter gentilis 10 37 Buzzard Buteo buteo 10 37 Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila pomarina 9 56 Saker Falcon Falco cherrug 8 73 Black Kite Milvus migrans 8 35 Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus 8 31 Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus 8 30 Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus 7 87 Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca 7 70 Red-footed Falcon Falco vespertinus 7 54 Hobby Falco subbuteo 7 27 Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus 6 67 Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni 6 54 Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus 6 33 Lammergeier Gypaetus barbatus 5 83 Greater Spotted Eagle Aquila clanga 5 71 Black Vulture Aegypius monachus 4 57 Bonelli's Eagle Aquila fasciata 4 57 Merlin Falco columbarius 4 50 Short-toed Eagle Circaetus gallicus 4 22 Eleonora's Falcon Falco eleonorae 3 75 Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus 3 75 Spanish Imperial Eagle Aquila adalberti 2 100 Rough-legged Buzzard Buteo lagopus 2 50 Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus 2 33 Booted Eagle Aquila pennata 2 13 Steppe Eagle Aquila nipalensis 1 100 Black-winged Kite Elanus caeruleus 1 33 Long-legged Buzzard Buteo rufinus 1 14 Pallid Harrier Circus macrourus 0 0 Levant Sparrowhawk Accipiter brevipes 0 0 particularly for threatened species. Species with lower monitoring coverage in Europe are mainly common and widespread species (e.g. Buzzard Buteo buteo, Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus, Goshawk Accipiter gentilis, Sparrowhawk A. nisus) and species breeding predominantly in southern and eastern Europe (e.g. Long-legged Buzzard B. rufinus, Booted Eagle A. pennata, Short-toed Eagle Circaetusgallicus). However, from annually operated breeding bird surveys in 21 European countries, PECBMS (2009) was able to produce population trends at least for some common raptors at the pan-European scale, i.e. Sparrowhawk, Buzzard, Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus, and Kestrel F. tinnunculus. Two species breeding in surveyed countries, Pallid Harrier C. macrourus and Levant Sparrowhawk A. brevipes, are not covered by any reported monitoring scheme. Less comprehensive monitoring of owl populations in Europe is suggested by the lower number of countries conducting owl monitoring as well as by the lower monitoring coverage of European ranges compared to diurnal raptors (median coverage of owls per species is 37%, median coverage of birds of prey per species is 54%; Tables 1 & 2). The most monitored owl species in Europe is the Eagle Owl Bubo bubo, but the highest monitoring coverage of breeding population in Europe is for the Great Grey Owl Strix nebulosa, which has a range restricted to only five Table 2: Owls (Strigiformes) for which monitoring schemes are established in Europe. The number of countries and estimated percentage of the species range in Europe covered by monitoring schemes are shown (monitoring coverage of the European range is calculated as the percentage of countries with a species population in which monitoring is conducted). Tabela 2: Sove (Strigiformes) z obstoje~imi shemami monitoringa v Evropi. Tabela prikazuje {tevilo držav in ocenjene odstotke arealov vrst v Evropi, ki jih pokrivajo sheme monitoringa (obseg monitoringa v evropskem arealu je izra~unan kot odstotek držav s populacijami vrst, v katerih je bil opravljen ali poteka monitoring). Species / Vrsta No. of countries / Št. držav Monitoring coverage of European range / Obseg monitoringa v evropskem arealu (%) Eagle Owl Bubo bubo 15 58 Tawny Owl Strix aluco 10 40 Tengmalm's Owl Aegolius funereus 9 37 Long-eared Owl Asio otus 9 33 Ural Owl Strix uralensis 8 42 Barn Owl Tyto alba 7 29 Pygmy Owl Glaucidium passerinum 6 32 Little Owl Athene noctua 5 23 Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus 5 22 Great Grey Owl Strix nebulosa 4 80 Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus 2 50 Hawk Owl Surnia ulula 2 40 Scops Owl Otus scops 2 12 Governmental Research NGO Institutions Institutions Organisations / Organizacije Figure 4: Organisations involved in national coordination of monitoring activities for raptors in surveyed European countries (n = 20) Slika 4: Organizacije, vklju~ene v nacionalno koordinacijo monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v sodelujo~ih evropskih državah (n = 20) European countries (BirdLife International 2004) and is monitored at least in four of these. Only for 23% of owl species is more than half of the species range reported as monitored in Europe, and other Table 3: Preliminary overview of monitoring of raptor non-breeding populations in Europe, showing the number of surveyed countries which reported migration and/or wintering monitoring Tabela 3: Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij negnezde~ih ptic roparic v Evropi s številom sodelujo~ih držav, ki so poro~ale o monitoringu sele~ih se in/ali prezimujo~ih vrst Species / Vrsta Monitoring Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus Migration Black Kite Milvus migrans Migration Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus Migration Short-toed Eagle Circaetus gallicus Migration Osprey Pandion haliaetus Migration Kestrel Falco tinnunculus Migration Red-footed Falcon Falco vespertinus Migration Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus Migration Black Vulture Aegypius monachus Migration Pallid Harrier Circus macrourus Migration Montagu's Harrier Circus pygargus Migration Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Migration Buzzard Buteo buteo Migration Long-legged Buzzard Buteo rufinus Migration Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni Migration Hobby Falco subbuteo Migration White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla Migration Lammergeier Gypaetus barbatus Migration Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus Migration Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus Migration Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus Migration Levant Sparrowhawk Accipiter brevipes Migration Rough-legged Buzzard Buteo lagopus Migration Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila pomarina Migration Greater Spotted Eagle Aquila clanga Migration Steppe Eagle Aquila nipalensis Migration Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca Migration Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Migration Booted Eagle Aquila pennata Migration Merlin Falco columbarius Migration Eleonora's Falcon Falco eleonorae Migration Saker Falcon Falco cherrug Migration Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Migration Long-eared Owl Asio otus Wintering Black Kite Milvus migrans Wintering Montagu's Harrier Circus pygargus Wintering Red Kite Milvus milvus Wintering White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla Wintering Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus Wintering No. of countries / Št. držav species are monitored to a rather limited extent. The least monitored are Scops Otus scops and Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus, which are the only truly migratory owl species in Europe (Mikkola 1983). Monitoring of non-breeding populations, i.e. monitoring of migration and wintering populations, was less well covered by the current survey. As expected, the most monitored species within migration monitoring schemes is the Honey Buzzard (Table 3), since this species is probably the most = > o ra o >N ft ® (0 O C (0 « "G S O 90 -, 80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 -0 Key issues / Ključni cilji Figure 5: Frequency of key issues of raptor monitoring in Europe as reported by surveyed countries (n = 28) Slika 5: Pogostost klju~nih ciljev pri monitoringu ptic roparic v sodelujo~ih evropskih državah (n = 28) numerous and widespread migrating raptor confined to bottlenecks during migration. The only owl species covered by non-breeding population monitoring is the Long-eared Owl A. otus, for which systematic counting at winter roosting sites is becoming more widespread in some European countries (e.g. Ružic et al. 2010). 3.4. Key issues NGOs (Figure 1 right). In current monitoring schemes for raptors, issues related to research and monitoring with raptors (notably, contaminant monitoring) are rarely addressed. Enhancing contaminant monitoring in raptors could serve to draw greater attention to the value of monitoring raptors. The National Coordinators were asked about the benefits that could accrue to them from international networking. Based on their responses, we have defined 10 main groups of such benefits: (1) international associations (e.g. BirdLife International, EBCC or raptor specific associations), (2) projects and funding, (3) manpower (to support monitoring schemes of international importance with volunteers from abroad), (4) conservation issues (international approach to solving main conservation problems, e.g. creating international pressure on local authorities), (5) threatened species (common approaches and knowledge exchange about monitoring and conservation of target species, e.g. Imperial Eagle, White-tailed Eagle, Saker Falcon F. cherrug, Gyrfalcon F. rusticolus), (6) common trends (comparison of population trends), (7) research, (8) sharing best practice (common monitoring protocols, standardisation of methods, monitoring of threats), (9) migration (bottleneck counts, telemetry studies), and (10) pollution (connected to with raptor monitoring). Best practice and funding were the two most frequently cited benefits of European networking (Figure 6). We have identified 12 key issues that have been addressed by National Coordinators for raptor monitoring schemes in Europe: (1) decision making (conservation and agricultural policy, Natura 2000 site monitoring, Red List/Red Data Book preparation, management plans), (2) defining species population status (including faunistic and atlas projects), (3) reporting (to local, national or EU authorities), (4) research, (5) habitat preservation (monitoring of threats and habitat loss), (6) persecution (hunting, illegal trade, poisoning), (7) mortality (electrocution, wind farms and other sources of increased mortality in raptors), (8) reproduction (monitoring breeding success), (9) migration, (10) wintering populations, (11) education (publicity and public relations), and (12) pollution (connected to with raptor monitoring issues). In the majority of raptor monitoring schemes, issues connected to conservation predominate, e.g. habitat preservation, persecution, mortality, population status, but also decision making policy (Figure 5). These issues are not surprising, since most of the users of monitoring data are governmental institutions and 3 > o ra o >N & ® S S c m ® "D o O 80%) of their national population has been implemented. For 23 species (58%), the coverage of monitoring is limited to several locations (often within borders of given protected area), involving small percentage of national population or/and has started recently. Therefore, they do not satisfy the main purpose of national monitoring programmes, i.e. to draw conclusions about the trend of the species' national population and to support the decision-making process about conservation measures to be applied. Besides the Institute of Ornithology and several ornithological NGOs, which are recognized as main actors for the implementation of raptors monitoring, the State Institute for Nature Protection (SINP) is setting up a framework for the nationwide bird monitoring complying with the legal provisions of the EU Birds Directive and the Natura 2000 network. The highest priority is to improve the coordination between state institutions, scientific and non-governmental organizations involved in raptor conservation with the final aim to develop a national raptor conservation strategy that sets priority target species and standardized monitoring systems. Key words: diurnal raptors, owls, monitoring, Croatia Ključne besede: ujede, sove, monitoring, Hrvaška 1. Introduction The Croatian ornithofauna (399 species) comprises 46 bird species belonging to the orders of Falconi-formes (9 species), Accipitriformes (27 species) and Strigiformes (10 species), of which 40 species are regularly occurring (Tutiš et al. in print). For the purpose of this overview we define monitoring as a systematic, repeated, well-organized collecting of specific, parameterized field data on species aimed at getting data sets enabling to make conclusions about the trend of species population and supporting the decision-making processes about the conservation measures to be applied. Therefore, the set of monitoring parameters should describe not only the status of the object of monitoring (population size, breeding success) but also provide evidence on its trends, as well as pressures and impacts acting towards it. 2. Main players The Croatian Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection is the competent authority for nature protection, performing primarily administrative tasks in the field of nature protection. The State Institute for Nature Protection (SINP) is a governmental organization responsible to carry out expert tasks of nature protection such as organizing and implementing monitoring schemes and preparation of monitoring reports (Narodne novine 2005, 2008 & 2011). Results of monitoring programmes are essential for several SINP tasks: drafting the Croatian Red Data Book of Birds (Tutiš et al. in print), defining priorities for drafting Species Action Plans (Sušic 2010, Grlica 2011) and future Natura 2000 reporting. Protected areas (PA) in Croatia are managed by public institutions (PI). There are 19 PIs responsible for the management of national and nature parks. In addition, 20 PIs on the county level are responsible for the management of other protected areas categories. Several PIs (e.g. Lonjsko polje Nature Park and Paklenica National Park) have recognized raptor monitoring as a measure of efficiency of their management activities (Lukač & Hršak 2005, V. Himapers. comm.). The Institute of Ornithology — Croatian Academy of Science and Arts (IOO) in Zagreb is a national scientific institution dedicated to bird research and conservation. During last decade, the IOO has conducted researches and surveys on several diurnal raptor and owl populations and is also running the long-lasting continuous monitoring on Griffon Vultures Gyps fulvus in cooperation with the Eco-Center Caput Insulae — Beli (ECCIB). However, recent raptor field research and survey is also done by ornithologist form several national nongovernmental organizations (NGO) and to some extent by PI employees. The most active NGOs are the Association BIOM (Udruga BIOM), Croatian Ornithological Society (COS, Hrvatsko ornitološko društvo), Croatian Society for Birds and Nature Protection (CSPBN, Hrvatsko društvo za zaštitu ptica i prirode), ECCIB and the Natural History Society "Drava" (NHSD, Prirodoslovno društvo Drava). Parts of the monitoring data are published in scientific journals (Mikuška 2009, Radovic & Mikuška 2009A & 2009B). Transboundary cooperation for raptor monitoring and protection is being realized on several levels. Formal collaboration for the protection of the White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla was recently realized within the "DANUBEPARKS" project (http:// danubeparks.org). The Action plan and the joint data base for Danube White-tailed Eagle populations are being prepared with the cooperation of Croatian, Hungarian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Slovakian, Austrian and German PA managers and their White-tailed Eagle experts (Probst & Gaborik 2012). There is an informal cooperation of Croatian ornithologists with the Hungarian Ornithological and Nature Conservation Society (MME) for monitoring of the Saker Falcon Falco cherrug. Planning of transboundary protection for the Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos started with DOPPS - BirdLife Slovenia. There is a strong communication between Croatian researchers and conservationists with colleagues from other southeastern European countries, especially between NGOs (Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina). 3. National coverage SINP is responsible for the national coordination of monitoring and closely cooperates with main monitoring actors. However, there is no special national network for raptor monitoring in Croatia. Diurnal raptor species that have small national populations and are breeding colonially on few locations are comprehensively monitored (Appendix 1). The species that have been monitored for a long period (more than 10 years) are the Griffon Vulture (Sušic & Radek 2010) and Eleonora's Falcon F. eleonorae (Scetaric Legan & Piasevoli 2005). National population of the Saker Falcon has been monitored since 2007 (Grlica & Grlica 201 ia), while the Lesser Kestrel F. naumanni has been monitored since the discovery of its breeding site in 2010 (Mikulic et al. 2012). An exception is the White-tailed Eagle that is comprehensively monitored even though being numerous and widespread in floodplains of continental Croatia. In two Nature Parks, Kopački rit and Lonjsko polje, monitoring of this species started in 1999 and 2003, respectively. Monitoring of all 13 breeding raptor species has been performed in Paklenica National Park since 1996 (Lukač 2011) (Appendix 1). Wintering raptors (13 species) are being monitored in continental part of Croatia through simultaneous counts of individuals on several wetland sites, within International Waterbird Census (IWC) scheme (Wetlands International 2013, T. Mikuška pers. comm.). The Golden Eagle was patchily surveyed in several PAs, but in 2012 a comprehensive national monitoring of Golden Eagle has started (Mikulic et. al. 2012) (Appendix 1). Several NGOs are monitoring some species due their own scientific interest or specific commitment. For example, members of the BIOM are monitoring Peregrine Falcon F. peregrinus in the continental part of Croatia and on the island of Mljet; COS monitors Peregrine Falcon on offshore islands and Eagle Owl Bubo bubo in the Neretva River valley. NHSD monitors the abundance indices of several raptor species on the Mura, Drava and Danube rivers (Grlica & Grlica 20iib) (Appendix 1). For owl species, a monitoring protocol for the Ural Strix uralensis, Tawny S. aluco and Tengmalm's Owl Aegolius funereus in two mountain PAs was prepared by the IOO, with surveys being implemented by PA employees (V. TutiŠpers. comm.). In addition, the IOO started Ural Owl monitoring in one proposed Natura 2000 mountain area (Gorski kotar) (V. TutiŠ pers. comm.). Generally, we can conclude that monitoring does not exist for very rare species such as the Booted Eagle A. pennata, for which we are even lacking data on its distribution. Furthermore, comprehensive national monitoring does not exist for common species like the Buzzard Buteo buteo, Kestrel F. tinnunculus, Tawny Owl and Long-eared Owl Asio otus, while some local breeding populations are being long-term monitored only in Paklenica National Park (Lukač 2011) and patchily in eastern Croatia (Grlica & Grlica 2010 & 20IIB). 4. Key species and key issues Endangered raptor species should be recognized as key species considering the need for their conservation. 24 breeding raptors species are listed on the new Croatian Red List (Tutiš et al. in print) (Table 1) and their monitoring is recognized as one of the conservation measures. To date, populations of only seven threatened species have been monitored at the national level, while for other eight species monitoring has been implemented only on one or few sites covering small portion (less than 5%) of its national population (Table 1). Among the non-breeding raptor species, the passage population of Osprey Pandion haliaetus is classified as Near Threatened (NT), wintering population of Greater Spotted Eagle A. clanga as Critically Endangered (CR) and wintering population of Merlin F. columbarius Vulnerable (VU). Only wintering population of the Greater Spotted Eagle is monitored within IWC. For the Griffon Vulture, a variety of threats are monitored like habitat degradation due to land abandonment, number of sheep in the breeding area and the disturbance of breeding pairs by tourist activities. For the White-tailed Eagle, a habitat analysis was executed including data on forest management and forest structures (Radovic & Mikuska 2009A). Other kind of threats affecting raptor species are not quantified due to the lack of reliable data (i.e. poaching, poisoning, and succession of grasslands towards forests). There is no monitoring about the impacts of recently constructed wind farms on birds, as there was no legal obligation for the investors to conduct and finance such kind of Before-After Control-Impacts (BACI). In general, Croatia would benefit from international projects for long distance migrants in order to identify the wintering grounds and migration routes of its raptor populations. For the Saker Falcon and Golden Eagle, transboundary cooperation would improve the level of monitoring of shared populations. The exchange of knowledge about the establishment o g d s is lj d e ce -Q Cp ao m g m g in or m or rv O I of l ric ea pn so ing at $ S3 f ni og M e -I ^ 2 rt 0 u B n o H s -a -a a ti? as -a u. « M -a S O k rt -a s -a -a a S O ■I * a p m ^ a s ~ ^ H iS 'c se m g n pq rt rt H Ü Is O y m yg p* 3 % G g a rt d e o o h s a s ig iS S u u rie H "ä -s f <= rt 8 "ö "« a e o, g MM p a rt ^ S T? rt Ö rt n o B ^ o ^ d U § S3 Jž rt rt s s 3 C o JJ j- of efficient volunteer networks would improve the weak volunteer network in Croatia. The transfer of established monitoring protocols from other countries could facilitate the monitoring of species that are not included in any kind of monitoring yet, but are key species like the Lesser Spotted Eagle A. pomarina. 5. Strengths and weaknesses Although there is more than a century long continuum ofornithology in Croatia, it has been restricted to a small community of scientists and there has not been any development of amateur ornithological organizations until the mid-1980s. However, since Croatia's independence in 1991 and during the EU accession period, several ornithological NGOs have been founded and the community of amateur ornithologists is growing. Bird field guides and other ornithological literature in Croatian language were published. Since its establishment in 2003, the SINP has been developing a national monitoring system, including the drafting of monitoring protocols and building database system for monitoring data management. Today, there is a network of ornithologists engaged in bird conservation that encompasses three sectors: (1) scientific, (2) public institutions managing protected areas, and (3) civil society organizations. PIs have their own conservation management structures and at least some basic capacities (employees, facilities, equipment). The existent nature conservation legal framework (adjusted to EU legal framework, i.e. Birds Directive) makes bird monitoring obligatory for the Republic of Croatia. A formal national network for raptor monitoring, which would include all three above mentioned sectors, could prepare comprehensive strategy of raptor monitoring in Croatia, identify priorities (species, areas) and agree on monitoring system. Most PIs at the county level and PAs were recently established and they are lacking trained staff and experts that would work out conservation strategies or execute monitoring programmes. Funds for raptor monitoring are very restricted both on the county and state levels. Most of the raptor species have never been mapped and basic information regarding nesting sites (position of long-term used eyries), home ranges and migration routes are lacking, what makes it more difficult to integrate amateurs and volunteers into monitoring schemes. Moreover, there is no tradition of volunteer work in Croatia and the current socio-economic situation does not favour actions that rely on pro bono work. Parts of Croatia are inaccessible due to landmines and several hundreds of small island/islets cannot be mapped or monitored due to high transportation costs. A serious gap is the lack of data for migrating raptor birds. There are no identified bottlenecks in Croatia, despite indications that the Croatian coast could be an important flyway for the Red-footed Falcon F. vespertinus (Rucner 1998) and Honey Buzzards Pernis apivorus that cross the Adriatic Sea (Schneider-Jacoby 2001, Premuda et al. 2008). The absence of exact data on distribution and migration routes for most raptor species contributes to poor environmental impact assessments, especially for wind farms that pose a serious threat to raptor species along the coast. In addition, it is nearly impossible to assess the Before-After Control-Impact (BACI) of existing wind farms. International sharing of good practice for solving all the above mentioned issues would improve raptor monitoring and conservation efforts in Croatia. 6. Priorities, capacity-building The highest priority is to improve the coordination between all sectors and stakeholders involved in raptor conservation with the aim to work out a national raptor conservation strategy that agrees on priority target species and on monitoring systems with standardized protocols. In the second step, all PAs and PIs, including those at the county level, should be trained and involved in order to contribute with their resources to raptor monitoring. In addition, the present volunteer network needs to be expanded and improved. The establishment of species specific working groups would bring forward the monitoring system for raptors. 7. Povzetek Čeprav se na Hrvaškem redno pojavlja 40 ptic roparic (ujede in sove), se dolgoročni monitoring (več kot 10 let) pomembnih delov (> 80 %) njihove nacionalne populacije izvaja le za dve vrsti (beloglavi jastreb Gyps fulvus and sredozemski sokol F. eleonorae). Poleg tega je monitoring za 23 vrst (58 %) omejen na nekaj lokacij (pogosto znotraj meja danega zavarovanega območja) in pokriva le majhen odstotek nacionalne populacije in/ali se je začel nedavno. To pa seveda ni dovolj za doseganje glavnega cilja nacionalnih programov monitoringa, se pravi ugotavljanja trenda nacionalnih populacij ptic in podpiranja postopka odločanja glede nujno potrebnih naravovarstvenih ukrepov. Poleg Inštituta za ornitologijo in več ornitoloških nevladnih organizacij, ki jih priznavajo kot glavne protagoniste za uresničevanje monitoringa ptic roparic, Državni zavod za varstvo narave pripravlja okvir za vsedržavni monitoring ptic v skladu s pravnimi določili EU Direktive o pticah in omrežja Natura 2000. Najvišja prioriteta je izboljšati sodelovanje med državnimi institucijami, znanstvenimi in nevladnimi organizacijami, ki so vključene v varovanje ptic roparic, s končnim ciljem razvijanja nacionalne strategije za ohranjanje teh ptic, ki določa prednostne ciljne vrste in standardizirane sisteme monitoringa. 8. References Grlica, I.D. & Grlica, J. (2010): [Monitoring and protection of Saker Falcon. Project Report.] - Natural History Society Drava for Nature Protection Directorate of Croatian Ministry of Culture, Virovitica. (in Croatian) Grlica, I.D. & Grlica, J. (2011A): [Expert analysis for drafting of Saker Falcon (Falco cherrug) Action Plan in Croatia in Period 2012-2016.] - Natural History Society Drava for State Institute for Nature Protection, Virovitica. (in Croatian) Grlica, I.D. & Grlica, J. (2011B): [Monitoring of Sand Martins, Wetland Birds and Raptors on Drava River from Donja Dubrava Accumulation to Drava River mouth into Dunav River. Technical Report.] - Natural History Society Drava for State institute for Nature Protection, Virovitica. (in Croatian) Leskovar, K., Radovic, D., Krnjeta, D., Kršic, D. & Belic, R. (2011): [Monitoring of White-tailed Eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) breeding pairs in Pokupsko Basin in 2004-2011. Technical Report.] - Croatian Ornithological Society for State Institue for Nature Protection, Zagreb. (in Croatian) Lukač, G. (2011): [The birds atlas of the Paklenica National Park.] - Javna ustanova Nacionalni park Paklenica, Starigrad-Paklenica. (in Croatian) Lukač, G. & Hršak, V (2005): Influence of visitor numbers on breeding birds in the Paklenica National Park, Croatia. - Ekologia (Bratislava) 24 (2): 186-199. Lukač, G., Stipčevic, M. & Haupt, R. (2003): Recent observations on the Griffon Vulture (Gyps fulvus) in the Paklenica National Park (Croatia). - Acrocephalus 24 (117): 51-59. Mellone, U., Lopez-Lopez, P., Liminana, R., Piasevoli, G. & Urios, V. (in print): The trans-equatorial loop migration system of Eleonora's falcon: differences in migration patterns between age classes, regions and seasons. - Journal of Avian Biology doi 10.1111/j.1600-048X.2013.00139.x Mikulic, K., Budinski, I. & Lucic, V. (2012A): [Monitoring of Golden Eagle. Technical Report.] - Association BIOM for for State Institute for Nature Protection, Zagreb. (in Croatian) Mikulic, K., Lucic, V. & Budinski, I. (2012B): [Monitoring of Lesser Kestrel. Technical Report.] - Association BIOM for for State Institute for Nature Protection, Zagreb. (in Croatian) Mikulic, K., Basrek, L., Lucic, V. & Budinski, I. (2012c): [Final Report of Monitoring of Forest Birds on Maceljska Gora, Kamena Gora i Čemernica and Peregrine Falcon in Hrvatsko Zagorje.] - Association BIOM for for State Institute for Nature Protection, Zagreb. (in Croatian) Mikuska, T. (2009A): A review of recent knowledge on White-tailed Eagles in Croatia. - Denisia 27: 115-126. Mikuska, T. (2009B): [Monitoring of White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla population in Vukovar-Srijem County. Technical Report.] - Croatian Society for Protection of Birds and Nature, Osijek. (in Croatian) Mikuska, T. (2010): [Monitoring of White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla population in Vukovar-Srijem County. Technical Report.] - Croatian Society for Protection of Birds and Nature, Osijek. (in Croatian) Mikuška, T. & Livak, P. (2010): [Monitoring of population status of the White-tailed Eagle, Ferruginous Duck, Otter and Beaver at Poljana fishpond.] - Croatian Society for Protection of Birds and Nature, Osijek. (in Croatian) Mikuska, T., Šetina, M., Šetina, N., Andric, V. & Hucaljuk, M. (2010): [Monitoring of White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla population in Brod-Posavina County. Technical Report.] - Croatian Society for Protection of Birds and Nature, Osijek. (in Croatian) Mikuska, T., Šetina, M., Šetina, N., Andric, V., Hucaljuk, M. & Pavičic, M. (2012): [Monitoring of White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla population in Brod-Posavina County. Technical Report.] - Croatian Society for Protection of Birds and Nature, Osijek. (in Croatian) Narodne novine (2005): Nature Protection Act (NN 70/05). Narodne novine (2008): Act on Amendments to the Nature Protection Act (NN 139/08). Narodne novine (2011): Act on Amendments to the Nature Protection Act (NN 57/11). Probst, R & Gaborik, A. (eds.) (2012): Action Plan for the conservation of the White-tailed Sea Eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) along the Danube. Nature and Environment 163. - Council of Europe, Strasbourg. Premuda, G., Güstin, M., Pandolfi, M., Sonet, L. & Cento, M. (2008): Spring raptor migration along the Adriatic coast (Italy): a comparative study over three sites. - Avocetta 32: 13-20. Radovic, D. (2010): [Monitoring of selected bird species and important bird areas in 2010 in Mediterranean and Alpine biogeographical region in Croatia. Technical Report.] - Croatian Ornithological Society for State Institute for Nature Protection, Zagreb. (in Croatian) Radovic, A. & Mikuska, T. (2009A): Population size, distribution and habitat selection of the white-tailed eagle Haliaeetus albicilla in the alluvial wetlands of Croatia. - Biologia (Bratislava) 64 (1): 156-164. Radovic, A. & Mikuska, T. (2009B): Testing the effect of persecution and permanent dispersion of sub-adult birds in long-term sustainability of white tailed eagles (Haliaeetus albicilla L.) population at different management options in Croatia. - Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 55 (4): 395-407. Radovic, D. & Ilic, B. (2011): [Monitoring of Eurasian Eagle-owl (Bubo bubo) breeding population in Neretva River Valley in 2010-2011. Technical report.] - Croatian Ornithological Society for State Institute for Nature Protection, Zagreb. (in Croatian) Radovic, D. & Lolic, I. (20iia): [Monitoring of Wintering Birds in Reedbeds of Ornithological Reserve Vransko jezero in 2007-2011. Technical Report.] - Croatian Ornithological Society for State Institute for Nature Protection, Zagreb. (in Croatian) Radovic, D. & Lolic, I. (20iib): [Monitoring of Breeding Birds in Reedbeds of Ornithological Reserve Vransko jezero in 2009-2011. Technical Report.] - Croatian Ornithological Society for State Institute for Nature Protection, Zagreb. (in Croatian) Radovic, D. & Crnkovic, R. (2012): [Monitoring of Yelkouan Shearwater (Puffinus yelkouan), Cory's Shearwater (Calonectris diomedea), Audouin's Gull (Larus audouiini), Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) and Eleonora's Falcon (Falco eleonorae) in Lastovsko otočje Nature Park. Technical report.] - Croatian Ornithological Society for State Institute for Nature Protection, Zagreb. (in Croatian) Rucner, D. (1998): [The birds of Croatian Adriatic coast.] - Hrvatski prirodoslovni muzej & Ministarstvo razvitka i obnove, Zagreb. (in Croatian) Schneider-Jacoby, M. (2001): Lastovo - a new bottleneck site for the migratory Honey Buzzards Pernis apivorus?. -Acrocephalus 22 (108): 163-165. Sušic, G. & Radek, V. (2010): [Action plan for Conservation of the Last Population of Griffon Vulture (Gyps fulvus) in Croatia. Draft.] - Eko-center Caput Insulae - Beli for Nature Protection Directorate of Croatian Ministry of Culture, Beli-Cres. (in Croatian) Šcetaric Legan, V. & Piasevoli, G. (2005): The spread and population dynamic of Eleonora's Falcon (Falco eleonorae Gene 1839) on the Middle Dalmatian Islands (20002004). - Ekoloji 14 (56): 26-29. Tutiš, V., Kralj, J., Radovic, D., Cikovic, D. & Barišic, S. (in print): [Red Data Book of Birds of Croatia.] - Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection & State Institute for Nature Protection, Zagreb. (in Croatian, English summary) Wetlands International (2013): International Waterbird Census Overview 2012. African-Eurasian Region. - [http:// www.wetlands.org/WatchRead/Currentpublications/ tabid/5 6/mod/1570/articleType/ArticleView/ articleId/3424/Default.aspx], 18/5/2013. Arrived / Prispelo: 27. 3. 2013 Accepted / Sprejeto: 1. 7. 2013 APPENDIX 1 / DODATEK 1 An overview of raptor monitoring programmes in Croatia Pregled programov monitoringa za ptice roparice na Hrva{kem Duration - start year of the programme (all species are monitored on annual basis) Geographical scale - national (N), regional (R), local (L) Season - breeding (B), migration (M), wintering (W) Population parameters - wintering population size (individuals) (WP), breeding population size (pairs) (BP), Abundance index (indices) (AI), breeding success (BS), nest monitoring (NM), causes of death (CD), dispersal monitoring (DM) Monitoring methods - simultaneous counts of individuals on several sites within IWC scheme (IWC), territory mapping (TM), nest search (NS), counts of individuals (CI), counting of flying individuals from boat (CFI), nest surveillance (NSUR) * Since 2000 extinct from Paklenica NP ** Initial stage of preparation *** Mapping of hydrological changes in Drava River / water management works Sources: (1) Grlica & Grlica (2010), (2) Grlica & Grlica (2011A), (3) Grlica & Grlica (2011B), (4) Leskovar et. al. (2011), (5) Lukač (2011), (6) Lukač et. al. (2003), (7) Mellone et al. (inpress), (8) Mikulic et. al. (2012A), (9) Mikulic et. al. (2012B), (10) Mikulic et. al. (2012c), (11) Mikuska (2009), (12) Mikuska (2010), (13) Mikuška & Livak (2010), (14) Mikuška et. al. (2010), (15) Mikuška et. al. (2012), (16) Radovic (2010), (17) Radovic & Ilic (2011), (18) Radovic & Lolic (2011A & 2011B), (19) Radovic & Crnkovic (2012), (20) Šcetaric Legan & Piasevolli (2005), (21) Sušic & Radek (2010), (22) T. Mikuška (pers. comm.), (23) V. Tutiš (pers. comm.) Abbreviations: BIOM - Association BIOM (Udruga BIOM); CSPBN - Croatian Society for the Protection of Birds and Nature (Hrvatsko društvo za zaštitu ptica i prirode); COS - Croatian Ornithological Society (Hrvatsko ornitološko društvo); NHSD - Natural History Society "Drava" (Prirodoslovno društvo Drava); IOO -Institute of Ornithology — Croatian Academy of Science and Arts; ECCIB - Eco-Center Caput Insulae — Beli; PI - Public Institution \5 Continuation of Appendix 1 / Nadaljevanje dodatka 1 Researcher and Population Environmental Monitoring Individual Species/ Duration/ Geographical scale/ Organisation/ Season/ parameters/ parameters/ methods/ marking/ Sources/ Vrsta Trajanje Geografski obseg Raziskovalec in Obdobje Populacijski Okoljski Metode Označevanje Viri organizacija parametri parametri monitoringa osebkov Honey Buzzard 1996 L (Paklenica NP) G. Lukač / PI Paklenica NP B BP no TM No 5 Perms apivorus 2008 L (Mura, Drava I.D. Grlica / NHSD B AI *** TM 3 and Danube Rivers) Black Kite 1999 R (Continental T. Mikuska / CS P BN W WP no IWC no 22 Milvus migrans part of Croatia) 2008 L (Mura, Drava I.D. Grlica / NHSD B, M AI *** TM 3 and Danube Rivers) Red Kite 2004 R (Baranya region) T. Mikuska / CS P BN W WP no IWC no 22 Milvus milvus White-tailed Eagle Haliaeettis albicilla 1993 R (Continental T. Mikuska / CSPBN W WP no IWC no 22 part of Croatia) 1998 L (Kopački rit T. Mikuska / CSPBN; B BP, BS yes NSUR yes 22 Nature park) Kopački rit Management office 2003 L (Lonjsko polje Lonjsko polje Management B BP, BS yes NSUR no 22 Nature park) office 2009 L (Vukovar- T. Mikuska / CSPBN; B BP, BS yes NSUR yes 11, 12 Srijem County) Vukovar-Srijem County management office 2010 L (Brod- T. Mikuska / CSPBN; B BP, BS yes NSUR yes 14, 15, 22 Posavina County) Brod-Posavina County management office 2010 L(Požega- T. Mikuska / CSPBN; B BP, BS yes NSUR no 13, 15 Slavonia County) Požega-Slavonia County management office 2004 L(Pokupsko K. Leskovar, D. Radovič/ B BP, BS no TM, NSUR yes 4 depression) COS 2005 L (Mura, Drava I.D. Grlica / NHSD B AI no TM no 3 and Danube Rivers) Continuation of Appendix 1 / Nadaljevanje dodatka 1 Researcher and Population Environmental Monitoring Individual Species/ Duration/ Geographical scale/ Organisation/ Season/ parameters/ parameters/ methods/ marking/ Sources/ Vrsta Trajanje Geografski obseg Raziskovalec in Obdobje Populacijski Okoljski Metode Označevanje Viri organizacija parametri parametri monitoringa osebkov Griffon Vulture I996-99+ L (Paklenica NP) G. Lukač / PI Paklenica NP B BP nest height, TM, NS no 5,6 Gyps fulvus orientation 1990 N G. Sušič / IOO and ECCIB B BP, BS, yes ns metal-rings, 21 CD, DM colour-rings, wingtags, satellite tracking Short-toed Eagle 1996 L (Paklenica NP) G. Lukač / PI Paklenica NP B BP no TM, NS no 5 Circaetus gallicus Marsh Harrier 2007 L (Vransko jezero I. Lolič / COS B, W WP, BP no TM no 18 Circus aerugitiosus ornithological reserve) 1993 R (Continental T. Mikuska / CSPBN W WP no IWC no 22 part of Croatia) 2008 L (Mura, Drava I.D. Grlica / NHSD B, M, W AI *** CI 3 and Danube Rivers) Hen Harrier 1999 R (Continental T. Mikuska / CSPBN W WP no IWC no 22 Circus cyatieus part of Croatia) 2008 L (Mura, Drava I.D. Grlica / NHSD M, W AI *** CI 3 and Danube Rivers) Montagu's Harrier 2005 L (Paklenica NP) G. Lukač / PI Paklenica NP B BP no TM no 5 Circus pygargus (courtship flyghts) Goshawk 1999 R (Continental T. Mikuska / CSPBN W WP no IWC no 22 Accipiter gentilis part of Croatia) 1996 L (Paklenica NP) G. Lukač / PI Paklenica NP B BP no TM no 5 2008 L (Mura, Drava I.D. Grlica /NHSD B AI *** TM no 3 and Danube Rivers) Continuation of Appendix 1 / Nadaljevanje dodatka 1 Researcher and Population Environmental Monitoring Individual Species/ Duration/ Geographical scale/ Organisation/ Season/ parameters/ parameters/ methods/ marking/ Sources/ Vrsta Trajanje Geografski obseg Raziskovalec in Obdobje Populacijski Okoljski Metode Označevanje Viri organizacija parametri parametri monitoringa osebkov Sparrowhawk 1999 R (Continental T. Mikuska / CS P BN W WP no IWC no 22 Accipiter nisus part of Croatia) 1996 L (Paklenica NP) G. Lukač / PI Paklenica NP B BP no TM, NS no 5 2008 L (Mura, Drava I.D. Grlica / NHSD B AI *** TM 3 and Danube Rivers) Buzzard 1999 R (Continental T. Mikuska / CS P BN W WP no IWC no 22 Buteo buteo part of Croatia) 2008 L (Mura, Drava I.D. Grlica / NHSD B AI *** TM 3 and Danube Rivers) 2007 L (Baranja and I.D. Grlica / NHSD B AI no NS (electricity 1 Srijem) pylons) 1996 L (Paklenica NP) G. Lukač / PI Paklenica NP B BP no TM no 5 Rough-legged Buzzard 1999 R (Continental part T. Mikuska / CSPBN W WP no IWC no 22 Buteo lagopus of Croatia) Greater Spotted Eagle 1999 R (Continental part T. Mikuska / CSPBN W WP no IWC no 22 Aqtdla clanga of Croatia) Golden Eagle 1996 L (Paklenica NP) G. Lukač / PI Paklenica NP B BP no TM, NS no 5 Aqtdla chrysaetos 2012 N K. Mikulič, V. Lucič, I. B BP, BS yes TM, NS no 8 Budinski / BIOM Lesser Kestrel 2010 N K. Mikulič., V. Lucič, I. B, M BP, NM yes CFI, NS no 9 Falco naumanni Budinski / BIOM Kestrel 1999 R (Continental part T. Mikuska / CSPBN W WP no IWC no 22 Falco tinnuncid.us of Croatia) 1996 L (Paklenica NP) G. Lukač / PI Paklenica NP B BP no TM, NS no 5 2008 L (Mura, Drava and I.D. Grlica / NHSD B, M, W AI *** TM 3 Danube Rivers) 2007 L (Baranja and I.D. Grlica / NHSD B AI no NS (electricity 1 Srijem) pylons) Continuation of Appendix 1 / Nadaljevanje dodatka 1 Researcher and Population Environmental Monitoring Individual Species/ Duration/ Geographical scale/ Organisation/ Season/ parameters/ parameters/ methods/ marking/ Sources/ Vrsta Trajanje Geografski obseg Raziskovalec in Obdobje Populacijski Okoljski Metode Označevanje Viri organizacija parametri parametri monitoringa osebkov Merlin 1999 R (Continental T. Mikuska / CS P BN W WP no IWC no 22 Falco columbarius part of Croatia) Hobby 2007 L (Baranja and I.D. Grlica / NHSD B Al no NS (electricity 1 Falco subbuteo Srijem) pylons) Eleonora's Falcon 1998 N G vido Piasevolli PI/NGO B BP, NM yes CFI, NS, metal rings, 7, 16, 19, Falco eleonorae Falco & Dalmatian Nature nest camera satellite 20 PI; Vlatka Šcetaric / NGO system (since tracking Eleonora; Ivica Lolič, 2012) on R.Crnkovic / COS; Nature one site Park Lastovsko otočje management office Saker Falcon 2007 N I.D. Grlica / NHSD B BP, BS no NS (electricity metal-rings 2 Falco cheyrug pylons) Peregrine Falcon 1999 R (Continental T. Mikuska / CSPBN W WP no IWC no 22 Falco peregrinus part of Croatia) 2009 R (NW Croatia K. Mikulic, I. Sever, T. B BP, BS no NS colour-rings 10 - Zagorje and Klanfar, V. Lucič / BIOM Zumberak) Scops Owl 1996 L (Paklenica NP) G. Lukač / PI Paklenica NP B BP no TM no 5 Otus scops Eagle Owl 2010 L (Neretva River B. Ilič / COS B BP no TM no 17 Bubo bubo valley) 1996 L (Paklenica NP) G. Lukač / PI Paklenica NP B BP no TM no 5 Ural Owl ** L (NP Sjeverni PI NP Sjeverni Velebit; PI B AI no TM no 23 Strix uralensis Velebit and NP NP Plitvička jezera; IOO (playback Plitvička jezera survey) 2010 L (Central part of V. Tutiš/ IOO B AI, BS no nest-box metal-rings 23 the Velika Kapela scheme (100 Mt - Gorski kotar) nb/150 km2) An overview of monitoring for raptors in Finland Pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic na Finskem Pertti Saurola Finnish Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 17, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland, e-mail: saurola@cc.helsinki.fi In Finland, population monitoring for both diurnal and nocturnal raptors has been almost entirely based on fieldwork carried out by voluntary raptor ringers. Responsible organisations include the Finnish Museum of Natural History, with economic support for administration from the Ministry of Environment, "Metsähallitus" (former National Board of Forestry) and WWF Finland. Since the early 1970s, numbers and productivity of four endangered species, the White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla, Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos, Osprey Pandion haliaetus and Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus have been monitored by country-wide Comprehensive Surveys, with the aim of checking all known nest sites of these species every year. The Gyrfalcon F. rusticolus was included in this group in the late 1990s. Data for monitoring the populations of the other raptor species have been gathered by the Raptor Grid and Raptor Questionnaire projects. The Raptor Grid project produces annual population indices, which are calculated from the data collected from 10 x 10 km study plots (n = ca. 130/year) and quite well reflect the annual population fluctuations and long-term trends of seven common species of diurnal and six species of nocturnal raptors breeding in the southern part of Finland. For the rest of the species, which are either rare all over Finland or breed mostly in the north, outside the good coverage of the distribution of Raptor Grid study plots, conclusions on population changes are based on the total numbers of occupied territories and active nests reported annually by the Raptor Questionnaires. Key words: monitoring for raptors, diurnal raptors, owls, Finnland Ključne besede: monitoring populacij, ujede, sove, Finska 1. Introduction Population monitoring is an absolute prerequisite and basis of conservation and sound management programmes. This means that regular surveys and well-planned long-term monitoring programmes should be included in official duties of every government of our continuously and rapidly changing world, and implies that all monitoring programmes should be funded by public resources. However, in our real world, in the competition of resources, short-sighted economic interests and human welfare instigate worries about the future of other animal and plant species and our entire environment. Thus, nature conservation in Finland, as in most other countries, has largely been based on activities of idealistic and responsible individuals and NGOs. Monitoring of raptor populations is important firstly because the raptors have suffered more than many other groups from negative impacts caused by people (e.g. persecution, contaminants and habitat destruction; Newton 1979) and secondly, because they are at the top of their food chains, with changes in their numbers, productivity and survival reflecting changes in the environment of other species, including man (Sergio et al. 2006). In Finland, the Finnish Nature Conservation Society organised the first Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus and Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos surveys as early as in the 1950s (see Saurola 1976). In the early 1970s, Project Pandion, systematic and nationwide monitoring of the Osprey Pandion haliaetus was initiated on the basis of voluntary work by bird ringers (Saurola 1980), and the WWF Finland took the responsibility to monitor and save the vanishing population of the White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla (Saurola 1976). Finally, in 1982, a new project to monitor "common" birds of prey based on voluntary fieldwork of ringers was launched (Saurola 1985A). Description and evaluation of monitoring for diurnal and nocturnal birds of prey in Finland has been published recently and is not repeated here in detail (see Saurola 2006, 2008 & 2009). The main aim of this overview is to give answers to the questions raised by the EURAPMON to get a comparable view on the state-of-the-art of raptor monitoring in different parts of Europe. In addition, some selected examples of the updated results produced by different Finnish monitoring projects are given at the end of this contribution. Note: "raptor" includes here both diurnal and nocturnal birds of prey. 2. Questions raised by the EURAPMON 2.1. Main players In Finland, the present main actors in monitoring for raptors are the Finnish Museum of Natural History, Ministry of Environment, "Metsähallitus" (former National Board of Forestry), WWF Finland and, the most important, raptor ringers. The Finnish Museum of Natural History is responsible for monitoring the Osprey population (started in 1971; Saurola 2011) and for two projects, the Raptor Grid (1982-) and Raptor Questionnaire (1986-) monitoring "common" raptors (Saurola 2006, Honkala et al. 2011). The Ministry of Environment has supported these projects by giving extra resources needed for the office work. Metsähallitus is responsible for monitoring the Golden Eagle (1971-; Ollila & Koskimies 2008, Ollila 20 i 2), Peregrine Falcon (1974-; Ollila & Koskimies 2008) and Gyrfalcon F. rusticolus (1998-; Koskimies & Ollila 2009) since 1998; and WWF Finland is responsible for monitoring the White-tailed Eagle (1973-; Stjernberg et al. 2011). Before obtaining a ringing licence, every Finnish bird ringer must have passed an exam, which proves that he is a high class field ornithologist and well aware of all aspects of bird protection (see Saurola et al. 2013). Thus, raptor ringers are an important voluntary resource with professional skills and are used for all fieldwork needed to monitor breeding raptors in Finland. In addition to the monitoring projects carried out during the breeding season, migrating raptors have been counted systematically at the Hanko Bird Observatory located at the south-western corner of Finland's mainland (Lehikoinen et al. 2008). Several international meetings have been arranged between Nordic researches working on the Golden Eagle, White-tailed Eagle, Peregrine Falcon and Gyrfalcon. Co-operation between Estonian, Latvian and Finnish raptor researchers has been close. Recently, a workshop was arranged to improve the co-operation between Russian and Finnish raptor researchers (see Koskimies & Lapshin 2006). The main users of the results of raptor monitoring are Finnish government officials, European Commission, raptor researchers and conservation NGOs, i.e. all those in need of information on the population status and trends of Finnish raptors. 2.2. National coverage In principle, all monitoring for raptors is co-ordinated nation-wide (Saurola 2008). National network is the network of raptor ringers, which means that the coverage of activities is, in practice, much better in the southern than northern parts of the country. The goal of monitoring for the Osprey, White-tailed Eagle, Golden Eagle, Peregrine Falcon and Gyrfalcon populations is an annual Comprehensive Survey (Saurola 2008). In principle, all known territories all over the country are checked each year to obtain precise information on the annual breeding performance of these species. Monitoring of the other, "common" raptor species, is patchy and concentrated to the southern half of the country. Voluntary ringers devoted to raptors have been encouraged to participate in the Raptor Grid monitoring project. This means that the ringers were asked (1) to join in teams, (2) to select a 10 x 10 km study plot based on the Finnish National Grid and (3) to try to locate active nests or at least occupied territories of raptors within their study plot by using the same searching effort from year to year (Saurola 1985A & 2006). In 2011, for example, 130 Raptor Grid 10 x 10 km study plots were surveyed (Honkala et al. 2012) (Figure 1). On the basis of these data from Raptor Grid it is possible to calculate relevant annual population indices and long-term trends for common raptors breeding in the southern half of Finland (Saurola 2008) (see also Figures 4 and 5). In addition, information (1) on the total numbers of potential territories checked, (2) on the totals of active nests and occupied territories found and (3) on the breeding performance (clutch size and brood size) assessed by the ringers have been collected annually by using the Raptor Questionnaire. Because the data have been collected by the territories of local ornithological societies, the population fluctuations in space and time can be detected (see Figure 6). The total number of breeding attempts of raptors is highly dependent on the phase of the vole cycle. In a top vole year 2009, 379 Raptor Questionnaires were filled by 256 individual raptor ringers or teams. Altogether, 47,767 potential nest sites of "common" diurnal and nocturnal raptors were inspected, 18,581 occupied territories detected as well as 12,259 breeding attempts verified and breeding performance reported (Honkala et al. 2010). In contrast, in a poor vole year 2010, when the number of potential nest sites checked was 43,514, only 9,068 occupied territories and 5,357 active nests were found and reported (Honkala et al. 2011). The Raptor Questionnaire is vital (1) in obtaining at least some information on population changes of species not covered by the Raptor Grid project and (2) in monitoring annual productivity of all raptor species. 2.3. Key species and key issues Population status and trends of all raptor species breeding in Finland have been monitored during the last 30 years (Saurola 2008). If it is necessary to select some "key species", selection could be based e.g. on the specific IUCN category used in the national Red List. The latest Finnish Red List of Birds included 14 species of raptors (Rassi et al. 2010). Of these, the Black Kite Milvus migrans, Greater Spotted Eagle A. clanga, and Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus were classified as Critically Endangered (CR); Montagu's Harrier Circus pygargus and Gyrfalcon Endangered (EN); Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus, White-tailed Eagle, Hen Harrier C. cyaneus, Buzzard Buteo buteo, Golden Eagle and Peregrine Falcon Vulnerable (VU); and Osprey, Eagle Owl B. bubo and Tengmalm's Owl Aegolius funereus Near Threatened (NT). All these 14 species could be defined as key species for monitoring for raptors, because these species need special protection and conservation measures. In addition, some of these species (e.g. the Osprey, White-tailed Eagle and Peregrine Falcon) can also be used as key indicators (sentinels) of the welfare of ecosystems in general (e.g. Helander et al. 2008, Henny et al. 2010). At present, the most important "key issue" (threat) addressed by monitoring for raptors in Finland is land use, especially modern commercial forestry, which has reduced both the area of optimal habitat and availability of suitable nest sites needed by forest-dwelling species (Saurola 1997, 2008 & 2011, Saurola & Björklund 2011). Many other human related factors like direct persecution, environmental contaminants, Figure 1: The locations of the 10 x 10 km study plots based on the Finnish National Grid. The plots studied at least once in 1982-2010 are depicted in blue, and the ones studied in 2011 in orange. The grid lines shown are 100 x 100 km (after Honkala et al. 2012). Slika 1: Lokacije 10 x 10 km velikih popisnih ploskev, ki temeljijo na finski Nacionalni mreži. Ploskve, ki so bile v obdobju 1982-2010 preučevane najmanj enkrat, so obarvane modro, v letu 2011 preučevane ploskve pa oranžno. Prikazane mrežne črte so 100 x 100 km (po Honkala et al. 2012). traffic, power lines, wind turbines, fishing and disturbances during the breeding period may have an additional negative effect on the population trends of Finnish raptors (e.g. Saurola et al. 2013). International networking gives the opportunity to compare the population trends detected in Finland with the corresponding trends in neighbouring countries and other parts of Europe. 2.4. Strengths and weaknesses The main strength of monitoring for raptors in Finland is the availability of professional level manpower for fieldwork comprised by voluntary Figure 2: Annual numbers of occupied territories (squares), active nests (triangles) and successful nests (dots) of the Osprey Pandion haliaetus reported by the Finnish nationwide Project Pandion during the 1972-2012 period Slika 2: Letna števila zasedenih teritorijev (kvadrati), aktivnih gnezd (trikotniki) in uspešnih gnezd (pike) ribjega orla Pandion haliaetus, zabeležena v okviru vsedržavnega Projekta Pandion v obdobju 1972-2012 ringers and other trained amateur ornithologists interested in raptors. Very important strength of the Finnish raptor monitoring is the production of series of regular annual monitoring reports. The motivation of fieldworkers is maintained by these reports (in Finnish with English summaries and captions), which demonstrate the yearly fluctuations and long-term trends of different raptor species and the value of fieldwork carried out (e.g. Honkala et al. 2010, 2011 & 2012, Stjernberg et al. 2011, Saurola 2011 & 2012, Ollila 2012). Further, in addition to all ringing, recovery, recapture and resighting data, all monitoring data gathered by the Finnish Ringing Centre are stored in the Oracle Database Management System installed in the mainframe computer of the University of Helsinki and, thus, efficiently available, when needed for research and conservation (see Saurola et al. 2013). The main weakness is the fact that the distribution of ringers is concentrated to the southern half of Finland. For this reason, the amount of data is not sufficient (1) to keep track of the status of the Critically Endangered Snowy Owl, and (2) for estimating reliable population trends of the "common" species breeding mainly in the northern half of the country like the Rough-legged Buzzard B. lagopus, Hen Harrier, Merlin F. columbarius, Hawk Owl Surnia ulula, Great Grey Owl Strix nebulosa and Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus. The Rough-legged Buzzard, Snowy Owl, Hawk Owl, Great Grey Owl and Short-eared Figure 3: Average annual productivity of the Osprey Pandion haliaetus in 1972-2012; square - nestlings/occupied territory, triangle - nestlings/active nest, dot - nestlings/ successful nest Slika 3: Povprečna letna produktivnost ribjega orla Pandion haliaetus v obdobju 1972-2012; kvadrat - mladiči/zasedeni teritorij, trikotnik - mladiči/aktivno gnezdo, pika - mladiči/ uspešno gnezdo Owl are at least partly nomadic species, which may change their breeding area thousands of kilometres depending on the fluctuations of their cyclic food, voles and lemmings. International co-operation is urgently needed to monitor population status and trends of these northern species, especially now, when the effects of global warming can only be speculated (Saurola 2009). The other serious weakness is almost entire lack of reliable estimates of annual and long-term trends of survival of raptor species. To improve the situation, researchers and ringers have been encouraged to collect representative capture-recapture data needed to estimate survival of Finnish raptor species by using the new sophisticated statistical methods (see e.g. Saurola et al. 2003, Francis & Saurola 2008). 2.5. Priorities, capacity-building At the moment, the highest priority to strengthen monitoring for both diurnal and nocturnal raptors in Finland should be given to the efforts to gather more relevant data from the northern half of the country. At least 20-30 new 10 x 10 km Raptor Grid study plots based on the National Grid and operating with standard effort from year-to-year should be urgently founded in the northern half of the country. Because this will not be possible only on the voluntary basis, extra national or/and international long-term funding is needed. Of course, more Raptor Grid study plots would be welcome also in southern Finland, except that those study plots would have to be based on voluntary fieldwork. 3. Selected examples of results 3.1. Data collected A rough idea of the amount of data on raptors collected annually in Finland is given in Tables 1 and 2. The tables show the highest numbers of (1) occupied territories and (2) active nests reported, and (3) nestlings ringed by Finnish ringers in the top year of the 1986-2012 period. The Greater Spotted Eagle, Montagu's Harrier, Pallid Harrier C. macrourus (first breeding record in 2011) and Black Kite are excluded from these tables, given that these species have always been very rare breeders in Finland, which is, in fact, situated outside the normal distribution area of these species. 3.2. Comprehensive Surveys The Osprey has been selected here as an example of a species monitored by the Comprehensive Survey. The present estimate of the Finnish Osprey population is 1,300 pairs (Saurola 2011). In 2012, 2,046 potential nest sites of the Osprey were inspected; 1,133 occupied territories were detected, 911 of the nests were active, meaning that eggs were laid, and 845 successful with large young produced. The Finnish Osprey population remained at the same level through the 1970s, increased by 3% per year from 1982 to 1994 and has since remained relatively stable (Figure 2). The apparent increase during the very last years is at least partly due to the increased activity by ringers to construct artificial nests in the north-eastern part of the country. Also, the annual productivity increased steeply during the 1980s and has thereupon fluctuated at the same general level (Figure 3). The positive trend can be attributed (1) to decreased persecution during migration and wintering (Saurola 1985B, Saurola et al. 2013), (2) to decreased impact of environmental toxicants (P. Saurola unpubl.) and (3) to construction of artificial nests to compensate for the losses of nest sites caused by the modern forestry procedures (Saurola 1997). Almost 50% of Finnish Ospreys breed in artificial nests constructed by voluntary ringers (Saurola 2011). In the 1960s and 1970s, the Finnish populations of the White-tailed Eagle, Golden Eagle and Peregrine Falcon were on a very low level and even close to the verge of extinction (Saurola 1976). Careful monitoring through the decades indicates that the populations of all these three species have recovered well and are at the moment on 60-year record levels Table 1: Diurnal raptors (Falconiformes): highest national totals per year during 1986-2012 of occupied territories and active nests with eggs laid at least, as reported by ringers, and nestlings ringed Tabela 1. Ujede (Falconiformes): največja letna števila v obdobju 1986-2012 zasedenih teritorijev v državi in aktivnih gnezd vsaj z izleženimi jajci, o katerih so poročali obročkovalci, in število obročkanih mladičev Species / Vrsta No. of territories/ Št. teritorijev No. of nests/ Št. gnezd No. of nestlings ringed/ Št. obročkanih mladičev Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus 432 149 206 White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla 386 304 267 Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus 402 209 418 Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus 294 47 123 Goshawk Accipiter gentilis 1,613 1,267 2,311 Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus 753 462 1,248 Buzzard Buteo buteo 1,131 650 1,131 Rough-legged Buzzard Buteo lagopus 231 167 558 Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos 345 209 147 Osprey Pandion haliaetus 1,167 951 1,489 Kestrel Falco tinnunculus 3,496 3,189 12,645 Merlin Falco columbarius 100 57 110 Hobby Falco subbuteo 565 208 189 Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus 32 22 26 Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 194 173 359 Table 2: Nocturnal raptors (owls, Strigiformes): highest national totals per year during 1986-2012 of occupied territories and active nests reported by ringers, and nestlings ringed Tabela 2. Nočne ptice roparice (sove Strigiformes): največja letna števila v obdobju 1986-2012 zasedenih teritorijev v državi in aktivnih gnezd, o katerih so poročali obročkovalci, in število obročkanih mladičev Species / Vrsta No. of territories/ Št. teritorijev No. of nests/ Št. gnezd No. of nestlings ringed/ Št. obročkanih mladičev Eagle Owl Bubo bubo 1,106 537 854 Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus 21 15 20 Hawk Owl Surnia ulula 182 120 399 Pygmy Owl Glaucidium passerinum 1,339 963 4,797 Tawny Owl Strix aluco 1,189 905 2,844 Ural Owl Strix uralensis 2,545 1,786 4,722 Great Grey Owl Strix nebulosa 145 103 200 Long-eared Owl Asio otus 1,486 1,135 554 Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus 581 298 532 Tengmalm's Owl Aegolius funereus 3,643 2,265 6,691 shown by the numbers in Table 1 (T. Stjernberg & T. Ollila pers. comm.). Very little is known about the Finnish Gyrfalcons before the start of this millennium; the population has probably fluctuated over the years around its present low level. 3.3. Raptor Grid Annual population indices and long-term trends of six species of diurnal and six species of nocturnal raptors are shown in Figures 4 and 5. Diurnal raptors During the last three decades, the Honey Buzzard and Buzzard have been decreasing alarmingly steeply (Figure 4). The decreasing trend of the Goshawk Accipiter gentilis has not been as steep, but still statistically significant. Due to the modern commercial forestry, the amount of prime nesting habitat has continuously decreased and caused (1) increasing interspecific competition for high quality nesting sites between these forest-dwelling species and also (2) higher predation risk by the Goshawk on the nestlings of the other raptor species. Forestry has also caused a decrease of population densities in gallinaceous birds — important prey of the Goshawk (e.g. Sulkava 1964). Thus, the negative trends of these three medium-sized forest raptors are most probably connected with the effects of modern forestry (see Saurola 2008, Saurola & Björklund 2011). In contrast to those typical forest-dwelling species mentioned above, the populations of three species breeding in more open habitats and independent of the effects of modern forestry have been increasing. The Kestrel F. tinnunculus and Marsh Harrier C. aeruginosus populations have increased steeply and the Hobby F. subbuteo moderately. The Kestrel has been recovering from the population crash in the 1960s and early 1970s. One of the important causes of the increase has been the effective nest box programme started by Erkki Korpimäki in the late 1970s (Valkama & Korpimäki 1999). According to the data from the Raptor Questionnaire, the number of artificial nests for small falcons (nearly all are nest boxes for Kestrels) has increased from 697 in 1986 to 7,003 in 2011. During the same period, the average productivity has increased because the nesting failures have decreased (see Figure 7). The Marsh Harrier has extended its distribution towards the north during the last few decades, which have also been favourable for the Finnish population of the Hobby. No detailed studies on the causes of the success of these species are available. Nocturnal raptors (Owls) The Eagle Owl was increasing during the first decade of monitoring but, after that, has been on a continuous and very steep decrease (Figure 5). The increase phase can be attributed to (1) full protection since 1983, (2) increase of suitable open habitats (clear-cuts created by forestry) for nesting and hunting, and (3) year-round stable and rich food supply of Brown Rats Rattus norvegicus at the numerous poorly managed rubbish dumps. Since the mid-1990s, 90% of the local rubbish dumps have been closed. This dramatic change in food supply has surely been one of the Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 change 1982-2012 = -2.5 % / year"' 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 change 1982-2000 = 11.0 % / year"* change 2000-2012 = 0.4 %/year NS 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Buzzard Buteo buteo e T3 O la ul O. O Q. X e T3 o 45 la ul Q. O 0. 2.0 1.5 i.o - 0.5 change 1982-2012 = -0.79 % / year*" .0 [ .... i .... i .... i .... i .... i .... i ■ ■ 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Kestrel Falco tinnunculus 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 change 1997-2012 = 5.8 % / year" 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 change 1982-2012 = -2.0 % / year "* .0 [ .... i .... i .... i .... i .... i .... i . . 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Hobby Falco subbuteo 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 change 1982-2012 = 1.4% /year**' 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year / Leto Figure 4: Annual population indices (dots) of six species of diurnal raptors, calculated from the numbers of occupied territories recorded on the Raptor Grid study plots during 1982-2012. Vertical bars indicate standard errors. Thick line = log-linear regression line, except in the panel of the Marsh Harrier = 7-point LOESS smoother (William 1978). Note: the indices of the Kestrel Falco tinnunculus from the 1982-1996 period are biased by the increasing number of nest boxes and not included in the estimation of population trend. Slika 4: Letni populacijski indeksi (pike) {estih vrst ujed, izra~unani iz {tevila zasedenih teritorijev, zabeleženih v obdobju 19822012 na popisnih ploskvah Mreža ptic roparic. Stolpi~i ponazarjajo standardne napake. Debela ~rta = log-linearna regresijska krivulja, razen pri rjavem lunju = 7-to~kovni LOESS smoother (William 1978). Opomba: indeksi postovke Falco tinnunculus iz obdobja 1982-1996 so pristranski zaradi pove~anega {tevila gnezdilnic in niso vklju~eni v oceno populacijskega trenda. Eagle Owl Bubo bubo 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 change 1982-1994 = +1.3 % /year(*; change 1994-2012 = -4.4% /year*" Pygmy Owl Glaucidium pt assermum 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.0 1994-2003 = 5.6% / year" 2004-2009 = 14 % / year NS. 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Tawny Owl Strix aluco Ural Owl Strix uralensis O T3 X e >0 T3 a £ 5.5 5.0 *J 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 -- Young / active nest (n = 31,306) — Young / successful nest (n = 29,281) 1985 1£ 1995 2000 2005 Young / occupied territory (n = 24,577) Young I successful nest (n = 16,066) 2010 Year / Leto 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Figure 7: Average annual productivity of the Kestrel Falco tinnunculus and Ural Owl Strix uralensis during 1986-2012; filled circles - young/successful nest, open circles - young/active nest (Kestrel) or young/occupied territory (Ural Owl). Vertical bars indicate standard errors. Slika 7: Povprečna letna produktivnost postovke Falco tinnunculus in kozače Strix uralensis v obdobju 1986-2012; polni krogci - mladiči/uspešno gnezdo, prazni krogci - mladiči/aktivno gnezdo (postovka) ali mladiči/zasedeni teritorij (kozača). Stolpiči ponazarjajo standardne napake. from local areas to the national total have been very different from year to year, depending on the local fluctuations of vole populations and perhaps movements of the owls. Productivity In addition, the Raptor Questionnaire has produced important information for monitoring annual productivity of all raptor species, e.g. of the Kestrel and Ural Owl shown here as examples in Figure 7. The annual average productivity of the Kestrel seems to have increased during 1986-2012, although the annual fluctuations are large. This can probably be attributed to the increasing number of pairs breeding in nest boxes, where the risks of nesting failures caused by avian and mammalian predators are lower than in open stick nests. The average annual productivity of the Ural Owl varies also much from year to year according to the fluctuations of voles. Although the Ural Owl population has been slowly increasing, no long-term trend in productivity can be detected. 4. Concluding remarks (1) Monitoring the three Critically Endangered and one Endangered raptor species is based on sporadic and random field observations made by amateur ornithologists around the country; only the Gyrfalcon has been systematically surveyed. (2) The Finnish monitoring projects produce reliable data to assess the annual population size (or index), long-term population trend and productivity of almost all Vulnerable and Near Threatened raptor species; for the Hen Harrier, the distribution and number of Raptor Grid study plots should be much more representative. (3) More resources and international co-operation are needed for reliable monitoring of species, which belong to the Finnish Red List category Least Concern (LC) and breed in northern Finland. (4) More effort should be devoted to collect capture-recapture data for survival monitoring. Acknowledgements: This article is based on voluntary fieldwork by enthusiastic and experienced Finnish raptor ringers. Juha Honkala, the administrator of the raptor monitoring data of the Finnish Ringing Centre, has depicted the Figures 1 and 6. Tuomo Ollila updated the information on the Golden Eagle, Peregrine Falcon and Gyrfalcon, and Torsten Stjernberg did the same for White-tailed Eagle data. 5. Povzetek Monitoring populacij tako dnevnih kot nočnih ptic roparic na Finskem skoraj v celoti temelji na terenskem delu prostovoljnih obročkovalcev teh ptic. Nad monitoringom bdi Finski prirodoslovni muzej, gmotna sredstva za administrativno delo pa prispevajo Ministrstvo za okolje, "Metsähallitus" (nekdanji Nacionalni odbor za gozdarstvo) in finski WWF. Od začetka 70. let 20. stoletja skrbijo za monitoring številčnosti in produktivnosti štirih ogroženih vrst — belorepca Haliaeetus albicilla, planinskega orla Aquila chrysaetos, ribjega orla Pandion haliaetus in sokola selca Falco peregrinus — v okviru popisov, ki potekajo po celotni državi, in sicer z namenom, da se vsako leto preverijo vsa znana gnezdišča teh ptic, med katere je bil v 90-ih letih vključen tudi arktični sokol F. rusticolus. Podatki o populacijah drugih vrstah ptic roparic se zbirajo v okviru projektov, imenovanih Mreža ptic roparic in Anketni vprašalnik o pticah roparicah. S prvim projektom se vsako leto pridobijo podatki o letnih populacijskih indeksih, ki so izračunani na osnovi opažanj na 10 x 10 km velikih popisnih ploskvah (n = ca. 130/leto) in dobro odsevajo letna populacijska nihanja ter dolgoročne trende sedmih pogostih dnevnih in šestih nočnih ptic roparic, ki gnezdijo v južnem delu Finske. Za druge vrste, ki so bodisi redke po vsej Finski bodisi gnezdijo predvsem na severu države, zunaj območja dobre pokritosti ozemlja s popisnimi ploskvami Mreže ptic roparic, ugotovitve o populacijskih spremembah slonijo na skupnem številu zasedenih teritorijev in aktivnih gnezd, o katerih vsako leto poročajo v okviru anketnega vprašalnika. 6. References Francis, C.M. & Saurola, P. (2008): Estimating demographic parameters from complex data sets: a comparison of Bayesian hierarchical and maximum-likelihood methods for estimating survival probabilities of Tawny Owls, Strix aluco in Finland. pp. 619-640 In: Thomson, D.L., CoocH, E.G. & Conroy, M.J. (eds.): Modelling Demographic Processes in Marked Populations. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, Vol. 3. — Springer, New York. Helander, B., Bignert, A. & Asplund, L. (2008): Using Raptors as Environmental Sentinels: Monitoring the White-tailed Sea Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla in Sweden. — Ambio 37 (6): 425—431. Henny, C.J., Grove, J.L. Kaiser, J.L. & Johnson, B.L. (2010): North American Osprey populations and contaminants: historic and contemporary perspectives. — Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B 13 (7/8): 579—603. Honkala, J., Björklund, H. & Saurola, P. (2010): [Breeding and population trends of common raptors and owls in Finland in 2009.] — Linnut-vuosikirja 2009: 78—89. (in Finnish, English summary) Honkala, J., Saurola, P. & Valkama, J. (2011): [Breeding and population trends of common raptors and owls in Finland in 2010.] — Linnut-vuosikirja 2010: 53—63. (in Finnish, English summary) Honkala, J., Saurola, P. & Valkama, J. (2012): [Breeding and population trends of common raptors and owls in Finland in 2011.] — Linnut-vuosikirja 2011: 58—69. (in Finnish, English summary) Korpimäki, E. & Hakkarainen, H. (2012): The Boreal Owl. Ecology, Behaviour and Conservation of a Forest-Dwelling Predator. — Cambridge University Press, New York. Koskimies, P. & Lapshin, N.V. (eds.) (2006): Status of Raptor Populations in Eastern Fennoscandia. Proceedings of the Workshop, 8—10 November 2005, Kostomuksha, Karelia, Russia. — Karelian Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Science & Finnish-Russian Working Group on Nature Conservation, Petrozavodsk, Russia. Koskimies, P. & Ollila, T. (2009): [The conservation status of the Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus in Finland.] — Linnut-vuosikirja 2008: 7—13. (in Finnish, English summary) Lehikoinen, A., Ekroos, J., Jaatinen, K., Lehikoinen, P., Linden, A., Piha, M., Vattulainen, A. & Vähätalo, A. (2008): [Bird population trends based on the data of Hanko Bird Observatory (Finland) during 1979—2007.] — Tringa 35: 146—209. (in Finnish, English summary) Lehikoinen, A., Hokkanen, T. & Lokki, H. (2011): Young and female-biased irruptions in Pygmy Owls Glaucidium passerinum in southern Finland. — Journal of Avian Biology 42 (6): 564—569. Newton, I. (1979): Population ecology of raptors. — T & A D Poyser, Berkhamsted. Ollila, T. (2012): Finnish Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in 2011. — Linnut-vuosikirja 2011: 12—15. (in Finnish, English summary) Ollila, T. & Koskimies, P. (2008): [The conservation status of the Golden Eagle and Peregrine Falcon in Finland.] — Linnut-vuosikirja 2007: 8—17. (in Finnish, English summary) Rassi, P., Hyvärinen, E., Juslen, A. & Mannerkoski, I. (eds.) (2010): The 2010 Red List of Finnish Species. — Ympäristöministeriö & Suomen ympäristökeskus, Helsinki. Saurola, P. (1976): Finnish raptor censuses. — Ornis Fennica 53 (4): 135—179. Saurola, P. (1980): Finnish Project Pandion. — Acta Ornithologica 17 (13): 161—168. Saurola, P. (1985A): The Raptor Grid: an attempt to monitor Finnish raptors and owls. — Vär Fägelvärd, Suppl. 11: 187—190. Saurola, P. (1985B): Persecution of raptors in Europe assessed by Finnish and Swedish ring recovery data. — ICBP Technical Publications 5: 439—448. Saurola, P. (1997): The Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) and modern forestry: a review of population trends and their causes in Europe. — Journal of Raptor Research 31 (2): 129—137. Saurola, P. (2006): Monitoring "Common" Birds of Prey in Finland in 1982—2005. pp. 133—145 In: Koskimies, P. & Lapshin, N.V. (eds.): Status of Raptor Populations in Eastern Fennoscandia. Proceedings of the Workshop, 8—10 November 2005, Kostomuksha, Karelia, Russia. — Karelian Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Science & Finnish-Russian Working Group on Nature Conservation, Petrozavodsk, Russia. Saurola, P (2008): Monitoring birds of prey in Finland: a summary of methods, trends, and statistical power. — Ambio 37 (6): 413-419. Saurola, P. (2009): Bad news and good news: population changes of Finnish owls during 1982-2007. - Ardea 97 (4): 469-482. Saurola, P. (2011): [Finnish Ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) 2010.] - Linnut-vuosikirja 2010: 29-35. (in Finnish, English summary) Saurola, P. (2012): [Finnish Ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) 2011.] - Linnut-vuosikirja 2011: 16-23. (in Finnish, English summary) Saurola, P & Björklund, H. (2011): Losers and winners among Finnish forest dwelling birds of prey. pp. 56-69 In: Zuberogoitia, I. & Martinez, J.E. (eds.): Ecology and conservation of European forest-dwelling raptors. -Departamento de Agricultura de la Diputacion Foral de Bizkaia. Saurola, P., Stjernberg, T., Högmander, J., Koivusaari, J., Ekblom, H. & Helander, B. (2003): Survival of juvenile and sub-adult Finnish White-tailed Sea Eagles in 1991-1999: a preliminary analysis based on resightings of colour-ringed individuals. pp. 155-167 In: Helander, B., Marquiss, M. & Bauerman, B. (eds.): Sea Eagle 2000. Proceedings from the international conference, 13-17 September 2000, Björkö, Sweden. -Swedish Ornithological Society, Stockholm. Saurola, P., Valkama, J. & Velmala, W. (2013): [The Finnish Bird Ringing Atlas. Vol. I.] - Finnish Museum of Natural History & Ministry of Environment, Helsinki. (in Finnish, extensive English summary) Sergio, F., Newton, I., Marchesi, L. & Pedrini, P. (2006): Ecologically justified charisma: preservation of top predators delivers biodiversity conservation. - Journal of Applied Ecology 43 (6): 1049-1055. Stefansson, O. (1997): [Vagabond of the northern forest. Great Grey Owl (Strix nebulosa lapponica)?] - Boden. (in Swedish, English summary) Stjernberg, T., Koivusaari, J., Högmander, J., Nuuja, I. & Lokki, H. (2011): [Population size and nesting success of the White-tailed Sea Eagle (Haliaetus albicilla) in Finland 2009-2010.] - Linnut-vuosikirja 2010: 19-27. (in Finnish, English summary) Sulkava, S. (1964): [To the feeding biology of the Goshawk, Accipiter g. gentilis?] - Aquilo Ser. Zoologica 3: 1-103. (in German) Valkama, J. & Korpimäki, E. (1999): Nestbox characteristics, habitat quality and reproductive success of Eurasian Kestrels. - Bird Study 46 (1): 81-88. Valkama, J. & Saurola, P. (2005): Mortality factors and population trends of the Eagle Owl Bubo bubo in Finland. - Ornithologischer Anzeiger 44 (2): 81-90. William S. (1979): Robust Locally Weighted Regression and Smoothing Scatterplots. - Journal of the American Statistical Association 74 (368): 829-836. Arrived / Prispelo: 27. 3. 2013 Accepted / Sprejeto: 1. 7. 2013 a preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in France Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Franciji Jean-Paul Urcun Observatoire Regional de la Migration des Oiseaux, LPO Aquitaine, Erdoia, F-64120 Luxe-Sumberraute, e-mail: jeanpaulurcun.lpo@neuf.fr Metropolitan France boasts a high number and significant populations of breeding raptor species in Europe. Furthermore, it is located on major migration route for diurnal raptors. This wealth of raptors has certainly contributed to the creation of a wide network of volunteers tutored by NGOs. These, especially the "Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux" (LPO), the French partner of Birdlife International, play a key role in monitoring for raptors, including the most threatened species, both nationally with many specific networks and at regional or local level. This participatory involvement is certainly an asset for the development of monitoring programmes on a large scale. Unfortunately, no major raptor research has been carried out by academic experts in France, especially in the field of monitoring of the environment through raptors. Improving this situation by a closer dialogue between academic experts and fieldworkers and a better knowledge of common species are the main future challenges. Key words: raptor monitoring, diurnal raptors, owls, France Ključne besede: monitoring ptic roparic, ujede, sove, Francija 1. Introduction France boasts rich raptor fauna, with 35 species of breeding raptors (26 diurnal with the recent readdition of Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila pomarina in 2004; Michelat 2007 and White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla to the list in 2011; Le Roy 2012, and 9 nocturnal ones) (BirdLife International 2004) and a key geographical position in the Western European-West African Flyway for migrating diurnal raptors (Zalles & Bildstein 2000). Monitoring for raptors is well-developed with a large network of volunteers trained by numerous non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Due to its geographical situation and diversity of landscapes and climate, France hosts the second (after Spain) largest number of breeding raptors species in western part of Europe. Moreover, some of the largest populations of particular species (e.g. Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus, Black Kite Milvus migrans, Short-toad Eagle Circaetus gallicus, Montagu's Harrier Circus pygargus etc.) are found in France. This gives the country a major responsibility in conservation at the European level (BirdLife International 2004, Burfield 2008). Large number of migrating raptors belonging to 25 species (including Honey Buzzard, Buzzard Buteo buteo and Black Kite as the most numerous) also cross the French territory to reach their winter quarters in Africa or on the Iberian peninsula, including non-breeding rare and endangered species such as Pallid Harrier C. macrourus, Eleonora's Falcon Falco eleonorae or Lesser Spotted Eagle. This gives the opportunity to develop a large network of watchpoints, where enthusiasts spend from a few hours to four or five months detecting, identifying and counting raptors among other species. The aim of continuous surveys is to acquire phenological and population indices related to changes in population size or climate change. 2. Main players NGOs, especially the French partner of BirdLife International, "Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux" (LPO), but also other ornithological organizations at the regional level (more than 100 different ones) are the main players for conducting the fieldwork. The National Forests Office (Office national des forets, ONF) and The National Hunting and Wildlife Agency (Office National de la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage, ONCFS), two governmental services, are also involved in raptor monitoring in the field. The National Centre for Scientific Research (Centre national de la recherche scientifique, CNRS) and the National Museum of Natural History in Paris (Museum national d'histoire naturelle, MNHN) are the two main actors for data analyses. International collaboration involves mainly Spain, Italy and Switzerland, depending on species or programmes, particularly those sponsored by LIFE or INTERREG European Union funds, like reintroduction programmes under LIFE Nature project "Reinforcement and conservation of Lesser Kestrel populations in Aude (FR) and Extremadure (ES)" (LIFE05 NAT/F/000134 "Conservation et renforcement du Faucon crecerellette dans l'Aude (France) et l'Estremadure (Espagne)", 2005-2009) or INTERREG "NECROPIR" project (conservation of scavengers in Pyrenees). For migration monitoring, the French network is taking an active part in the construction of the Euromigrans network (The Western Palearctic Bird Migratory Network). Data are mainly used by organisations conducting the fieldwork themselves. When species concerning the National Action Plans are at stake, the work is ordered by the French government. The main goal of the monitoring activities is conservation of raptors species. 3. National coverage At the French level, a large majority of monitoring activities is coordinated by the "Mission Rapaces" (The Raptors Study Group), an LPO's service, by means of a group of networks devoted to one species each or to a group of species (e.g. Reseau Milan royal for the Red Kite or Reseau Busards for harriers). Each network publishes a regular newsletter, with annual special issue of the L'oiseau magazine "Rapaces de France" giving an annual synthesis of the national monitoring of every breeding species. The status of rare species is also reviewed annually in the Ornithos journal. The monitoring is carried out quite uniformly across the country with regional focuses on species depending on their distribution (e.g. Black-winged Kite Elanus caeruleus in Aquitaine). A national survey programme named Observatoire Rapaces (Raptor Observatory) began in 2002 (Thiollay & Bretagnolle 2004). It is based on a randomized 5 x 5 km square coverage. In each square, all breeding diurnal raptors are counted and classified as confirmed, probable or possible breeding pairs. A statistical analysis (ordinary kriging) predicts the spatial distribution and number of pairs at the national level. The French programme of the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme Temporal Survey of Common Birds (Le Suivi Temporel des Oiseaux Communs, STOC-EPS; http://vigienature.mnhn.fr/ page/le-suivi-temporel-des-oiseaux-communs-stoc), coordinated by the "Centre de Recherches sur la Biologie des Populations d' Oiseaux" (CRBPO) also provides information on common raptors such as Kestrel F. tinnunculus or Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus at the national scale. Main monitoring programmes for breeding raptors are listed in Appendix 1. A network of 93 study sites (Figure 1) exists in France specifically for monitoring of migratory birds, including raptors, under the coordination of the "Mission Migration" (The Migration Study Group), which is an alliance of seven partners (LPO France, Le Clipon, Organbidexka Col Libre, Groupe Ornithologique Normand, Picardie Nature, Amis du Parc Naturel Regional de Corse, Centre Ornithologique Rhones-Alpes) created to improve exchange of protocols, data and experiences through a shared web-based database (http://www.migraction. net). However, watchpoints differ significantly in terms of duration of counts, time period and regularity of counts, including some with continuous survey lasting more than 30 years (like the Organbidexka Pass in the Pyrenees) and others lasting only a couple of days. 4. Key species and key issues All raptor species are monitored in France, although with different accuracy. The species of higher conservation concern (listed in the national Red List, Birds Directive, different conventions etc.) like Lammergeier Gypaetus barbatus, Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus, Black Vulture Aegypius monachus, Red Kite M. milvus, Osprey Pandion haliaetus, Lesser Kestrel F. naumanni, Bonelli's Eagle A. fasciata and Little Owl Athene noctua benefit from the National Action Plans mainly managed by LPO. These plans are prepared by the French government. Their implementation is most often allotted to non-governmental organizations. The conservation programmes include as far as possible also an exhaustive monitoring of the birds' distribution, density, breeding success, causes of mortality, movements, etc. (http://rapaces.lpo.fr). Without a National Action Plan, the Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus benefits from the same quality of monitoring in reintroduction areas such as Gorges de la Jonte, Gorges du Verdon, Vercors or the Baronnies in south-eastern France. For all the other commoner species that are not covered by any National Action Plan, only distribution and density are monitored throughout the "Observatoire Rapaces" at the national level. STOC-EPS also provides valuable information on population changes. Local or regional monitoring activities exist here and there. For owls, except Tengmalm's Aegolius funereus and Pygmy Owls Glaucidium passerinum, which are monitored at the national level, only local monitoring is carried out. Such example is the work carried out by the NGO "La Choue" in Bourgogne on Tawny Owl Strix aluco, Barn Owl Tyto alba and Long-eared Owl Asio otus (http://la.choue.free.fr/index.php ?p=pages&title=publications). Concerning the most endangered species (those covered by the National Action Plan) in France, only the Bonelli's Eagle (whose population has more or less stabilized during the recent years), and perhaps the Red Kite populations have been decreasing since the beginning of the 1990s. All others are increasing (LPO Mission Rapaces 2012; http://vigienature.mnhn.fr/ page/resultats-par-especes). Monitoring of the common species started only recently, so it is impossible to draw any conclusions on their trends as yet. Through monitoring programmes, the most important threats have been highlighted: - Loss of habitat caused by changes in agricultural practises or increased urbanization is the major threat. - Disturbance during breeding season, which affects the most sensitive species (e.g. Lammergeier). - Poisoning as a deliberate act or as a consequence of use of rodenticides, which is also a significant cause of mortality for some species (e.g. Red Kite), combined with chronic lead poisoning due to the ingestion of lead ammunition spent by hunters. - Poaching as an additional threat. - Power lines and wind turbines through electrocution or collision, which could have a significant impact on some species (e.g. Bonelli's Eagle). 5. Strengths, weaknesses and future priorities The major strength of the monitoring for raptors in France is the fact that it rests on highly skilled volunteers trained by NGO's professionals. This enables an efficient and continuous transfer of skills through the network and promotes best practices. It also enables work on a large spatial scale. Another Figure 1: Locations of watchpoints in the French migration study network (after http://www.migraction.net; satellite image is courtesy of NASA/JPL-Caltech); black dots - spring survey, white dots - autumn survey, two-coloured dots -survey in both seasons Slika 1: Lokacije opazovalnih točk v francoskem omrežju za preučevanje selitev ptic (http://www.migraction.net; satelitski posnetek z dovoljenjem NASA/JPL-Caltech); črne pike -spomladanski popis, bele pike - jesenski popis, dvobarvne pike - popis v obeh sezonah strength is the existence of a national coordination of the network allowing implementation of projects on a large time scale as well as a better attention of both local, regional or governmental authorities. And finally - which is perhaps even the most important - we can claim that volunteers, professionals from NGOs or official agencies are raptor enthusiasts. Not surprising for the French network mainly based on NGOs, the unstable funding is the main weakness of the monitoring, as it often depends on fickle national public policies. Another weakness could be the relative lack of interest from French universities in monitoring for raptors, but also in raptors generally. It results in difficulty in finding students to work on data, as they are not able to be tutored academically. If endangered or charismatic species are quite well monitored, more common ones (e.g. Hobby F. subbuteo, Kestrel, Sparrowhawk ...) as well as owls suffer the lack of knowledge. Particularly, effects of land-use change in general and agricultural practices, especially on raptors are not well monitored, as well as the impacts of biocides or poisons directly or through bioaccumulation. At even if volunteers for raptors are numerous in France, they are not sufficiently numerous to cover all the fields of monitoring for raptors. It seems that the priority of monitoring for raptors in France lies in intensifying the monitoring of "common" species and owls as well as of species using "commonplace" (e.g. unprotected areas or farmlands) habitats. It would permit linking of monitoring for raptors to the environmental monitoring with raptors. This would require - at least in France or perhaps more efficiently at the European level - a closer connection between raptor enthusiasts as data collectors and scientists as producers of indices. 6. Povzetek conservation.] - Delachaux et Niestle, Paris. (in French) Zalles, J.I. & Bildstein, K.L. (eds.) (2000): Raptor watch. A global directory of raptor migration sites. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 9. - BirdLife International & Hawk Mountain Sanctuary, Cambridge. Arrived / Prispelo: 27. 3. 2013 Accepted / Sprejeto: 1. 7. 2013 Francija se lahko pohvali z velikim številom in evropsko pomembnimi populacijami gnezdečih ptic roparic. Poleg tega prek nje potekajo tudi selitvene poti ujed. Prav to bogastvo ptic roparic je prispevalo k oblikovanju široke mreže prostovoljcev, ki jih za to delo urijo različne nevladne organizacije. Med njimi je najbolj dejaven LPO, francoski partner organizacije Birdlife International, ki igra glavno vlogo pri monitoringu za ptice roparice, vključno z najbolj ogroženimi vrstami tako na nacionalni ravni z vrsto specifičnih omrežij kot tudi na regionalni ali lokalni ravni. Prav to sodelovanje udeležencev je veliko pripomoglo k razvoju programov monitoringa v najširšem obsegu. Žal pa ni bila nobena pomembnejša raziskava o pticah roparicah v Franciji opravljena na akademski ravni, še posebno na področju monitoringa okolja prek ptic roparic. Tako med največjimi izzivi v tej državi še vedno ostajata izboljšanje trenutnega stanja s tesnejšim dialogom med akademskimi izvedenci in terenskimi sodelavci in boljše poznavanje pogostih ptic roparic. 7. References BirdLife International (2004): Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 12. - BirdLife International, Cambridge. Burfield, I. J. (2008): The Conservation Status and Trends of Raptors and Owls in Europe. - Ambio 37 (6): 401407. Le Roy, C. (2012): [White-tailed Eagle. Monitoring report 2011.] - Rapaces de France 14: 45. (in French) LPO Mission Rapaces (2012): [Monitoring report 2011.] - Rapaces de France 14. (in French) Michelat, D. (2007): [Lesser Spotted Eagle. Monitoring report 2006.] - Rapaces de France 9: 16. (in French) Thiollay, J.-M. & Bretagnolle, V. (2004): [Breeding raptors in France: distribution, numbers and APPENDIX 1 / DODATEK 1 Main monitoring programmes on breeding raptors in France during the 21st century Glavni programi monitoringa gnezde~ih ptic roparic v Franciji v 21. stoletju National network — working group established under the Raptors Study Group (LPO Mission Rapaces) Raptor Observatory — national survey programme for raptors (Observatoire Rapaces) STOC-EPS — Temporal Survey of Common Birds (Le Suivi Temporel des Oiseaux Communs) (1) POCTEFA* — Sustainable biodiversity in the Pyrenees, the scavenging raptors, examples for the joint management; (2) LIFE Nature GYPAETE — International programme for the Bearded vulture in the Alps; (3) LIFE Nature — Large Pyrenean Fauna; (4) INTERREG — For Living Pyrenees; (5) LIFE Nature VAUTOUR — Recovery plan for the Egyptian Vulture in South-Eastern France; (6) LIFE Nature CONSAVICOR — Conservation of rare birds in Eastern Corbieres; (7) Life Nature TRANSFERT — Reinforcement and conservation of Lesser Kestrel populations in Aude (FR) and Extremadure (ES) * POCTEFA is the new name of INTERREG programme between France, Spain and Andorra LPO — Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux (BirdLife partner in France); ONCFS — The National Hunting and Wildlife Agency (Office National de la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage); GAN — Gestion Ambiental de Navarra; MEDDE — Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy (Ministere de l'Ecologie, du Developpement durable et de l'Energie); GRIVE — Groupe de Recherche et d'Information sur les vertebres; CEN-LR — Conservatoire d'espaces naturels du Languedoc-Roussillon Continuation of Appendix 1 / Nadaljevanje dodatka 1 Species / Vrsta National network/ Nacionalna mreža National Action Plan/ Nacionalni akcijski načrt Raptor Observatory STOC-EPS Reintroduction programme/ Program ponovne naselitve EU programme/ Program Evropske unije Duration/ Trajanje Coordinator/ Koordinator Project title/ Naziv projekta Coordinator/ Koordinator Duration/ Trajanje Honey Buzzard Perms apivorus no no yes yes Black-winged Kite Elanus caeridcus no no yes no Black Kite Milvus migrans no no yes yes Red Kite Milvus milvus yes 2003-2007 LPO yes yes 1 GAN 2009-2014 White-tailed Eagle Haliaeettis albicilla no no, but LPO no no local Champagne- survey Ardennes, ONCFS Lämmergeier Gypaetus barbatus yes 1997-2007, LPO yes no Alps 2 Asters 2003-2007 2010-2020 3 MEDDE 1994-1998 4 LPO 2003-2006 1 GAN 2009-2014 Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus yes 2002-2007 LPO yes no 5 LPO 2003-2008 4 LPO 2003-2006 1 GAN 2009-2014 Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus yes no yes no Alps, Massif 4 LPO 2009-2014 central 1 GAN 2003-2006 Black Vulture Aegypius monachus yes 2004-2008, LPO yes no Alps, Massif 2011-2016 central Short-toed Eagle Circaetus gallicus yes no yes yes Marsh Harrier Circus aerugitiosus yes no yes yes Hen Harrier Circus cyatieus yes no yes yes Montagu's Harrier Circus pygargus yes no yes yes Goshawk Accipiter gentilis no no yes no Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus no no yes yes Buzzard Buteo buteo no no yes yes Continuation of Appendix 1 / Nadaljevanje dodatka 1 Species / Vrsta National network/ Nacionalna mreža National Action Plan/ Nacionalni akcijski načrt Raptor Observatory STOC-EPS Reintroduction programme/ Program ponovne naselitve ELJ programme/ Program Evropske unije Duration/ Trajanje Coordinator/ Koordinator Project title/ Coordinator/ Duration/ Naziv projekta Koordinator Trajanje Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila pomarind no no, but LPO Franche- yes no local Comte survey Golden Eagle Aqtiila chrysaetos yes no yes no Booted Eagle Aquila pennata yes no yes no Bonelli s Eagle Aquila fasciata yes 1999-2003, GRIVE, yes no 6 LPO 2005-2009 2005-2009 CEN-LR Osprey PaneUon haliaetus yes 2004-2007, LPO yes no 2008-2012 Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni yes 2002-200 6, LPO yes no Aude 7 LPO 2005-2009 2011-2015 Kestrel Falco tinminculus no no yes yes Red-footed Falcon Falco vespertinus no no yes no Hobby Falco subbuteo no no yes yes Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus yes no yes yes Barn Owl Tyto alba yes no no no Scops Owl Otus scops no no no no Eagle Owl Bubo bubo yes no no no Pygmy Owl Glancidinmpasserinum yes no no no Little Owl Athene noctua yes 2000-2010 LPO no yes Tawny Owl Strix aluco no no no no Long-eared Owl Asio otus no no no no Short-eared Owl Asia ßammeus no no no no Tengmalm's OwlAegolhisfunereus yes no no no a preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Great Britain* Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Veliki Britaniji Andy Dobson1, Mark Holling2, Kelvin Jones3,4 & Chris Wernham1 1 British Trust for Ornithology (Scotland), School of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Cottrell Building, University of Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK, e-mail: andrew.dobson@bto.org 2 Rare Breeding Birds Panel, The Old Orchard, Grange Road, North Berwick, East Lothian EH39 4QT, UK 3 British Trust for Ornithology (Wales), School of the Environment, Natural Resources and Geography, Thoday Building, University of Bangor, Deiniol Road, Bangor LL57 2UW, UK 4 Welsh Rare Breeding Birds and Raptor Study Group, c/o Kelvin Jones, BTO (Wales), UK This paper summarises monitoring of raptors (diurnal birds of prey and owls) in Great Britain. There is a long tradition of raptor monitoring in Great Britain, and all regularly breeding species receive at least a degree of survey coverage. Common raptors such as Buzzard Buteo buteo and Kestrel Falco tinnunculus are included in national all-species surveys co-ordinated by the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), while rarer species are typically monitored in less extensive, more intensive studies conducted by specialist raptor fieldworkers. This work is supported (and often funded) by a large number of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and national government agencies. There is a need for greater co-ordination of local/regional study groups, which would facilitate the compilation of national-level population and productivity statistics, and also identify areas and/or species that require better survey coverage. There is potential for the better use of data collected by fieldworkers to provide evidence of human interference in breeding attempts. Key words: birds of prey, owls, monitoring, survey, Great Britain Ključne besede: ujede, sove, monitoring, popis, Velika Britanija 1. Introduction Fifteen species of diurnal raptor and five owl species regularly breed in Great Britain (GB). Many were either very rare or effectively extinct at the beginning of the twentieth century (e.g. White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla, Osprey Pandion haliaetus, Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus, Red Kite Milvus milvus), and have recovered in numbers either by natural processes and in situ conservation action (Osprey, Marsh Harrier), reintroduction (White-tailed Eagle) or a combination of the two (Red Kite) (Love 1983, Clarke 1995, Carter 2001, Dennis 2008). The Little Owl Athene noctua was introduced into southern England in 1842 and has since naturalised, spreading through most parts of England and Wales, and into southern Scotland (Greenoak 1997). The Kestrel Falco tinnunculus was the most abundant raptor until the last couple of decades, when it was overtaken by the Buzzard Buteo buteo (Clements 2002). The Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus and Montagu's Harrier C. pygargus are the least abundant breeding species (Baker et al. 2006). Several species occur only (or predominantly) in Scotland (Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos, White-tailed Eagle, Osprey, Hen Harrier C. cyaneus). Hen Harriers breed in small numbers (ca. 40 pairs) in Wales, and even smaller numbers in England, while Marsh Harriers and Hobbies F. subbuteo are found predominantly in England (Balmer et al. in print). * Note that the United Kingdom is covered here in two separate entries: England, Scotland and Wales are covered by this paper on Great Britain, and Northern Ireland is covered in the paper for Ireland (i.e. together with the Republic of Ireland). However, some of this paper on GB also applies to parts of Ireland. 2. Main players The main organisations involved in raptor monitoring fall into four main groups: (1) Non-governmental organisations and charities with at least some professional staff — e.g. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB); British Trust for Ornithology (BTO); Rare Breeding Birds Panel (RBBP); Hawk and Owl Trust (HOT). (2) Volunteer-led organisations and individual volunteers — e.g. Scottish Raptor Study Groups (SRSGs); Northern England Raptor Forum (NERF); Welsh Rare Breeding Bird and Raptor Study Group (WRBBRSG); Welsh Kite Trust; Shropshire Raptor Study Group and Wiltshire Raptor Study Group. (3) Statutory/government agencies — Natural England (NE); Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH); Natural Resources Wales (NRW); Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). (4) Commercial consultancies. In England and Wales, the majority of work is undertaken by NGOs and charities, with some funding provided by government agencies. An example of the latter is the SCARABBS (Statutory Conservation Agency/RSPB Annual Breeding Bird Scheme) series of periodic surveys for scarcer breeding birds, some of which are raptors. This is a rolling programme which has included in recent years: Barn Owl Tyto alba in 1995—1997 (Toms et al. 2001); Red Kite in 2000 (Wootton et al. 2002); Peregrine Falcon F. peregrinus, in 2002 (Banks et al. 2010); Golden Eagle in 2003 (Eaton et al. 2007); Marsh Harrier in 2005 (unpubl.); Merlin F. columbarius in 2008 (Ewing et al. 2011); and Hen Harrier in 2010 (Hayhow et al. in press). In Scotland, raptor monitoring is co-ordinated under the Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme (SRMS), a partnership between SNH, JNCC, BTO, RBBP, RSPB, Scottish Ornithologists' Club (SOC), Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) and the SRSGs, and funded by SNH (Wernham et al. 2008, Anon. 2002). Across the whole of the UK, the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) provides annual indices of change for certain common species, though few of these are raptors. This survey is organised by the BTO, and funded/supported by BTO, JNCC and RSPB. The BTO also runs the UK-wide Nest Record Scheme (NRS) and ringing scheme, which provide data on survival and productivity, though some parameter estimates may contain regional biases due to variation in sample sizes. Breeding records of rare birds (< 1,500 breeding pairs in the UK), which include several raptor species, are collated by the RBBP, a panel comprising representatives from the BTO, RSPB and JNCC, as well as a small number of independent individuals. The data obtained through monitoring are used by (1) government agencies, for setting and assessing conservation targets, reviewing effectiveness of protected areas and development planning, (2) universities and other research organisations, for academic and applied conservation work, (3) NGOs, for applied conservation work and provision of advice to government, (4) consultancies, for development planning (e.g. Environmental Impact Assessments) and government contracts. Some individuals provide data to MEROS Monitoring of European Raptors and Owls; e.g. Mammen & Stubbe 2009, but this programme is probably not widely known in GB. 3. National coverage Apart from BBS and the periodic SCARABBS surveys, there is little GB-scale co-ordination of monitoring. Annual, multi-species national coordination currently occurs only in Scotland, via the SRMS. Coverage in Scotland is variable by species; those best covered are Golden Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, Hen Harrier and Goshawk Accipiter gentilis, but even for these species the national coverage is patchy. Other species such as Buzzard, Merlin, Barn Owl and Tawny Owl Strix aluco are monitored extensively and intensively within discrete regional study areas (Etheridge et al. 2013). The recently-formed WRBBRSG aims to fulfil the same role as the SRMS for Wales; there is no equivalent organisation covering the whole of England, but there is a number of smaller organisations that coordinate monitoring of certain species regionally, most prominently NERF, covering all diurnal raptor and owl species in the north of the country (Downing & NERF 2011). Other groups focus on individual species, such as the Barn Owl Trust and the South West Peregrine Group, both of which operate in south-west England. White-tailed Eagles are monitored annually by the RSPB in the two areas of Scotland where they have been reintroduced, and the reintroduced populations of Red Kites in Scotland are also monitored by RSPB (Etheridge et al. 2013). Populations of kites in England and Wales are monitored but the proportion of pairs covered has steadily decreased as these populations grow (Welsh Kite Trust; http://www. gigrin.co .uk/red_kites_in_the_united_kingdom_ breeding_pairs_1989-2007). Other species are covered by occasional, regular surveys that attempt complete or near-complete coverage or have a rigorous sampling strategy (Honey Buzzard, Marsh Harrier, Hen Harrier, Golden Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, Merlin, Barn Owl), but such surveys typically occur at decade-long intervals. All Montagu's Harrier breeding attempts are probably effectively covered annually via reports to the RBBP (Holling et al. 2012), and there has recently been an effort by NE and RSPB to collate data on this species (A. Musgrove pers. comm.). The annual RBBP reports include a total for Goshawk based on fairly comprehensive samples (but this is likely to underestimate both numbers and geographic range; Holling et al. 2011 & 2012). Ospreys have been surveyed fairly comprehensively on an annual basis by the SRSGs and RSPB (Etheridge et al. 2013); they occur principally in Scotland, with one or two isolated breeding areas in England and Wales (Balmer et al. in print). Common species (Kestrel, Buzzard, Sparrowhawk A. nisus) are covered by the BBS, providing indices of population change at the UK scale (and at national scales in some instances, depending on the number of survey squares; Baillie et al. 2013). RBBP has recently begun to collate county summaries of both Long-eared Asio otus and Short-eared Owls A. flammeus (Holling et al. 2012). See Appendix 1 for details of surveys. 4. Key species and key issues All regularly breeding bird of prey and owl species receive at least a degree of monitoring in Britain during the breeding season (Appendix 1), and Hen Harriers are also monitored (with unknown proportional coverage) during the winter via the Hen Harrier Winter Roost Survey (Clarke & Watson 1990, Dobson et al. 2012). The key threats experienced by raptors are species-and region-specific. In upland habitats (mainly Scotland and northern England) where land is managed for shooting of Red Grouse Lagopus lagopus scotica, illegal killing is a threat to a number of raptor species, but especially Hen Harriers, Golden Eagles, Peregrine Falcons and Red Kites (Etheridge et al. 1997, Whitfield et al. 2004, Smart et al. 2010, Amar et al. 2011). Management of lowland areas elsewhere in Britain for shooting of Pheasants Phasianus colchicus and partridge (Alectoris rufa and Perdix perdix) may also provide an incentive for illegal killing of a wide range of species (Allen & Feare 2003). Loss of habitat due to agricultural intensification affects populations of many species, but especially Barn Owl, Little Owl and Kestrel (Love et al. 2000, Baillie et al. 2013). Monitoring of Golden Eagle, Hen Harrier and Peregrine Falcon in Scotland has contributed to Conservation Frameworks, which were commissioned by SNH, and aimed at assessing the conservation status of these species and identifying the main threats to population survival (Humphreys et al. 2007, Whitfield et al. 2008, Fielding et al. 2011). Monitoring of regional populations and productivity of Peregrine Falcons and Red Kites has identified areas where illegal killing limits population stability (Smart et al. 2010, Amar et al. 2011). International networking would benefit the interpretation of monitoring data for migratory species such as the Hen Harrier, of which an unknown proportion of the GB wintering population may originate from Fennoscandian and/or Dutch breeding areas (Dobson et al. 2012), and the apparently nomadic Short-eared Owl, whose numbers in GB may fluctuate in response to factors operating elsewhere in Europe (Calladine et al. 2012). 5. Strengths and weaknesses GB is fortunate to contain a large number of skilled volunteers, and there is a strong tradition of interest in (and monitoring of) birds, reflected in the existence of organisations such as the RSPB, BTO and raptor/ upland bird study groups. Nonetheless, there are regions where survey coverage is poor or inconsistent between years, especially (but not exclusively) areas with low human population density. There is also a tendency towards secrecy among and between raptor fieldworkers - a legacy of a long history of illegal killing of raptors - which sometimes prohibits effective co-ordination of effort and sharing/collation of data. The SRMS has helped in building trust and a collective voice. Monitoring - which is potentially fairly intrusive - is strictly regulated by the national government agencies, which issue annual licences for this purpose. This licence system does not, however, include a compulsory facility for reporting evidence of illegal human interference. The Partnership for Action against Wildlife crime (PAW) and the RSPB's persecution database - as well as the SRMS in Scotland - offer channels through which such activities may be reported. The main geographical gaps are in the north-west of Scotland and in lowland England and Wales (for dedicated raptor monitoring; apart from north-west Scotland, these areas are generally well covered by some other bird surveys such as the BBS). In terms of species, the commoner species are generally less well monitored by dedicated raptor fieldworkers, but they are covered to an extent in the BBS and other pan-avian surveys. The raptor monitoring movement in Britain was motivated by the historical rarity of species such as Golden Eagle, Hen Harrier and Peregrine Falcon, caused by illegal killing and (in the case of the Peregrine Falcon) the pesticide crisis of the 1960s and 1970s. There is therefore a traditional emphasis on upland areas managed for shooting, and on scarcer species. 6. Priorities, capacity-building The main priority for GB raptor monitoring is to increase the national-level co-ordination of survey effort and the sharing of data, such that a strategic assessment of coverage and monitoring gaps can be carried out and addressed in future. In general terms, the SRMS model needs to be mirrored in England and Wales. The engagement of a new generation of raptor fieldworkers is also of paramount importance; the vast majority of monitoring in GB is undertaken by volunteers, and it is essential to maintain continuity of long-running surveys by recruiting new people. There are a number of gaps in coverage of certain species already recognised at GB scale, which can be briefly summarised as: lack of comprehensive coverage of Red Kite in most English counties, especially in the Chiltern Hills area; lack of comprehensive coverage of Marsh Harrier in the core areas of East Anglia, Lincolnshire and Kent (though if the national SCARABBS survey is repeated this will be less critical); lack of comprehensive coverage of Hen Harrier, Golden Eagle, Merlin and Peregrine Falcon from most regions of Scotland (consistent, long-term study areas cover only a (sometimes non-representative) proportion of the national range for any species); data on Goshawk are based largely on monitored nests, and there is an unknown number of territorial birds present, which are not diligently counted, due to secrecy (data not submitted to recorders) or lack of descriptions in marginal areas, where recorders demand descriptions to support records; data for Ospreys in Scotland are often either withheld from SRMS/RBBP or submitted with insufficient site metadata; there is probably a relatively large, unrecorded population of Hobbies in the southern half of England, where population estimates may be based solely on counts of known nests, though the method of extrapolation of counts from intensively-studies areas (Clements 2001) has the potential to increase the accuracy of estimates; there are few regions of GB where Long-eared & Short-eared Owls are studied regularly in pre-defined areas. The SRMS is currently formally reviewing the coverage of raptor monitoring across Scotland (Roos et al. in print; BTO Scotland & SRMS unpubl.). The SRMS is also developing an Entry-Level scheme wherein new members will be encouraged to survey grid squares that have been selected from a random (or, more likely, a stratified-random) sample, so that field data may be more rigorously translated into regional and/or national population trends. Finding a compromise between the scientific rigor of a survey design and its attractiveness to volunteers is a key challenge for survey co-ordinators. 7. Povzetek Pričujoči prispevek je kratek oris dejavnosti, povezane z monitoringom ptic roparic (ujed in sov) v Veliki Britaniji. Redno spremljanje teh ptic ima na britanskem otočju dolgo tradicijo, tako da so v večji ali manjši meri popisane vse redno gnezdeče ptice roparice. Pogoste ptice roparice, kot sta kanja Buteo buteo in postovka Falco tinnunculus, so vključene v nacionalne popise vseh vrst, ki jih koordinira British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), medtem ko so redkejše vrste deležne pozornosti v manj obsežnih, a intenzivnejših študijah terenskih izvedencev. To delo podpira (tudi v finančnem smislu) tako več nevladnih organizacij kot nacionalnih vladnih agencij. Sicer pa avtorji prispevka ugotavljajo, da je potrebna večja koordinacija lokalnih/regionalnih študijskih skupin, s čimer bi se olajšalo zbiranje statističnih podatkov o populacijah in produktivnosti ptic roparic na državni ravni in tudi ugotavljanje območij in/ali vrst, ki terjajo temeljitejše popise. Sicer pa obstaja potencial za boljšo uporabo podatkov, zbranih na terenu, in s tem zagotavljanje dokazov o človekovih motnjah pri gnezdenju ptic roparic. 8. References Allen, D.S. & Feare, C.J. (2003): Birds of prey and lowland gamebird management. pp. 427—442 In: Thompson, D.B.A., Redpath, S.M., Fielding, A.H., Marquiss, M. & Galbraith, C.A. (eds.): Birds of Prey in a Changing Environment. — The Stationery Office, Edinburgh. Amar, A., Court, I.R., Davison, M., Downing, S., Grimshaw, T., Pickford, T. & Raw, D. (2011): Linking nest histories, remotely sensed land use data and wildlife crime records to explore the impact of grouse moor management on peregrine falcon populations. — Biological Conservation 145 (1): 86—94. Anonymous (2002): Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme Agreement. — Scottish Natural Heritage. Baillie, S.R., Marchant, J.H., Leech, D.I., Massimino, D., Eglington, S.M., Johnston, A., Noble, D.G., Barimore, C., Kew, A.J., Downie, I.S., Risely, K. & Robinson, R.A. (2013): Bird Trends 2012: trends in numbers, breeding success and survival for UK breeding birds. BTO Research Report No. 644. - BTO, Thetford. Baker, H., Stroud, D.A., Aebischer, N.J., Cranswick, P.A., Gregory, R.D., McSorley, C.A., Noble, D.G. & Rehfisch, M.M. (2006): Population estimates of birds in Great Britain and the United Kingdom. - British Birds 99 (1): 25-44. Balmer, D.E., Gillings, S., Caffrey, B.J., Swann, R.L., Downie, I.S. & Fuller, R.J. (in print): Bird Atlas 20072011: The breeding and wintering birds of Britain and Ireland. - BTO Books, Thetford. Banks, A.N., Crick, H.Q.P., Coombs, R., Benn, S., Ratcliffe, D.A., & Humphreys, E.M. (2010): The breeding status of Peregrine Falcons Falco peregrinus in the UK and Isle of Man in 2002. - Bird Study 57 (4): 421-436. Calladine, J., du Feu, C. & du Feu, R. (2012): Changing migration patterns of the Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus in Europe: an analysis of ringing recoveries. - Journal of Ornithology 153 (3): 691-698. Carter, I. (2001): The Red Kite. - Arlequin Press, Shrewsbury. Clarke, R. (1995): The Marsh Harrier. - Hamlyn, London. Clarke, R. & Watson, D. (1990): The Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus Winter Roost survey in Britain and Ireland. - Bird Study 37 (2): 84-100. Clements, R. (2001): The Hobby in Britain: a new population estimate. - British Birds 94 (9): 402-408. Clements, R. (2002): The Common Buzzard in Britain: A New Population Estimate. - British Birds 95 (8): 377-383. Dennis, R. (2008): A Life of Ospreys. - Whittles Publishing, Dunbeath. Dobson, A.D.M., Clarke, M., Kjellen, N. & Clarke, R. (2012): The size and migratory origins of the population of Hen Harriers Circus cyaneus wintering in England. - Bird Study 59 (2): 218-227. Downing, S.E. & the Northern England Raptor Forum (2011): NERF Annual Review 2010. - NERF. Eaton, M.A., Dillon, I.A., Stirling-Aird, P.K & Whitfield, D.P. (2007): The status of the golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos in Britain in 2003. - Bird Study 54 (2): 212-220. Etheridge, B., Riley, H., Wernham, C., Holling, M. & Stevenson, A. (2013): Scottish Raptor Monitoring Report 2011. - Scottish Ornithologists' Club, Aberlady, on behalf of the Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme. Etheridge, B., Summers, R.W & Green, R.E. (1997): The effects of illegal killing and destruction of nests by humans on the population dynamics of the hen harrier Circus cyaneus in Scotland. - Journal of Applied Ecology 34 (4): 1081-1105. Ewing, S.R., Rebecca, G.W, Heavisides, A., Court, I.R., Lindley, P., Ruddock, M., Cohen, S. & Eaton, M.A. (2011): Breeding status of Merlins Falco columbarius in the UK in 2008. - Bird Study 58 (4): 379-389. Fielding, A., Haworth, P., Whitfield, P., McLeod, D. & Riley, H. (2011): A Conservation Framework for Hen Harriers in the United Kingdom. JNCC Report 441. -Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough. Gibbons, D.W, Reid, J.B. & Chapman, R.A. (1993): The New Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland: 19881991. - T & A D Poyser, London. Greenoak, F. (1997): British Birds: Their Folklore, Names and Literature. - Christopher Helm, London. Hayhow, D.B., Eaton, M.A., Bladwell, S., Etheridge, B., Ewing, S., Ruddock, M., Saunders, R., Sharpe, C., Sim, I.M.W & Stevenson, A. (inprint): The status of the Hen Harrier, Circus cyaneus, in the UK and Isle of Man in 2010. - Bird Study. Holling, M. & the Rare Breeding Birds Panel (2011): Rare Breeding Birds in the United Kingdom in 2009. -British Birds 104 (9): 476-537. Holling, M. & the Rare Breeding Birds Panel (2012): Rare Breeding Birds in the United Kingdom in 2010. -British Birds 105 (7): 352-416. Humphreys, L., Wernham, C. & Crick, H. (2007): Raptor Species Conservation Frameworks: The Peregrine Conservation Framework Project Progress Report — Phase I. BTO Research Report No. 535. - BTO, Thetford. Love, J.A. (1983): The Return of the Sea Eagle. - Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Love, R.A., Webbon, C., Glue, D.E. & Harris, S. (2000): Changes in the food of British Barn Owls (Tyto alba) between 1974 and 1997. - Mammal Review 30 (2): 107129. Mammen, U. & Stubbe, M. (2009): [Annual Report 2003 and 2004 for monitoring of birds of prey and owls in Europe.] - Jahresbericht zum Monitoring Greifvögel und Eulen Europas 16/17: 1-118. (in German) Petty, S.J. (1996): History of the Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis in Britain. pp 95-102 In: Holmes, J.S. & Simons, J.R (eds.): The Introduction and Naturalisation of Birds. - HMSO, London. Roos, S., Dobson, A., Noble, D., Haworth, P., Fielding, A., Carrington-Cotton, A., Etheridge, B. & Wernham, C. (inprint): Raptors in Scotland - developing trends and indicators. - Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report. Smart, J., Amar, A., Sim, I.M.W., Etheridge, B., Cameron, D., Christie, G. &Wilson, J.D. (2010): Illegal killing slows population recovery of a re-introduced raptor of high conservation concern - The red kite Milvus milvus. -Biological Conservation 143 (5): 1278-1286. Toms, M.P., Crick, H.Q.P. & Shawyer, C.R. (2001): The status of breeding barn owls Tyto alba in the United Kingdom 1995-97. - Bird Study 48 (1): 23-37. Wernham, C.V., Etheridge, B., Holling, M., Riddle, G., Riley, H.T., Stirling-Aird, P.K, Stroud, D., Thompson, D.B.A. & Wilson, J.D. (2008): The Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme: objectives, achievements in the first four years, and plans for future development. -Ambio 37(6): 460-465. Whitfield, D.P., Fielding, A.H., McLeod, D.R.A. & Haworth, P.F. (2004): Modelling the effects of persecution on the population dynamics of golden eagles in Scotland. -Biological Conservation 119 (3): 319-333. Whitfield, D.P., Fielding, A.H, McLeod, D.R.A. & Haworth, P.F. (2008): A conservation framework for golden eagles: implications for their conservation and management in Scotland. - Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 193 (ROAME No. F05AC306). Wotton, S.R., Carter, I., Cross, A.V., Etheridge, B., Snell, N., Duffy, K., Thorpe, R. & Gregory, R.D. (2002): Breeding status of the Red Kite Milvus milvus in Britain in 2000: The first co-ordinated Red Kite survey across Britain since the reintroduction programme began in 1989, yields 430 breeding pairs. - Bird Study 49 (3): 278-286. Arrived / Prispelo: 27. 3. 2013 Accepted / Sprejeto: 1. 7. 2013 Status of populations and monitoring of raptors in Great Britain Status populacij in monitoring ptic roparic v Veliki Britaniji Species / Vrsta Population size/ Velikost populacije (pairs / pari) Latest national survey/ Zadnji nacionalni popis Next national survey/ Naslednji nacionalni popis Extent of annual national monitoring / Obseg letnega nacionalnega monitoringa Parameters/ Parametri Source/ Vir Honey Buzzard Perms apivorus 33-69 2000 Records submitted to RBBP BP, Pr NS Red Kite Milvus milvus 1,043 (5-yr mean) Annual Professional monitoring of re-established populations BP, Pr, S 1 White-tailed Eagle Haliaeettis albicilL t 40 (5-yr mean) Annual Professional monitoring of re-established populations BP, Pr, S 1 Marsh Harrier Circus aerugitiosus 360 2005 Records submitted to RBBP" BP, Pr NS Hen Harrier Circus cyatieus 687 2010* (and annual winter) Partial co-ordinated coverage by RSGs BP, Pr, S NS Montagu's Harrier Circus pygargus 15 Effectively annual via RBBP Records submitted to RBBP BP, Pr 1 Goshawk Accipiter gentilis 400 1988-91 BTO/ SOC/IWC Atlas 2007-11 BTO/ BWI/SOC Atlas Partial co-ordinated coverage by RSGs*" BP, Pr 1, 2 Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus 38,600 1988-91 BTO/ SOC/IWC Atlas 2007-11 BTO/ BWI/SOC Atlas Coverage in BBS, and locally by some RSGs BP, I, Pr 3 Buzzard Buteo buteo 31,100-44,000 1988-91 BTO/ SOC/IWC Atlas 2007-11 BTO/ BWI/SOC Atlas Coverage in BBS, and locally by some RSGs BP, I, Pr 3 Golden Eagle Aqtdla chrysaetos 442 2003 Considerable co-ordinated coverage by RSGs BP, Pr NS Osprey Pandion haliaetus 180 (5-yr mean) Effectively annual Declining proportion covered by RSPB and RSGs as population increases BP, Pr 1 Kestrel Falco tinnunculus 35,400 1988-91 BTO/ SOC/IWC Atlas 2007-11 BTO/ BWI/SOC Atlas Coverage in BBS, and locally by some RSGs BP, I, Pr 3 Continuation of Appendix 1 / Nadaljevanje dodatka 1 Species / Vrsta Population size/ Velikost populacije (pairs / pari) Latest national survey/ Zadnji nacionalni popis Next national survey/ Naslednji nacionalni popis Extent of annual national monitoring / Obseg letnega nacionalnega monitoringa Parameters/ Parametri Source/ Vir Merlin Falco columbarius 1,128 2008 Partial co-ordinated coverage by RSGs BP, Pr NS Hobby Falco subbuteo 2,200 1988-91 BTO/ SOC/IWC Atlas 2007-11 BTO/ BWI/SOC Atlas Coverage in BBS, and records submitted to RBBP BP, I, Pr 4 Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 1,324 2002 2014» Considerable co-ordinated coverage by RSGs BP, Pr, S NS Barn Owl Tyto alba 3,000-5,000 1995-1997 Coverage in BBS, and locally by some RSGs BP, I, Pr NS Little Owl Athene tioctua 5,800-11,600 1988-91 BTO/ SOC/IWC Atlas 2007-11 BTO/ BWI/SOC Atlas Coverage in BBS, and locally by some RSGs BP, I, Pr 3 Tawny Owl Strix aluco 19,400 1988-91 BTO/ SOC/IWC Atlas 2007-11 BTO/ BWI/SOC Atlas Coverage in BBS, and locally by some RSGs BP, I, Pr 3 Long-eared Owl Asio otus 1,100-3,600 1988-91 BTO/ SOC/IWC Atlas 2007-11 BTO/ BWI/SOC Atlas Local coverage by some RSGs BP, Pr 5 Short-eared Owl Asio fldmmetis 1,000-3,500 1988-91 BTO/ SOC/IWC Atlas 2007-11 BTO/ BWI/SOC Atlas Local coverage by some RSGs BP, Pr 5 (1)Holling & RBBP (2011); (2) Petty (1996); (3) Baker čt^/. (2006); (4) Clements (2001); (5) Gibbons et at (1993) * Not yet published. Population estimate refers to 2004 survey; declines were apparent between 2004 and 2010. ** Note: from these records 5-yr mean to 2009 is 404 *** Note: from records submitted to RBBP 5-yr mean to 2009 is 431 NS - National survey; BTO - British Trust for Ornithology; SOC - Scottish Ornithologists' Club; IWC - International Waterbirds Census; BWI - Bird Watch Ireland; RBBP - Rare Breeding Birds Panel; RSGs - Raptor Study Groups; BBS - BTO/JNCC/RSPB Breeding Bird Survey. Parameters: BP — Breeding pairs; I — Individuals; Pr — Productivity; S — Survival. Parameters measured by at least some monitoring schemes. An overview of monitoring for raptors in Hungary Pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic na Madžarskem Andras Kovacs1, Janos Bagyura2, Marton Horvath2 & Gergo Halmos2 1 Koszoru u. 46, H-3300 Eger, Hungary, e-mail: andras.kovacs.ecol@gmail.com 2 MME BirdLife Hungary, Költo u. 21, H-1121 Budapest, Hungary A total of 47 species of birds of prey and owls have occurred in Hungary since the beginning of ornithological data collection. The systematic monitoring of birds of prey in Hungary started in the late 1970s by MME/BirdLife Hungary. Since then a nation-wide monitoring network has developed, which presently includes more than 30 organisations and around 250-300 active members. The co-ordination of national monitoring of diurnal raptors and owls has been hosted by the Raptor Conservation Group and the Monitoring Centre of MME/BirdLife Hungary for decades, with a steady increase in the capacity and participation of state nature conservation bodies, especially national park directorates. Today, the population parameters of 12 birds of prey and two owl priority species are monitored annually in a nation-wide hierarchical monitoring network, while data about all other raptor species are regularly gathered regionally and locally. The coverage of the monitoring compared to the national range of threatened raptor species is usually between 60-80%, but in flagship species it often exceeds 80%. However, only broad estimations are available on the population size and trend of more widespread species, which forms one of the most important knowledge gaps regarding raptors in Hungary. Key words; Hungary, birds of prey, owls, monitoring network, conservation, SWOT Ključne besede; Madžarska, ujede, sove, monitorinško omrežje, varstvo, SWOT 1. Background Since the beginning of ornithological data collection, 35 diurnal birds of prey and 12 owl species, including 21 and 10 breeding species respectively, have been recorded within the present political borders of Hungary (MME - Nomenclator Committee 2008). The modern nation-wide raptor (birds of prey and owls) monitoring dates back to the mid-1970s, when a handful of interested people established the Raptor Conservation Committee (the later Raptor Conservation Group - RCG) in MME/BirdLife Hungary (Hungarian Ornithological and Nature Conservation Society) and embarked upon collecting and publishing sporadically available data mainly on rare raptor species in 1974 (Haraszthy & Bagyura 1993). The systematic data collection began in the late 1970s, when the main aims of the RCG were to fight against the persecution and illegal taking of birds of prey and to protect their nest sites. In later years, raptor monitoring data greatly contributed to the establishment of protected areas and to the conservation and management of key raptor sites and habitats as parts of the wider environment. 2. Main Players 2.1. Monitoring network The Hungarian raptor monitoring network gradually broadened over the past decades and today it involves around 30 organisations (10 national park directorates and around 20 non-governmental organisations, museums and institutes of higher education) and 250-300 active members in a variety of raptor monitoring programmes countrywide. As an initiative of MME/BirdLife Hungary, the Hungarian Raptor Conservation Council was established by 26 key organizations in 2010 to unite raptor monitoring and conservation efforts throughout Hungary (MME — Raptor Conservation Group 2012). The national monitoring network operates in a hierarchical system consisting of invited and overwhelmingly voluntary national co-ordinators, regional co-ordinators, local activists and employees of national park directorates. An annual informal assemble is organised for raptor monitoring activists in September for mainly team building purposes. A specialist meeting is organised annually in the first quarter of a year for giving updates on the previous year's conservation work and raptor population sizes to participants in raptor monitoring and conservation programmes. Yearly concise reports on the monitoring and conservation of raptors species and short papers have been published in Heliaca, the annual of the RCG MME/BirdLife Hungary, since 2004 in Hungarian with English summaries (see for latest references in Table 1). Peer-reviewed raptor research papers are regularly published in Aquila (GRIN 2013), the annual of the former Hungarian Institute of Ornithology, recently edited and published with the financial help of the Ministry of Rural Development. 2.2. International co-operation International co-operation in raptor monitoring of Hungary have been influenced mainly by the geographical distribution of key raptor species and key conservation issues. Some of the flagship raptor species form a single cross-border population in the Carpathian Basin. Thus, there has been a traditional strong cooperation with Slovak raptor specialists for decades for example in the conservation and monitoring of the Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca and the Saker Falcon Falco cherrug. The co-operation has gradually been strengthened through joint projects with Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania and Serbia in the conservation of the White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla, the Imperial Eagle, the Red-footed Falcon F. vespertinus and the Saker Falcon since the early 2000s. Project level co-operations have also increased with a wide range of countries within Europe and outside (e.g. Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey, Macedonia — Imperial Eagle, Italy, Ukraine — Saker Falcon) since the early 2000s. 2.3. Main Users The main users of the data obtained from raptor monitoring are the Ministry of Rural Development, National Park Directorates, environmental authorities and NGOs, primarily MME/BirdLife Hungary. Data are used for decision making in Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) by state conservation organisations and also for follow-up reporting to international conventions and to the European Commission under the Birds Directive (EC 2009) on the status of raptor species and on the general state of biodiversity. Data collection in NGOs helps to follow and present the changes in raptor populations in the long term to the stakeholders and the general public. Since Hungarian people traditionally have a considerable cultural binding to raptors, presenting basic data about birds of prey and owl populations can significantly increase public awareness on environmental problems. 3. Key species Key species addressed by co-ordinated national monitoring principally include threatened and rare diurnal raptors and owls (Table 1). Basic population data on these species are collected in a hierarchical system co-ordinated by a usually volunteer national co-ordinator. Data on some owl species are also collected by national co-ordinators, but these species are generally much less known than diurnal raptors. 4. Monitoring methods and national coverage The method used for the monitoring of key species is predominantly annual total count of known territories of each species. The search for new territories and nest-sites takes place all year round based on data coming from point counts, synchronous and occasional observations in and outside the breeding season. In most key species, all known nests are checked more than once a year in order to localize occupied nest-sites, to record the brood size and the breeding success as well as to intervene if the brood is directly threatened by natural and human-related factors. The total count of raptors is used during the winter raptor survey called Eagle Synch, when hundreds of observers record birds of prey simultaneously on the same winter date in a particular area within a coordinated effort. Table 1: Population status and monitoring of diurnal birds of prey ad owls covered by co-ordinated national monitoring in Hungary Tabela 1: Populacijski status in monitoring ujed in sov, ki se opravlja v okviru koordiniranega nacionalnega monitoringa na Madžarskem Species / Vrsta Population size/ Velikost populacije (pairs / pari) Monitoring season / Obdobje monitoringa Monitored population parameters / Spremljani populacijski parametri Responsible organisation/ Odgovorna organizacija" References / Viri Black kite Milvus migrans 123 (observed) Breeding season D, BP, BS MME, BNPD Török et al. (2010) Red kite Milvus Milvus* 4 (2 observed) Breeding season, winter count D, BP, BS, NB MME Bank & Baläzs (2010) White-tailed Eagle Haliaeettis albicilla* 250 (226 observed) Breeding season, winter count D, BP, BS, NB, CD, G, MD MME, DDNPD Horväth (2010) Short-toed Eagle Circaetus gallicus* 32 (observed) Breeding season D, BP, BS MME, BNPD Szitta et al. (2010) Montagu's Harrier Circus pygargus 170-200 (estimated) Breeding season D, BP, BS MME MME NC (2008) Long-legged Buzzard Buteo rufinus* 15 (9 observed) Breeding season, winter count D, BP, BS, NB HNPI Tihanyi et al. (2010) Lesser-spotted Eagle Aqtula p o marina* 30 (27 observed) Breeding season D, BP, BS MME, BNPD Pongräcz et al. (2010) Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca* 135 (125 observed) All year D, BP, BS, NB, CD, G, MD MME Horväth et al. (2010) Golden Eagle Aqtula chrysaetos* 5 (observed) Breeding season, winter count D, BP, BS, NB, CD MME Firmänszky et al. (2010) Red-footed Falcon Falco vespertinus* 774 (observed) Breeding season, congregation sites D, BP, BS, NB, CD, MD MME Solt et al. (2010) Saker Falcon Falco cherrug 220 (172 observed) All year D, BP, BS, NB, CD, G, MD MME, BNPD Bagyura et al. (2010) Peregrine Falcon Falcoperegrinus* 21 (observed) Breeding season D, BP, BS, NB, CD, MD MME, PITE Prommer et al. (2010) Eagle Owl Bubo bubo 75 (60 observed) Breeding season D, BP, BS, NB, CD MME Petrovics (2010) Long-eared Owl Asio otus 2,300-2,700 ind. Winter roost (n = 92) WP HNPD Monoki et al. (2010) * Species in which the annual monitoring of population parameters supposedly covers more than 80% of the known national range ** BN P D - Biikk National Park Directorate; DDNPD - Düna - Drava National Park Directorate; HNPD - Hortobagy National Park Directorate; MME - BirdLife Hungary; PITE - Pilis Nature Conservation Society Parameters: D — distribution, BP — breeding population, WP — wintering population, BS — breeding success, NB — non-breeders, CD — causes of death, G — genetic variation, M D — migration and dispersal Point counts and line transects are less often used but applied for example in the monitoring of the number of raptors in temporary settlement areas preferred by non-breeding individuals, or congregation sites. The coverage of raptor monitoring differs from species to species. In key species (Table 1) the coverage of annual monitoring is in most cases between 60—80% of the known national breeding range. In flagship species, the annual monitoring of population parameters such as occupied territories, number of breeding pairs and breeding success can cover up to 80—95% of the estimated national populations. As for more common species, such as the Buzzard Buteo buteo and Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus, the monitoring coverage and capacity are much lower and usually only scarce local studies have been available on their population parameters. The national breeding population sizes and population trends of such species are estimated by a randomised sampling design used in the Common Bird Census scheme (Szep & Gibbons 2000). Changes in numbers of wintering Hen Harriers C. cyaneus, Buzzards and Rough-legged buzzards B. lagopus are monitored in parallel with winter eagle surveys and relevant national data are collected by MME/BirdLife Hungary. 5. Assessment of the present state of raptor monitoring in Hungary The key monitoring issues are closely associated with the monitoring of the general state of biodiversity and environmental parameters, such as the main specific and widespread threats to raptors including electrocution on electric poles, poisoning and illegal shooting, and habitat loss due to land use changes, agricultural and forestry intensification. The main strengths of monitoring for raptors in Hungary are the experienced and enthusiastic nationwide volunteer network consisted of numerous active field workers, professional full- and part-time raptor specialists at nature conservation organisations with effective international fundraising skills, and the hierarchical network of data collection. The main weaknesses of monitoring for raptors in Hungary are probably the lack of strategic and project planning for monitoring in line with conservation and research needs; the limited international networking capacities due to inadequate knowledge of foreign languages; and that the monitoring results are rarely published in international peer-reviewed journals. The main gap in species monitoring has been so far the lack of targeted national monitoring of common raptor population parameters especially in the Marsh Harrier, Buzzard and the Goshawk Accipiter gentilis. For filling this gap, a pilot monitoring scheme was introduced by MME/BirdLife Hungary in 2012 aiming at collecting raptor data annually in 2.5 x 2.5 km sample plots. International networking could further increase the effectiveness of the Hungarian raptor monitoring through the development of standardised international monitoring schemes. Sharing international experience in the monitoring of the populations of common birds of prey species, and in advocacy efforts could contribute to their long-term conservation; and to the mitigation and elimination of the main human-induced threats to birds of prey (e.g. electrocution, poisoning and persecution). Developing negotiation skills with key stakeholders on the sustainable use of national resources, joint research planning and publication of available data would also improve the potential outputs of raptor monitoring and conservation efforts. Sharing of good/best practice internationally would be beneficial to the Hungarian raptor monitoring activities in the planning of monitoring and related research in line with conservation needs; in collaboration and publication through joint projects; and in the more effective use of monitoring results in conservation policy and practice. As priorities for future work, we can mention the development of a national raptor monitoring strategy that clearly defines the aims, objectives and potential applications of the results of raptor monitoring activities; the expansion of common raptor monitoring in terms of area and participants; and the strengthening of the national co-ordination of survey efforts in key conservation issues. The main capacity building needs of the Hungarian raptor monitoring network are to establish an effective national planning, co-ordinating, data collecting, processing and interpreting unit and to recruit volunteers from younger generations. After all it must be mentioned that with all gaps and weaknesses the monitoring of birds of prey and owls is traditionally one of the most successful and effective national bio-monitoring networks in Hungary thanks to the enthusiastic and devoted work of many volunteers and professionals. Acknowledgements: A special thank you goes to the hundreds of volunteers who devoted their time and effort to raptor monitoring in Hungary in the past. The following individuals have played distinctive roles in the development of the Hungarian raptor monitoring network: Jozsef Fidloczky, Gabor Firmanszky, Laszlo Haraszthy, Bela Kalocsa, Peter Palatitz, Zoltan Petrovics, Istvan Sandor, Tamas Szitta, Imre Toth, Miklos Vaczi and Levente Viszlo. The authors thank EURAPMON and the European Science Foundation for their technical and financial support, which made the publication of this paper possible. We also thank the useful comments of Luka Božič (editor) and those of two anonymous referees. 6. Povzetek Od začetka zbiranja podatkov o pticah na Madžarskem je bilo v tej državi zabeleženih 47 vrst ujed in sov. Sistematičnega monitoringa se je v poznih 70. letih lotil MME/BirdLife Madžarska. Od tedaj se je razvilo vsedržavno monitorinško omrežje, ki trenutno vključuje več kot 30 organizacij in med 250 in 300 aktivnih članov. Za koordinacijo nacionalnega monitoringa ujed in sov že desetletja skrbita Skupina za varstvo ptic roparic in Center za monitoring pri MME/BirdLife Madžarska ob nenehno naraščajočem sodelovanju državnih naravovarstvenih teles, še posebno direktoratov narodnih parkov. Danes so populacijski parametri 14 prioritetnih vrst (12 vrst ujed in 2 vrst sov) spremljani v vsedržavnem hierarhičnem monitorinškem omrežju, medtem ko se podatki o vseh drugih vrstah ptic roparic redno zbirajo regionalno in lokalno. Pokritost monitoringa je glede na madžarski areal ogroženih vrst navadno 60-80 %, medtem ko pri karizmatičnih vrstah pokritost pogosto presega 80 %. Kljub temu so na voljo le grobe ocene o velikosti in trendih populacij pogostejših vrst, kar pa je tudi ena največjih vrzeli v poznavanju ptic roparic na Madžarskem. 7. References Bagyura, J., Fidloczky, J., Szitta, T., Prommer, M., Tihanyi, G., Zalai, T., Balazs, I., Vaczi, M., Viszlo, L., Klebert, A., Haraszthy, L., Toth, I., Török, H.A., Demeter, I., Serfozo, J., Pigniczki, Cs., Kazi, R. & Erdelyi, K. (2010): [Annual Report of the Saker Falcon Conservation Working Group.] - Heliaca 2010: 22-29. (in Hungarian, English summary) Bank, L. & Balazs, I. (2010): [Red Kite Population Data.] -Heliaca 2010: 42-43. (in Hungarian, English summary) European Commission (2009): Directive 2009/147/ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds. (available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:020:0007:0025:EN:PDF) Firmanszky, G. (2010): [Golden Eagle Population Data.] - Heliaca 2010: 48. (in Hungarian, English summary) Global Raptor Information Network (2013): Search for papers in Aquila. - [http://grin.biblio.globalraptors. org/rmwp?dbOverride=1&fields=Periodical&func=doA dvSearch&dbId=GRIN&terms=Aquila], 5/6/2013. Haraszthy, L. & Bagyura, J. (1993): Protection of birds of prey in Hungary in the last 100 years - Aquila 100: 105-121. (in Hungarian, English summary) Horvath, Z. (2010): [Report of the White-tailed Eagle protection programme.] - Heliaca 2010: 36-39. (in Hungarian, English summary) Horvath, M., Bagyura, J., Fater, I., Firmanszky, G., Juhasz, T., Kleszo, A., Szitta, T., Toth, I. & Vaczi, M. (2010): [Hungarian Imperial Eagle Working Group Annual Report.] - Heliaca 2010: 12-16. (in Hungarian, English summary) MME - Nomenclator Committee (2008): Nomenclator avium Hungariae. An annotated list of the birds of Hungary. - MME/BirdLife Hungary, Budapest. MME - Raptor Conservation Group (2012): [Hungarian Council for the protection of Birds of Prey.] - Heliaca 8: 133-134. (in Hungarian, English summary) Monoki, A., Sebe, K., Lisztes, A. & Kiss, A. (2010): [Wintering Long-eared Owls in Hungary 2009/2010.] -Heliaca 2010: 56-60. (in Hungarian, English summary) Petrovics, Z. (2010): [Eagle Owl Population Data.] -Heliaca 2010: 50-51. (in Hungarian, English summary) Pongracz, A., Szegedi, Zs., Kovats, L., Szinai, P. & Bank, L. (2010): [Lesser-spotted eagle Population Data.] -Heliaca 2010: 46-47. (in Hungarian, English summary) Prommer, M., Bagyura, J., Molnar, I.L., Szitta, T., Pongracz, A., Kazi, R., Viszlo, L. & Csonka, P. (2010): [Peregrine Conservation Programme.] - Heliaca 2010: 30-31. (in Hungarian, English summary) Solt, Sz., Palatitz, P., Fehervari, P., Gergely, J., Agoston, A. & Barna, K. (2010): [Red-footed Falcon Working Group Annual Report.] - Heliaca 2010: 1721. (in Hungarian, English summary) Szep, T. & Gibbons, D. (2000): Monitoring of common breeding birds in Hungary using a randomised sampling design. - The Ring 22 (2): 45-55. Szitta, T., Beres, I., Csonka, P., Klebert, A., Molnar, I.L. & Nagy, L. (2010): [Short-toed Eagle Population Data.] - Heliaca 2010: 44. (in Hungarian, English summary) Tihanyi, G., Tar, J., Vasas, A., Vincze, T., Czifrak, G. & Bagyura, J. (2010): [Long-legged Buzzard Population Data.] - Heliaca 2010: 45. (in Hungarian, English summary) Török, H.A., Bank, L., Csonka, P., Horvath, Z., Hunyadvari, P., Kotyman, L., Kovats, L., Monoki, A., Morocz, A., Szegedi, Zs., Tihanyi, G. & Toth, I. (2010): [Black Kite Population Data.] - Heliaca 2010: 40-41. (in Hungarian, English summary) Arrived / Prispelo: 27. 3. 2013 Accepted / Sprejeto: 1. 7. 2013 An overview of monitoring for raptors in Ireland Pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic na Irskem Allan Mee Irish Raptor Study Group, Glenanaar, Ardpatrick, Kilmallock, Co. Limerick, Ireland, e-mail: allanmee@goldeneagle.ie Ireland holds a low diversity of breeding raptors as a result of its location on the western edge of Europe but also due to historical persecution leading to the loss of at least seven species. Recolonisation by Buzzards Buteo buteo and the recent reintroduction of three species, Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos, White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla and Red Kite Milvus milvus, has helped redress such losses. Monitoring for raptors is carried out by the statutory agencies, NGOs and two university research groups. Decadal and semi-decadal surveys are undertaken nationally in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland for Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus and Hen Harriers Circus cyaneus, respectively. Long term monitoring projects have been established for some key species such as Barn Owl Tyto alba. However, some species receive little monitoring effort (e.g. Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus, Merlin F. columbarius). A dedicated Raptor Monitoring Scheme to determine long-term population trends across a range of species is lacking and remains an urgent priority. Development of an Action Plan for raptors and/or single key species would further help identify priorities and raise awareness of the need of monitoring for raptors. Key words: birds of prey, owls, monitoring, survey, Ireland Ključne besede: ujede, sove, monitoring, popis, Irska 1. Introduction Ireland holds perhaps the lowest diversity of raptor species in Europe (Table 1) in part as a result of its location as an island on the western edge of Europe but also due to the loss of several species as a result of centuries of human persecution and habitat loss (D'Arcy 1999). However, in the last few decades four species previously extinct have now either been re-established through reintroduction programmes (O'Toole et al. 2002) or have recolonised naturally (Norriss 1991), while two other species have bred intermittently and may re-establish themselves in the near future (Hillis 2008). Perhaps due to different conservation priorities and the low diversity of breeding raptors, monitoring of raptors in Ireland has received much less attention than other bird groups (e.g., seabirds, wildfowl) until recently (see Table 1, Figure 1). 2. Main players Statutory responsibility for raptor monitoring and conservation rests with the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) in the Republic of Ireland (RoI) and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) in Northern Ireland. Such responsibilities include the designation of Special Protection Areas (SPA) for Birds Directive Annex I raptors within the Natura 2000 network, the management of six National Parks in the RoI, some of which hold important raptor populations, and the enforcement of the Wildlife Act (1976, 2000) to protect raptor populations (see www. npws.ie). Two NGOs have a specific remit to monitor raptor populations. The Irish Raptor Study Group (IRSG) is a voluntary organisation solely dedicated to monitor and improve the conservation status of raptors in the RoI (IRSG 2006). The Golden Eagle Trust Table 1: Summary of monitoring programmes for raptors in Ireland (including Northern Ireland) Tabela 1: Povzetek programov monitoringa ptic roparic na Irskem (vključno s Severno Irsko) Species / Vrsta Population Estimate/ Populacijska ocena Project name/ Naziv projekta Project type/ Vrsta projekta Duration/ Trajanje Organisation/ Organizacija Red Kite Milvus milvus 25—30 Irish Red Kite reintroduction1 Reintroduction 2007—2011 GET, NPWS, RSPB White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla 10 Irish White-tailed Eagle reintroduction2 Reintroduction 2007—2011 GET, NPWS Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus 0—2 No studies IRSG Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus 190—220 Planforbio3 Research University College Cork Goshawk Accipiter gentilis 0—5 No studies D. Scott (in litt.) Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus 11,000 No studies IRSG Buzzard Buteo buteo 3,500—4,000 Buzzard Ecology & Biology Project4 PhD/ Monitoring 2010— Queens University, IRSG Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos 5—10 Irish Golden Eagle Reintroduction5 Reintroduction 2001— GET, NPWS Kestrel Falco tinnunculus 10,000 Kestrel Monitoring Project6 Monitoring/ Research BWI Merlin Falco columbarius 250+ Merlin pilot project7 Research 2010— BWI, NPWS Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 450—500 Wicklow/NW Ireland pop. Study8 Survey/ Research 2011 D. Clarke/ NPWS/IRSG Barn Owl Tyto alba 400—600 Barn Owl Research Project9 Research 2006— BWI Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus 0—1 No studies IRSG Long-eared Owl Asio otus 3,500+ LEO Monitoring Project10 Survey/ Monitoring 2012— BWI, NPWS Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus 0—5 No studies 1 Co. Wicklow, Co. Down; 2 Co. Kerry; 3 Cos. Kerry, Cork, Limerick, Clare; 4 Co. Cork (IRSG), N. Ireland (Queens); 5 Co. Donegal; 6 SW Ireland; 7 Wicklow, Donegal, Connemara; 8 Co. Wicklow, NW Ireand; 9 SW Ireland; 10 Connemara, SW Ireland. GET — Golden Eagle Trust; NPWS — National Parks and Wildlife Service; IRSG — Irish Raptor Study Group; BWI — BirdWatch Ireland (GET) works to restore populations of threatened or previously extinct raptor species. The GET manages reintroduction programmes for Golden Eagles Aquila chrysaetos, White-tailed Eagles Haliaeetus albicilla, and Red Kites Milvus milvus in the RoI in collaboration with NPWS (O'Toole 2002, Mee 2009 & 2010). A third NGO, BirdWatch Ireland (BWI), the BirdLife International partner in the RoI, is dedicated to the conservation of Irish birds and has recently established a Raptor Conservation Project. BWI established a long term monitoring programme for Barn Owls Tyto alba in 2006 and has more recently initiated research and monitoring of Long-eared Owl Asio otus, Kestrel Falco tinnunculus and Merlin F. columbarius to determine densities, trends, ecological requirements and factors affecting the conservation status of these populations (Lusby 2009, 2012A & 2012B, Lusby et al. 2010A, 20I0B, 2011, 20I2A & 20I2B, Fernandez-bellön & Lusby 2011A & 2011B, O'Cleary et al. 2012). In Northern Ireland, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) manages the reintroduction programme for Red Kites in County Down. The Northern Ireland Raptor Study Group (NIRSG) is the sister group of the IRSG, monitoring raptors in Northern Ireland, especially an intensive monitoring programme for Peregrine Falcons F. peregrinus (Wells 2007). Two university research teams monitor raptor populations. The Planforbio research team at University College Cork has been working on the ecology of Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus nesting in commercial forestry plantations since 2008, work which has informed the State forestry body, Coillte, of forest management possibilities for harriers (Irwin et al. 2008, Wilson et al. 2009 & 2012). The Quercus programme at Queens University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, has instigated studies of harriers and Peregrine Falcon (Ruddock 2007 & 2008), as well as raptor monitoring workshops (www.qub.ac.uk/sites/ Quercus). A study of the population dynamics of Buzzards Buteo buteo is also ongoing (Rooney 2013, Rooney & Montgomerie 2013). Collaboration in monitoring for raptors is primarily with the UK including breeding and winter Atlas studies (all species including raptors), which are run simultaneously across Ireland and Britain (Sharrock 1976, Lack 1986, Gibbons et al. 1993). Single species studies of Peregrine Falcon (Crick & Ratcliffe 1995, Norriss 1995, Banks et al. 2003, Madden et al. 2009) and Hen Harrier (Sim et al. 2001, Norriss et al. 2002, Barton et al. 2006, Sim et al. 2007, Ruddock et al. 2010) have also been carried out in both regions in similar time periods. There is also close collaboration with Britain on ringing studies and activities as Irish ringers use rings supplied by the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) and supply raptor information to BTO studies such as the Nest Record Scheme. Raptor monitoring data submitted to statutory agencies are important in determining population status and trends and may form the basis for conservation action such as the SPA designation. Declining species may be added to the Red List of species of conservation concern and become priorities for conservation (Lynas et al. 2007). NGOs, such as the IRSG, NIRSG, GET and BWI, supply much of the data needed for setting conservation priorities. State agencies such as Coillte may use data on Hen Harrier to inform forest management. Figure 1: Monitoring programmes for raptors in Ireland. Numbers refer to project names in Table 1. Slika 1: Programi monitoringa ptic roparic na Irskem. Številke ustrezajo nazivom projektov v Tabeli 1. 3. National coverage Apart from Atlas studies (all species), coverage for single species raptor surveys has been coordinated by NPWS/NIEA, NGOs or private consultants working on behalf of the statutory agencies so that populations in all regions are assessed (e.g. Madden et al. 2009, Ruddock et al. 2010). NGOs have also coordinated their own national surveys to determine population status and trends (Lusby 2012B, Mee & Clarke in prep.). No national scheme exists for long-term monitoring of raptor population trends, although this has been proposed by the IRSG-NIRSG to the statutory agencies. At present, little or no funding appears to be available for this programme. The IRSG-NIRSG provide a framework for coordinating raptor monitoring but, except for dedicated national surveys, coverage is patchy and tends to focus on species of interest to individuals or those that can be relatively easily accessed without specialist skills such as tree-climbing, while some of the more widespread and apparently common raptors (e.g. Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus) are little monitored. Coverage also tends to be lowest in more remote, mountain areas. 4. Key species and key issues The focus of monitoring for raptors to date has been national and regional studies of Annex I species, particularly Peregrine Falcon (Moore et al. 1992 & 1997, Wells 2007) and Hen Harrier (Scott 2000, O'Donoghue 2010) as well as local and regional studies of Merlin (Clarke & Scott 1994, McElheron 2005, Norriss et al. 2010, Fernandez-Bellon & Lusby 2011A & 2011B). Other key species have been those recently listed on the Red (high) and Amber (medium) list of birds of conservation concern (Lynas et al. 2007) including the recently reintroduced Golden Eagle and Red Kite. Breeding populations of the reintroduced Golden Eagle (northwestern Ireland) and Red Kite (County Wicklow) are comprehensively monitored by the GET using radio and satellite telemetry as well as public sighting of wing-tagged individuals (see www.goldeneagle.ie). White-tailed Eagles are similarly monitored, with first breeding in the wild expected in 2012/2013 (Mee 2009 & 2010). Although historically habitat loss, principally loss of native forest cover and wetland drainage, has had an undoubted effect of Irish raptor populations, direct human persecution has in the past caused most population extinctions including the loss of breeding Osprey, Golden Eagle Pandion haliaetus, White-tailed Eagle, Red Kite, Goshawk A. gentilis and Buzzard (D'Arcy 1999). All but Osprey have now either been reintroduced or recolonised to varying extents (Norriss 1991, Hillis 2008, Mee 2010). However, poisoning remains the greatest threat to re-establishing or maintaining populations. Between 2007 and early 2013, of 27 White-tailed Eagles recovered dead, 12 were confirmed poisoned in Rol and another seven suspected (GET unpubl). At least three Golden Eagles and 16 Red Kites have also been poisoned during this period. Most if not all such poisoning appears to be accidental, foxes and crows being the intended target. However, several Buzzards and even Peregrine Falcons have also been deliberately poisoned. Most recently (Sept-Dec 2011), eight Red Kites were recovered dead, at least six apparently due to rodenticide (brodifacoum) poisoning (GET unpubl) to which Barn Owls in Ireland are highly susceptible (J. Lusby unpubl.). Following a formal complaint to the EU (GET 2009), the use of poisons for the control of foxes has been banned in the RoI (Oct 2010). However, illegal use and misuse of substances remains a problem. A formal protocol for postmortem handling, toxicological analysis and reporting was established in 2011 by NPWS in collaboration with the Department of Agriculture and the State Laboratory. Rodenticides also kill Kestrel and Buzzard, but population level threats are unknown. Other threats include road (Barn Owl) and rail (Red Kite) collisions, e.g. 214 road mortalities in 2006-2012 (J. Lusby pers. comm.). The recent expansion of wind farm developments, including some within SPAs, is also likely to pose a threat through displacement and/or collision (Scott & McHaffie 2008, Pearce-Higgins et al. 2009). In 2011, two White-tailed Eagles were recovered dead due to turbine collisions in south-western Ireland (GET unpubl). No currently breeding Irish raptors are truly migratory, although there is evidence that some Hen Harriers winter as far as Western Europe (B. O'Donoghue in litt.). Sharing information on dispersal patterns might improve the conservation status of this species. Issues facing raptors in Ireland such as poisoning and windfarm collisions would benefit from international networking to establish best practice for monitoring and assessing threats to populations. 5. Strengths and weaknesses Ireland is a relatively small country with a smaller suite of breeding raptors than most other European countries. Therefore it should be in a position to devise and implement a comprehensive monitoring programme. Decadal and semi-decadal national surveys for key species such as Peregrine Falcon and Hen Harrier have worked well because the populations have been small enough, nesting sites reasonably well known, or populations have been discrete (e.g. Madden et al. 2009, Ruddock et al. 2010). However, such surveys are labour intensive and as some populations recover and expand (e.g. Peregrine Falcon) random selection of study areas will be essential. Other key species (e.g. Merlin) have never been surveyed on a national scale, while baseline data do not exist for some very rare breeders (e.g. Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus). Barn Owls have been increasingly monitored in recent years (Nagle 2007, O'Connell et al. 2007, Lusby 2009, 2012A & 2012B, Lusby et al. 2010A & 2010B), but little specific monitoring of breeding Long-eared or Short-eared Owl populations or their ecology has been undertaken (but see and Sleeman 1988, Smal 1989, Andrews 1992, Cooke et al. 1995). Lack of a Raptor Monitoring Scheme (RMS) to determine long-term population trends across a range of species, including some widespread but possibly declining species such as Kestrel, remain a major weakness. International best practice and information sharing on appropriate monitoring schemes would be useful in designing a RMS. 6. Priorities, capacity-building Establishing an island-wide RMS is a high priority. However, lack of funding and the small pool of existing raptor fieldworkers will inhibit development of this scheme without full time personnel to drive the RMS. Semi-decadal surveys for Hen Harriers should be continued. Merlin needs to be monitored at an appropriate level on at least a semi-decadal frequency. High priority reintroduced raptors should continue to be intensively monitored at least until all populations are well established. Rare and little known species should also be targeted to establish baseline data for conservation. Ultimately funding will be needed to drive much of this effort. Where key skills are lacking, training workshops will be useful in upskilling fieldworkers and generating support for monitoring programmes. Group Action Plans have been devised for suites of species including raptors based on ecosystem to identify specific conservation requirements, targets and the actions needed to achieve such targets (e.g. Bird Watch Ireland 2010). Development of an Action Plan for raptors or single key species would further help identify priorities and raise awareness of the need of monitoring for raptors. Further, the timely publication and dissemination of monitoring results is important not only for improving our knowledge of species and setting priorities but would also further capacity-building for raptors. Acknowledgements: Thanks to the dedicated raptor fieldworkers who provided information on their monitoring and/or research projects including as yet unpublished data. Special thanks to Damian Clarke (NPWS), John Lusby (BWI), Tony Nagle (IRS G), and Eimear Rooney (Queens University). John Lusby made helpful comments on the manuscript. 7. Povzetek Na Irskem je pestrost ptic roparic majhna, a ne zgolj zaradi geografske lege te države na zahodnem robu Evrope, marveč tudi zaradi zgodovinskega preganjanja teh ptic na otoku in posledično izumrtja najmanj sedmih vrst. Te izgube se je Irski posrečilo do neke mere nadomestiti z nedavno ponovno naselitvijo treh vrst, in sicer planinskega orla Aquila chrysaetos, belorepca Haliaeetus albicilla in rjavega škarnika Milvus milvus, medtem ko je kanja Buteo buteo pričela ponovno gnezditi sama. Za monitoring ptic roparic skrbijo različne javne agencije, nevladne organizacije in dve univerzitetni raziskovalni skupini. V Republiki Irski poteka, na primer, nacionalni popis sokola selca Falco peregrinus vsakih deset let, na Severnem Irskem pa popis pepelastega lunj a Circus cyaneus vsakih pet let. Za nekatere ključne vrste, kakršna je pegasta sova Tyto alba, so bili izdelani projekti za njihov dolgoročni monitoring. Nekatere druge vrste, npr. skobec Accipiter nisus in mali sokol F. columbarius, pa so po drugi strani deležne komaj omembe vredne pozornosti. Najnujnejša prioriteta ostaja program temeljitega monitoringa ptic roparic, s katerim bi ugotavljali dolgoročne trende v arealih posameznih vrst. Razvoj akcijskega načrta za to skupino ptic in/ ali posamezne ključne vrste pa bi nadalje pripomogel k ugotavljanju prioritet in spodbujal ozaveščenost o potrebi stalnega spremljanja ptic roparic. 8. References Andrews, D.J. (1992): The diet of wintering Short-eared Owls on Strangford Lough, Co. Down. — Irish Birds 4: 549-554. Banks, A.N., Coombes, R.H. & Crick, H.Q.P. (2003): The Peregrine Falcon breeding population in the UK and Isle of Man in 1992. BTO Research Report No. 333. - BTO, Thetford. Barton, C., Pollock, C., Norriss, D.W., Nagle, T., Oliver, G.A. & Newton, S. (2006): The second national survey of breeding Hen Harriers Circus cyaneus in Ireland 2005. - Irish Birds 8: 1-20. BirdWatch Ireland (2010): Action Plan for Upland Birds in Ireland 2011-2020. BirdWatch Ireland's Group Action Plans for Irish Birds. - BirdWatch Ireland, Kilcoole, Co. Wicklow. Clarke, R. & Scott, D. (1994): Breeding season diet of the Merlin in County Antrim. - Irish Birds 5: 205-206. Cooke, A., Nagle, A. & Fairley, J.S. (1995): The diet of Long-eared Owls within the range of the Bank Vole in Co. Cork. - Irish Birds 5: 305-307. Crick, H.Q.P. & Ratcliffe, D.A. (1995): The Peregrine Falco peregrinus population of the United Kingdom in 1991. - Bird Study 42 (1): 1-19. D'Arcy, G. (1999): Ireland's Lost Birds. - Four Courts Press, Dublin. Gibbons, D.W., Reid, J.B. & Chapman, R.A. (1993): The New Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland 1988-1991. - T & A D Poyser, London. Fernandez-Bellon, D. & Lusby, J. (201 ia): The effectiveness of playback as a method for monitoring breeding Merlin Falco columbarius in Ireland. — Irish Birds 9: 155—158. Fernandez-Bellon, D. & Lusby, J. (2011B): The feeding ecology of Merlin Falco columbarius during the breeding season in Ireland, and an assessment of current diet analysis methods. — Irish Birds 9: 159—164. Golden Eagle Trust Ltd. (2009): Ireland's failure to protect birds of prey. Unpublished report to the EU Commission Directorate General, November 2009. Hillis, J.P. (2008): Rare Irish breeding birds, 2007. The Seventh Annual Report of the Irish Rare Breeding Birds Panel. — Irish Birds 8: 365—372. Irish Raptor Study Group (2006): Birds of Prey and Owls in Ireland. — Dublin. Irwin, S., Wilson, M., Kelly, T.C., O'Donoghue, B., O'Mahony, B., Oliver, G., Cullen, C., O'Donoghue, T. & O'Halloran, J. (2008): Aspects of the breeding biology of Hen Harriers Circus cyaneus in Ireland. — Irish Birds 8: 331—334. Lack, P. (1986): The Atlas of Wintering Birds in Britain and Ireland. — British Trust for Ornithology & Irish Wildbird Conservancy, Calton. Lusby, J. (2009): The impact of two introduced mammals on the Barn Owl (Tyto alba) population in Ireland. Poster presentation. Raptor Research Foundation Annual Conference, 29 September—4 October 2009, Pitlochry, Scotland. Lusby, J. (2012A): Exposure of Barn Owls Tyro alba in Ireland to second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (2006—2011). Confidential report to the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Lusby, J. (2012A): Barn Owl Monitoring Programme. Raptor Conservation Project, Final Report. — BirdWatch Ireland, Kilcoole. Lusby, J., Watson, D. & Copland, A. (2010A): The ecology and conservation of the Barn Owl Tyto alba in County Cork; The Cork Barn Owl Research Project. Report prepared for Cork County Council. Lusby, J., Watson, D. & O'Clery, M. (2010B): The ecology and conservation of the Barn Owl Tyto alba in County Kerry; The Kerry Barn Owl Research. Report to Kerry County Council. Lusby, J., Fernandez-Bellon, D., Norriss, D. & Lauder, A. (2011): Assessing the effectiveness of monitoring methods for Merlin Falco columbarius in Ireland: the Pilot Merlin Survey 2010. — Irish Birds 9: 143—154. Lusby, J., Cregg, P. & O'Clery, M. (2012A): The West Offaly Raptor Conservation Project. Final Report to Offaly Local Development Company. Lusby, J., McDonnell, B. and O'Clery, M. (2012B): The ecology and conservation of the Barn Owl Tyto alba in Duhallow; Duhallow Barn Owl Project. Final Report prepared for IRD Duhallow. Lynas, P., Newton, S.F. & Robinson, J.A. (2007): The status of birds in Ireland: an analysis of conservation concern 2008—2013. — Irish Birds 8: 149—166. Madden, B., Hunt, J. & Norriss, D. (2009): The 2002 survey of the peregrine Falco peregrines breeding population in the republic of Ireland. — Irish Birds 8: 543—548. McElheron, A. (2005): Merlins of the Wicklow Mountains. — Currach Press, Dublin. Mee, A. (2009): The Irish White-tailed Eagle reintroduction programme 2007—2008. Unpublished report to the Directorate of Nature Management, Trondheim, Norway. Mee, A. (2010): Determining habitat use in a reintroduced population of White-tailed Sea Eagle in SW Ireland. Project ROO527. Unpublished report to The Heritage Council, Kilkenny, Ireland. Mee, A. & Clarke, D. (in prep): Population and range expansion in Ireland: the 2011—2012 national soaring survey. Moore, N.P., Kelly, P.F. & Lang, F. (1992): Quarry-nesting by Peregrine Falcons in Ireland. — Irish Birds 4: 519—524. Moore, N.P., Kelly, P.F. & Lang, F., Lynch, J.M. & Langton, S.D. (1997): The Peregrine Falco peregrinus in quarries: current status and factors influencing occupancy in the Republic of Ireland. — Bird Study 44 (2): 176—181. Nagle, T. (2007): The loss of Barn Owl Tyto alba breeding and roost sites in Co. Cork: a contributory factor in the species decline. — Irish Birds 8: 314—315. Norris, D.W. (1991): The status of the buzzard as a breeding species in the Republic of Ireland, 1977—1991. — Irish Birds 4: 291—198. Norriss, D.W. (1995): The 1991 survey and weather impacts on the Peregrine Falco peregrinus breeding population in the Republic of Ireland. — Bird Study 42 (1): 20—30. Norriss, D.W., Marsh, J., McMahon, D. & Oliver, G.A. (2002): A national survey of breeding Hen Harriers Circus cyaneus in Ireland 1998—2000. — Irish Birds 7: 1—12. Norriss, D.W., Haran, B., Hennigan, A., McElheron, D.J., McLaughlin, D.J., Swan, V. & Walsh, A. (2010): Breeding biology of Merlins Falco columbarious in Ireland, 1986—1992. — Irish Birds 9: 23—30. O'Clery, M., McDonnell, B. & Lusby, J. (2012): The Duhallow Raptor Conservation Project. Final Report to IRD Duhallow. O'Connell, P., Cogan, R. & Dunne, J. (2007): The diet of the Barn Owl Tyto alba at two sites in Co. Galway. — Irish Birds 8: 91—96. O'Donoghue, B. (2010): The hen harrier (Circus cyaneus) in Ireland; its ecology and conservation. PhD thesis. — University College Cork, Ireland. O'Toole, L., Fielding, A.H. & Haworth, P.F. (2002): Reintroduction of the golden eagle into the Republic of Ireland. — Biological Conservation 103 (3): 303—312. Pearce-Higgins, J.W., Stephen, L., Langston, R.H.W., Bainbridge, I.P. & Bullman, R. (2009): The distribution of breeding birds around upland wind farms. — Journal of Applied Ecology 46 (6): 1323—1331. Rooney, E. (2013): Ecology and breeding biology of the Common Buzzard Buteo buteo, in Ireland. Unpublished thesis. — Queen's University, Belfast. Rooney, E. & Montgomerie, W.I. (2013): Diet diversity of the Common Buzzard (Buteo buteo) in a vole-less environment. — Bird Study 60 (2): 147—155. Ruddock, M. (2007): The importance of Peregrine diet studies in resolving predator-prey conflicts. pp. 50 In: Sielicki, S. & Sielicki, J. (eds.): Abstracts of the Peregrine conference, 19—23 September 2007, Poland. — TURUL Robert Zmuda, Warszawa. Ruddock, M. (2008): Housewives' planning: Population ecology, predation and prey selection in the peregrine falcon. Unpublished thesis. — Queen's University, Belfast. Ruddock, M., Dunlop, B.J., O' Toole, L., Mee, A. & Nagle, T. (2011): Republic of Ireland Hen Harrier survey 2010. — Unpublished report by the Irish Raptor Study Group and the Golden Eagle Trust Ltd for the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Ireland. Scott, D. (2000): Marking a decade of tree-nesting by Hen Harriers Circus cyaneus in Northern Ireland, 1991—2000. - Irish Birds 6: 586-589. Scott, D. & McHaeeie, P. (2008): Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus killed at windfarm site in County Antrim. — Irish Birds 8: 436—437. Sharrock, J.T.R. (1976): The Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland. — T & A D Poyser, Berkhamsted, Herts. Sim, I.M.W., Gibbons, D.W., Bainbridge, I.P. & Mattingley, W.A. (2001): Status of hen harrier Circus cyaneus in the UK and the Isle of Man in 1998. — Bird Study 48 (3): 341—353. Sim, I.M.W., Dillon, I.A., Eaton, M.A., Etheridge, B., Lindley, P., Riley, H., Saunders, R., Sharpe, C. & Tickner, M. (2007): Status of the Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus in the UK and Isle of Man in 2004, and a comparison with the 1988/89 and 1998 surveys. — Bird Study 54 (2): 256—267. Smal, C.M. (1989): Notes on the diet of Short-eared Owls in Ireland. — Irish Birds 4: 73—75. Walsh, P.M. & Sleeman, D.P. (1988): Avian prey of a wintering Short-eared Owl population in south-west Ireland. — Irish Birds 3: 589—591. Wells, J. (2007): The Northern Ireland Peregrine population 1977—2007. pp. 57 In: Sielicki, S. & Sielicki, J. (eds.): Abstracts of the Peregrine conference, 19—23 September 2007, Poland. — TURUL Robert Zmuda, Warszawa. Wilson, M.W., Irwin, S., Norriss, D.W., Newton, S.F., Collins, K., Kelly, T.C. & O'Halloran, J. (2009): The importance of pre-thicket conifer plantations for nesting Hen Harriers Circus cyaneus in Ireland. — Ibis 151 (2): 332—343. Wilson, M.W., O'Donoghue, B., O'Mahony, B., Cullen, C., O'Donoghue, T., Oliver, G., Ryan, B., Troake, P., Irwin, S., Kelly, T.C., Rotella, J.J. & O'Halloran, J. (2012): Mismatches between breeding success and habitat preferences in Hen Harriers Circus cyaneus breeding in forested landscapes. — Ibis 154 (3): 578—589. Arrived / Prispelo: 27. 3. 2013 Accepted / Sprejeto: 1. 7. 2013 Monitoring of raptors in Norway Monitoring ptic roparic na Norveškem Torgeir Nygard Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, P.O. Box 5685 Sluppen, NO-7485 Trondheim, Norway, e-mail: torgeir.nygard@nina.no All diurnal raptors and owls have been protected by law in Norway since 1968-1972. Since then, most species that had been heavily persecuted earlier (eagles and hawks), and those especially susceptible to environmental pollution (Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus and Osprey Pandion haliaetus) have increased in numbers. A national monitoring programme for the terrestrial environment in Norway, which also includes population monitoring of the Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos and Gyrfalcon F. rusticolus, was established in 1990. Monitoring of environmental pollutants in eggs of diurnal raptors and owls on a country-wide basis was started at the same time. A data series on pollutant levels in eggs of several species covers a time-span of up to 40 years for DDE and PCB, including shell thickness measurements. Only the Golden Eagle and Gyrfalcon are included in a comprehensive state-financed monitoring programme, while other species are locally financed and run by special interest groups and NGOs. The Golden Eagle is under pressure from farmers' and reindeer husbandry organizations, while the Goshawk Accipiter gentilis suffers from clear-cutting of old forests. High mortality of White-tailed Eagles Haliaeetus albicilla due to collisions with wind-turbines is a serious problem locally. The Osprey is on its way back to pre-DDT levels. In general, pesticide levels have dropped significantly during the last couple of decades, resulting in improved shell quality. The major constraints to comprehensive monitoring of diurnal raptors and owls in Norway are lack of funding and qualified personnel. Key words: diurnal raptors, owls, monitoring, Norway Ključne besede: ujede, sove, monitoring, Norveška 1. Introduction In pre-World War II times, the classical attitude towards raptors in Norway was persecution by shooting, nest destructions and poisoning, encouraged by bounties. During the 1940s and 1950s, some pioneering work on raptor breeding numbers and reproductive rates in relation to fluctuations in their prey basis was performed, and a more realistic picture of their place in nature slowly gained foothold (Hagen 1952 & 1969). Still, no permanent monitoring schemes existed, while pesticides and persecution drove many species to the brink of extinction. Turning points came when all Norwegian diurnal raptors and owls were protected by law in 1968 (eagles) and 1972 (Barth 1971). Nevertheless, in 1975, when monitoring of Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus was initiated, only about eight pairs were known to breed in the whole country (Lindberg et al. 1988). At the same time, monitoring of Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos and White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla was started by NGOs. Initially, during the early 1990s, monitoring of flora and fauna in Norway focused on subalpine and alpine ecosystems to investigate impacts of long-range air pollution. Later, the objective was broadened to include effects of climate change and response to anthropogenic changes. Raptors positioned at the top of food-chains were included as sentinels of environmental pollution. In recent years, predation on livestock by large carnivores and eagles has become a major issue. Therefore, there is an increasing pressure from the farming and reindeer husbandry organizations, advocating culling and limiting of predators, including eagles. Also, there is an increasing conflict between forestry organizations and the conservation of forest-dwelling diurnal raptors and owls, especially those species depending on mature forest, such as the Goshawk Accipiter gentilis. At present, the development of wind farms along the coast poses a new threat, especially for the White-tailed Eagle, and electrocution by power lines has gained new attention owing to large declines of the Eagle Owl Bubo bubo. 2. National programmes The Monitoring Programme for Terrestrial Ecosystems (TOV) is a national monitoring programme initiated and financed by the Directorate for Nature Management in 1990 (L0bersli 1989). The Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) coordinates a large part of the scientific investigations in the programme, including raptors. TOV generates knowledge of long-term changes in biota, and when possible relates this to the influence of: (1) acid rain (both sulphur and nitrogen), (2) long-range pollutants (metals and organic pollutants), (3) climate change, (4) land use, and (5) the interaction between several factors of influence. The programme focuses on commonly occurring habitats and species, mainly in forests and mountains, and is based on integrated monitoring of different species and other elements of the ecosystem in seven selected mountains and birch forest areas, plus a nationwide survey of selected parameters and vegetation monitoring in eleven spruce forest areas. Monitoring areas are distributed throughout the country from south to north in a way that reflects both climate variations and differences in the burden of long-range pollutants. All areas are located in places where they are not subjected to rapid changes in land use, mainly in protected areas. Raptor monitoring has only been performed in the southern part of the country up to present, but is currently being expanded (Figure 1). Only the Golden Eagle and Gyrfalcon F. rusticolus are encompassed within this programme. The national monitoring programme Rovdata was established by the Directorate for Nature Management in 2000 to ensure that monitoring and surveillance of large predators was performed in the best possible way throughout the country, using the standardized methods. Data on breeding, predators' tracks and kills are processed, compiled and reported at the national level by an independent research body (NINA). During the first years, only the four large carnivores, the Lynx Lynx l. lynx, Wolverine Gulo gulo, Brown Figure 1: Existing (horizontal and vertical shading) and planned (slanted shading) areas for monitoring of Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos in Norway. In addition, Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus is monitored in the vertically shaded areas. The areas have an approximate diameter of 100 km. Slika 1: Obstoje~a (horizontalno in vertikalno sen~ena) in na~rtovana (po{evno sen~ena) obmo~ja za monitoring planinskega orla Aquila chrysaetos na Norve{kem. Poleg tega poteka v horizontalno sen~enih obmo~jih tudi monitoring arkti~nega sokola Falco rusticolus. Premer vseh obmo~ij je približno 100 km. Bear Ursus arctos and Wolf Canis lupus, were part of the scheme. From 2006 on, the Golden Eagle has been included. New modules for other large diurnal raptors and owls are presently being added. The Species Databank (Artsdatabanken) of Norway, managed by the Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre (NBIC), has a web-site open for on-line registration of bird observations, including diurnal raptors and owls, which over the years has accumulated a substantial amount of data regarding their occurrence and distribution. Some local interest groups (NGOs) also run their local monitoring projects. 3. National coverage Today, only two raptor species are subjected to comprehensive, state financed population monitoring Table 1: Known ongoing monitoring projects of diurnal raptors and owls in Norway Tabela 1: Znani potekajoči projekti monitoringa ujed in sov na Norveškem Species / Vrsta Geographical area/ Geografsko območje Responsible/ Odgovorna institucija Red-list status in Norway/ Norveški Rdeči Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Osprey Pandion haliaetus Kestrel Falco tinnunculus Merlin Falco columbarius Hobby Falco subbuteo Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Eagle Owl Bubo bubo Snowy Owl Bubo scandiaca Pygmy Owl Glaucidium passerinum Tawny Owl Strix aluco Ural Owl Strix uralensis Tengmalm's Owl Aegolius funereus locally in the south nationwide Smola Wind Farm area some counties TOV areas some counties some counties Hedmark County nationwide locally in the south TOV areas Finnmark some counties nationwide, species of special concern Finnmark County Troms County Sor-Trondelag County Hedmark County Troms County Local interest groups VU NOF LC NINA LC Local governments and NGOs NT NINA LC Local governments and NGOs LC Local governments and NGOs NT Agder Nature Museum and LC local enthusiasts (nest boxes) TOV, for pollutants only, LC 5-year intervals Local interest groups VU NINA NT Local interest groups NT Local governments and NGOs LC NOF, NGOs and district colleges EN NINA, Agder Nature Museum EN and NOF, research and monitoring NOF (nest boxes) LC Local interest groups (nest boxes) LC Local interest groups (nest boxes) VU NOF (nest boxes) LC on a national basis in Norway; the Golden Eagle and Gyrfalcon (from 1990, ongoing, in selected areas under the TOV umbrella). For other species, such as the White-tailed Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, Goshawk and Osprey Pandion haliaetus, monitoring has been less systematic in time and space, but NGOs such as the Norwegian Ornithological Society (NOF) and other regional groups are active. The County Governors' offices in various counties finance regional monitoring projects for a range of species of diurnal raptors and owls, with NOF and local interest groups. The known monitoring activities of diurnal raptors and owls are listed in Table 1. The Merlin F. columbarius has been monitored only for pesticides. A long data series is available in Norway for DDE, PCBs, HCB and HCH in eggs of bird of some prey (up to 40 years of monitoring), and from 1991 eggs have been analyzed for a wider range of pollutants, including brominated and fluorinated organic compounds (Herzke 2002 & 2005, Nygard & Polder 2012). 4. Key species and issues with overview of results 4.1. Key species Golden Eagle No long-term trend in the production of chicks has been shown in any of the six TOV areas. 10—15 territories are monitored in each area. The territory system of Golden Eagle is sufficiently stable from year to year to make the productivity monitoring scheme suitable. Territory occupancy and chick production per territory in each area are recorded. It has been shown that the productivity of Golden Eagle is higher a year after the peak year of small rodents, when numbers of ptarmigans and other small game are high (Gjershaug 1996). Moulted feathers and addled eggs are collected for analysis of metals and organochlorine contaminants. In the future, feather DNA will be used to monitor adult turnover. There has probably been a population increase since the species was fully protected in 1968, but there are not enough historical data available to substantiate this assumption. The current population estimate is at 1,200-1,400 pairs. See Gjershaug et al. (2008) for details. Three monitoring areas in the north are to be added in the near future, two of them new, while the third (Finnmarksvidda) has been used since 2002 during a special research project (see Figure 1). Gyrfalcon Gyrfalcon populations are being monitored in three TOV areas in the southern half of Norway. One new monitoring area in Finnmark will probably be added in the near future (Figure 1). Breeding success and the number of large chicks are recorded. Line transects of Willow Ptarmigan Lagopus lagopus (the main prey of Gyrfalcon) provide data from same areas as explanatory variables for Gyrfalcon breeding performance. The annual proportion of territories with confirmed nesting attempts is related to population variation of its main prey species, the Rock Ptarmigan L. muta and the Willow Ptarmigan. The best predictor of Gyrfalcon reproductive success has been shown to be the production of Willow Ptarmigan chicks in year t-1 (Falkdalen et al. 2012). An estimate of 200500 territorial pairs in Norway has been suggested (Myklebust 1996), but no comprehensive national census has been performed. Peregpine Falcon The species was on the brink of extinction in Fennoscandia in the mid-1970s (Lindberg et al. 1988), due to DDE effects on shell thinning (Nygärd 1983). Local NGOs in the south and central parts of Norway have been monitoring its recovery and pollutant levels since that time. White-tailed Eagle Its population has been monitored in Norway since 1974 by the NOF as part of an international monitoring programme initiated by the WWF. Nesting success and production of chicks has been monitored nationwide since 1974 and is ongoing, and an extensive ringing scheme has been in place (Folkestad 2003). Since the White-tailed Eagle was fully protected in 1968, its population has increased from about 700-800 territorial pairs to a minimum of about 1,900-2,200 territorial pairs in population (Folkestad 2003), which probably amounted to about one third of the European population, and numbers have probably increased since. The increasing populations of Golden Eagle and White-tailed Eagle in Norway are most probably a result of protection, but lowered pollutant loads have also probably played a role. However, the quest for "green" energy has led to the allocation of large amounts of public subsidies into the development of wind-power in Norway, which may pose a long-term threat to White-tailed Eagle populations. At the 68-turbine wind-power plant at Smola alone, 53 White-tailed Eagles have been found killed since 2005 (Bevanger et al. 2011 & unpubl.). Eagle Owl The Eagle Owl has decreased dramatically in Norway during the last few decades, mainly because of electrocution (Bevanger & Overskaug 1998). Therefore, it was red-listed as a species of special concern, and is presently subjected to nation-wide surveys, monitoring and research. A national census in 2008 revealed that less than 300 sites still had territory-holding Eagle Owls (0ien et al. 2009), and it has almost disappeared from large tracts of its former range, especially in the interior of the country. The national government is now financing mitigation measures to remedy the situation through a national action plan (Direktoratet for naturforvaltning 2009). A research and monitoring project, focusing on electrocution and mitigation measures, is ongoing. Mitigation by mounting perching devices on power-poles to prevent electrocution seems to be effective (Bevanger et al. 2013). Other species The Goshawk, once very numerous in the forested areas in Norway, has been severely reduced in numbers since the advent of large-scale forestry in Norway. From an estimated number of 10,000 pairs, its present population level is now probably less than 2,000 pairs (GR0NLIEN 2004). Regarding Merlin and Osprey, banning and restrictions in use of poisonous organochlorines and mercury have been of vital significance to the recovery of their populations. The Merlin was heavily burdened by pollutants, but no good historic population data are available. However, the migration counts at the bird station Falsterbo on the southern tip of Sweden indicate a historic trend similar to that of the Peregrine Falcon (Nygard 1999). The Osprey was long absent from large areas of its former range, but has now recovered greatly, and the present estimate is now ca. 500 pairs (own estimate based on enquiries). 4.2. Monitoring of persistent pollutants The monitoring of pollutants in eggs of raptors is part of TOV, and samples of addled eggs and moulted feathers are collected for analysis when possible. For Merlin, we have been able to collect fresh eggs under special permission during sampling campaign every fifth year. Addled eggs and moulted feathers from other raptor species are collected ad hoc during ringing efforts and local monitoring activities. By incorporating available published and unpublished data, we are able to produce time trends for pollutants and shell thickness over 4—5 decades. Recently, data on organobromines and fluorocarbons have also become available (Herzke et al. 2005, Nygard & Polder 2012). Eggshell thinning Eggshells in most species have gradually increased in thickness since the ban on DDT became effective in 1972, but have in most species still not obtained values comparable with the pre-DDT era (before 1947) (Figure 2). Severe shell thinning has been observed in the Peregrine Falcon, Merlin, and Osprey, which coincides in time with very depressed populations of these species. Contaminant levels The results show in general that the levels of the "classic" pollutants such as DDTs and PCBs are decreasing in Norwegian diurnal raptors such as the White-tailed Eagle (Figure 3). Similar trends are documented for other species, as well as for pesticides such as dieldrin, HCH, and HCB. The trends of the "new pollutants" such as brominated flame retardants, i.e. polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE), polybrominated biphenyls (PBB), and hexabromo-cyclo-dodecane (HCB) and perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) are still somewhat uncertain, because of the limited number of analyses, and the time series is short. We still know very little about the possible biological effects of these compounds, which are extensively used in fire-fighting foams, surface treatment of textiles, etc. In general, the Golden Eagle is exposed to low levels of pollutants, due to its position at the apex of a short terrestrial food-chain. However, in a study of long- 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 ' * ." • S' * : • -H-- • - . •.....: i T...... • - ♦ -ff-f- 5 i : ♦ ,c,h> ,0,1°' ^cji0' Decade / Desetletje Figure 2: The change in eggshell thickness (white dots) and shell indices (black dots) in four raptor species (A -White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla, B - Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos, C - Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus, D - Merlin F. columbarius) in Norway; average values per decade. Values before 1947 are considered base levels. Slika 2: Sprememba v debelini jajčne lupine (bele pike) in indeksih lupin (črne pike) štirih ptic roparic (A - belorepec Haliaeetus albicilla, B - planinski orel Aquila chrysaetos, C -sokol selec Falco peregrinus, D - mali sokol F. columbarius) na Norveškem; povprečne vrednosti na desetletje. Vrednosti pred letom 1947 so obravnavane kot izhodiščne. term reproductive performance in a coastal population, there was evidence of reduced productivity, which correlated with elevated pollutant levels in eggs. This was attributed to an influx of pollutants from coastal birds as prey, representing the longer marine food-chains with much higher pollutant levels than the terrestrial ones (Nygard & Gjershaug 2001). As for the Golden Eagle, the contaminant levels in Gyrfalcon eggs were in general low. The levels of pollutants in White-tailed Eagle eggs are now below the levels known to be detrimental to the species (Helander et al. 2002). The DDT-transformation product p,p'-DDE is still a prevalent pesticide in all predatory bird eggs, 40 years after the ban in western countries, and is the dominating pollutant in the migratory and bird-eating species such as Merlin and Sparrowhawk A. nisus. In other species, such as the White-tailed Eagle, PCBs today accounts for the major organochlorine burden, which is typical of marine environments. 5. Strengths and weaknesses The strength of a monitoring programme is connected with the predictability and level of financing, and A 3 C D \9^ Pentade / Petletje ^ nC^' Figure 3: Box-and-whiskers chart (medians and quartiles) showing time trends of DDE (grey columns) and PCBs (fresh weight, white columns) in eggs of White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla in Norway during 1970-2010 Figure 3: Grafikon z medianami in kvartili, ki prikazujejo časovne trende DDE (sivi stolpci) in PCB-jev (sveža teža, beli stolpci) v jajcih belorepca Haliaeetus albicilla na Norveškem v obdobju 1970-2010 also with the quality and strength of the responsible institution. Only the national projects financed by the Directorate for Nature Management are of such a type (TOV-projects, Golden Eagle, Gyrfalcon, pollutant monitoring and the Rovdata system). Some monitoring projects financed by the regional County governors have also been long-lasting and suitably financed. Weaknesses are often seen connected with projects run by NGOs and other interest groups, often being poorly financed over time and based on idealism. Such time-series can suffer greatly from poor descriptions and consistency of methods, poor and inconsistent data-storage, and change of personnel. Lack of harmonization of methods and cooperation between local groups may be a problem when trying to compile data over a larger geographical scale. Norway is a large and thinly populated country, and there is a lack of competent personnel to carry out the necessary monitoring. Volunteers can be hard to find, so proper financing is needed. The Government only finances monitoring of species that have political and economic issues. More comprehensive monitoring of the Golden Eagle is required due to problems with illegal persecution and compensation issues. Better monitoring of the Goshawk is needed due to the threats posed by large-scale forestry, especially connected to the mature spruce forests of the lowlands. A sufficient overview of the status of the Eagle Owl is still needed, and so is proper implementation of mitigation measures. An assessment of cumulative future effects of wind farm developments on raptors is also lacking. We have much to learn from our neighbouring countries, Sweden and Finland, regarding monitoring and management of Golden Eagle. They have a system of monetary compensation to the communities and reindeer husbandry units, which hold breeding Golden Eagles on their land. Compensation is given per occupied or breeding eagle territory. This requires comprehensive monitoring. In Norway, however, compensation is given per killed animal, mostly reindeer and sheep. The documentation process is problematic, and in practice the owners are given compensation as a certain percentage of their losses. The claims are therefore often grossly exaggerated (Gjershaug & Nygärd 2003), thus giving the Golden Eagle a bad reputation. 6. Priorities, capacity-building Other future threats come from habitat and climate change, urban spread, developments on the coast (wind-power developments, industry, tourism), in the mountains (tourism, roads, power lines, windpower developments). The main goal must be to secure funding through long-lasting monitoring staterun projects, preferably with a research platform. Furthermore, one needs to educate state wildlife officers of proper species recognition and ecology. Also, there is a need to develop and strengthen co-operation between NGOs and state agencies. Education and information to the public and management authorities about the value of raptors as environmental sentinels is important, and so is the dissemination of results by publishing and making them available on the web. The use of addled raptor eggs has proven a nondestructive and efficient way to perform environmental monitoring on a broad scale. It is important that the national monitoring scheme for pollutants in raptors is continued, especially in light of the high levels of new contaminants, where the trends, sources and pathways are not yet well understood. A national repository for biological samples, aimed at long-term monitoring of pollutants in the Norwegian environment, is under implementation under The Environmental Specimen Bank (ESB Norway), and will archive eggs and tissue samples for future analyses (http://www.miljoprovebanken.no). 100- 7. Povzetek Na Norveškem so vse ujede in sove zavarovane z zakonom, sprejetim v letih 1968 in 1972. Od takrat se je število večine vrst, ki so bile predtem neusmiljeno preganjane (ujede), in vrst, ki so bile še posebno občutljive za okoljsko onesnaževanje (sokol selec Falco peregrinus in ribji orel Pandion haliaetus), povečalo. Leta 1990 je bil na Norveškem osnovan nacionalni program monitoringa kopenskega okolja, v katerega je vključen tudi monitoring populacij planinskega orla Aquila chrysaetos in arktičnega sokola F. rusticolus. Hkrati pa je po vsej državi začel potekati tudi monitoring onesnažil v jajcih ujed in sov. Niz podatkov o ravni onesnažil v jajcih več vrst ptic roparic zadeva obdobje 40 let za DDE (dikloro-difenil-dikloroetilen) in PCB-je (poliklorirani bifenili) kot tudi meritve debeline jajčnih lupin. Sicer pa sta v celostni program monitoringa, ki ga financira država, vključena samo planinski orel in arktični sokol, medtem ko druge vrste lokalno financirajo in preučujejo posebne zainteresirane skupine in nevladne organizacije. Planinski orel je pod močnim pritiskom kmetov in organizacij, ki se ukvarjajo z rejo severnih jelenov, medtem ko na kragulja Accipiter gentilis negativno vpliva golosečnja starih gozdov. Velik lokalni problem je visoka smrtnost belorepca Haliaeetus albicilla zaradi trkov z vetrnimi turbinami. Populacija ribjega orla se vrača na raven iz obdobja pred uporabo DDT-ja (dikloro-difenil-trikloretan). V zadnjih dveh ali treh letih se je raven pesticidov na splošno močno znižala, kar se navsezadnje kaže v boljši kakovosti jajčnih lupin. Največja ovira za celosten monitoring ujed in sov na Norveškem je pomanjkanje finančnih sredstev in ustreznega osebja. 8. References Barth, E.K. (1971): [Birds of prey and Eagle Owl finally protected.] — Sterna 10: 153—158. (in Norwegian) Bevanger, K. & Overskaug, K. (1998): Utility structures as a mortality factor for raptors and owls in Norway. pp. 381—392 In: Chancellor, R.D., Meyburg, B.-U. & Ferrero, J.J. (eds.): Holarctic birds of prey. — ADENEX, Merida & World Working Group on Birds of Prey, Berlin. Bevanger, K., Berntsen, F., Clausen, S., Dahl, E.L., Flagstad, 0., Follestad, A., Halley, D., Hanssen, F., Johnsen, L., Kval0y, P., Hoel, P.L., May, R., Nygärd, T., Pedersen, H.C., Reitan, O., R0skaft, E., Steinheim, Y., Stokke, B. & Vang, R. (2011): Pre- and post-construction studies of conflicts between birds and wind turbines in coastal Norway (BirdWind). Report on findings 2007—2010. NINA Report 620. — Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Trondheim. Bevanger, K., Bartzke, G., Br0seth, H., Dahl, E.L., Gjershaug, J.O., Hanssen, F., Jacobsen, K.-O., Kleven, O., Kval0y, P., May, R., Meäs, R., Nygärd, T., Refsnbs, S., Stokke, S. & Thomassen, J. (2013): Optimal design and routing of power lines; ecological, technical and economic perspectives (OPTIPOL). NINA Report 904. — Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Trondheim. Direktoratet for naturforvaltning (2009): [Management plan for Eagle Owl.] DN Rapport 2009. — Direktoratet for naturforvaltning, Trondheim. (in Norwegian) Falkdalen, U., Hörnell-Willebrand, M., Nygärd, T., Bergström, T., Lind, G., Nordin, A. & Warensjö, B. (2012): Relations between Willow Ptarmigan density and Gyrfalcon breeding performance in Jämtland, Sweden. pp. 171—176 In: Watson, R.T., Cade, T.J., Fuller, M., Hunt, G. & Potapov, E. (eds.): Gyrfalcon and Ptarmigan in a changing world. Vol. II. Proceedings of the Conference, 1—3 February 2011, Boise, Idaho. — The Peregrine Fund, Boise. Folkestad, A.O. (2003): Status of the white-tailed sea eagle in Norway. pp. 51—55 In: Helander, B., Marquiss, M. & Bowerman, W.W. (eds.): Sea Eagle 2000: proceedings from an International Conference, 13—17 September 2000, Björkö, Sweden, — Swedish society for nature consevation, Stockholm. Gjershaug, J.O. (1996): Breeding success and productivity of the golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos in central Norway, 1970—1990. pp. 475—482 In: Meyburg, B.-U. & Chancellor, R.D. (eds.): Eagle Studies. — World Working Group on Birds of Prey, Berlin.. Gjershaug, J.O. & Nygärd, T. (2003): [Golden eagle in Norway: Population size, predator role and management.] — NINA Fagrapport 58: 1—25. (in Norwegian) Gjershaug, J.O., Kalas, J.A., Nygard, T., Herzke, D. & Folkestad, A.O. (2008): Monitoring of raptors and their contamination levels in Norway. — Ambio 37 (6): 420—424. Gr0NLIEN, H. (2004): [The goshawk in Norway. Population status and trends throughout the last 150 years.] NOF rapportserie 5-2004. — Norsk Ornitologisk Forening, Trondheim. (in Norwegian) Hagen, Y. (1952): [Birds of prey and game management.] — Universitetsforlaget, Oslo. (in Norwegian) Hagen, Y. (1969): [Norwegian studies on the reproduction of birds of prey and owls in relation to micro-rodent population fluctuations.] — Fauna 22: 73—126. (in Norwegian) Helander, B., Olsson, A., Bignert, A., Asplund, L. & Litzen, K. (2002): The role of DDE, PCB, coplanar PCB and eggshell parameters for reproduction in the White-tailed Sea Eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) in Sweden. — Ambio 31 (5): 386—403. Herzke, D., Kallenborn, R. & Nygärd, T. (2002): Organochlorines in egg samples from Norwegian birds of prey: Congener-, isomer- and enantiomer specific considerations. — Science of the Total Environment 291 (1/2/3): 59—71. Herzke, D., Berger, U., Kallenborn, R., Nygärd, T. & Vetter, W. (2005): Brominated flame retardants and other organobromines in Norwegian predatory bird eggs. — Chemosphere 61 (3): 441—449. Lindberg, P., Schei, P. & Wikman, M. (1988): The Peregrine Falcon in Fennoscandia. pp. 159—172 In: Cade, T.J., Enderson, J.H., Thelander, C.G. & White, C.M. (eds.): Peregrine Falcon populations. Their management and recovery. — The Peregrine Fund, Boise. L0BErsli, E.M. (ed.) (1989): [Terrestrial monitoring in Norway.] DN Rapport. — Direktoratet for naturforvaltning, Trondheim. (in Norwegian) Myklebust, M. (1996): [Threatened bird species in Norway.] NOF Rapport 5-1996. — Norsk Ornitologisk Forening, Klsbu. (in Norwegian) Nygärd, T. (1983): Pesticide residues and shell thinning in eggs of peregrines in Norway. — Ornis Scandinavica 14 (2): 161—166. Nygärd, T. (1999): Long-term trends in pollutant levels and shell thickness in eggs of merlin in Norway, in relation to its migration pattern and numbers. — Ecotoxicology 8 (1): 23—31. Nygärd, T. & Gjershaug, J.O. (2001): The effects of low levels of pollutants on the reproduction of golden eagles in western Norway. — Ecotoxicology 10 (5): 285—290. Nygärd, T. & Polder, A. (2012): [Pollutants in raptor eggs in Norway. Current state and time-trends.] NINA Rapport 834. — Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Trondheim. (in Norwegian, English summary) 0ien, I.J., Steen, O.F., Jacobsen, K.-O. & Oddane, B. (2009): [The Eagle Owl in Norway. Results from a national census in 2008.] — Vär Fuglefauna 32: 150—156. (in Norwegian) Arrived / Prispelo: 27. 3. 2013 Accepted / Sprejeto: 1. 7. 2013 a preliminary national overview of monitoring for raptors in Poland Predhodni nacionalni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic na Poljskem Janusz Sielicki1 & Tadeusz Mizera2 1 Society for Wild Animals "Falcon", Osiedlowa 1, PL—87-100 Wloclawek, Poland, e—mail: j.peregrinus@gmail.com 2 Eagle Conservation Committee, Wojska Polskiego 71c, PL—60-625 Poznan, Poland, e—mail tmizera@up.poznan.pl The State Bird Monitoring programme in Poland covers most breeding species of birds of prey and owls. As part of the bigger State Environment Monitoring System, it is engaged in 16 different projects, aimed at individual species or groups of species, including raptors. State Bird Monitoring is conducted by three organisations, the Eagle Conservation Committee (KOO), Polish Society for the Protection of Birds (OTOP) and Owls Protection Society, coordinated by the Institute and Museum of Zoology of the Polish Academy of Sciences on request by the General Inspectorate of Environmental Protection (GIOS). Two monitoring models are used, one based on sampling of populations (of widespread and common species), while the other covers a complete (or near complete) census of rare species. The data are publicly available in Polish. Apart from the State Bird Monitoring, there are numerous professional organisations, NGO's and individuals engaged in conservation and study of birds of prey, although none of them within the framework of a true monitoring system. Apart from the protection guaranteed by Polish law, nests of rarest species, including birds of prey, are protected by special protection zones excluded from forest management. Currently, there are ca. 2,900 zones covering ca. 1,500 km2 in total. Keywords: Poland, state monitoring, birds of prey, owls, population studies, protection zones Ključne besede: Poljska, državni monitoring, ujede, sove, populacijske raziskave, zaščitne cone 1. Law protection of raptors in Poland Nineteen species of birds of prey and nine owl species regularly nest in Poland. In addition, a single case of the Saker Falcon Falco cherrug nesting in the country has been confirmed (Tomialojc & Stawarczyk 2003, BirdLife International 2004). Currently, all species are protected by Polish law. Until 1975, Goshawks Accipiter gentilis, Sparrowhawks A. nisus and Marsh Harriers Circus aeruginosus were allowed to be killed. In 1984, new law was introduced — with innovative, highly effective method of protecting nests and broods through the establishment of "protection zones". Thus, strict protection areas have been established around nests, which are closed to the public and allow no forestry activities to be carried out in them. Every forest area containing nest-site is protected within a radius of 200 m (i.e. about 12.5 ha) throughout the year (no admittance, no other activities). In addition, the radius is extended to 500 m (ca. 78.5 ha) during the breeding season, forbidding people both to enter the zone and to conduct any forestry activities. Thus, the pressure from people (foresters, hunters, tourists, birdwatchers) is reduced to such an extent that the birds are not disturbed and can rear their offspring successfully. The protection zones around the nests concern the following species: Osprey Pandion haliaetus, White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla, Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos, Greater Spotted Eagle A. clanga, Lesser Spotted Eagle A. pomarina, Short-toed Eagle Circaetus gallicus, Booted Eagle A. pennata, Red Kite Milvus milvus, Black Kite M. migrans, Peregrine Falcon F. peregrinus, Saker Falcon, Eagle Owl Bubo bubo and, since 2011, Pygmy Owl Glaucidium passerinum and Tengmalm's Owl Aegolius funereus (only within 50 m around their nests). The law has been slightly changed recently, reducing the radius of the zone to 100 m (ca. 3.1 ha) year-round for three species (Lesser Spotted Eagle, Black and Red Kite); in the breeding season, the protection zone radius has remained unchanged. Currently, there are ca. 2,900 protection zones covering ca. 1,500 km2 in total. It is worth emphasizing that the total size of established protection zones is greater than the forest area of all 23 National Parks in Poland. It is estimated that ca. 60% of all nests of targeted birds of prey are already situated in protection zones (Mizera 2006). 2. Main players in monitoring activities The coordinating unit of the State Bird Monitoring programme in Poland is the Institute and Museum of Zoology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, which is also responsible for ornithological ringing programme in Poland. Many universities and institutes employ ornithologists, some of them to work on birds of prey projects. Also, there are several ornithological and environmental NGOs in Poland, which are active in the area of population studies and monitoring of birds of prey. The organizations particularly interested in this work are the Eagle Conservation Committee (Komitet Ochrony Orlow - KOO; www.koo.org. pl), Falcon Society (Stowarzyszenie na Rzecz Dzikich Zwierz^t Sokol; www.peregrinus.pl), Polish Society for the Protection of Birds (OTOP, Polish Birdlife partner; http://www.otop.org.pl), Owls Protection Society (Stowarzyszenie Ochrony Sow; http://sowy. sos.pl) and PTOP (Polskie Towarzystwo Ochrony Ptakow; http://www.ptop.org.pl), as well as many regional organisations, some of which specialise in certain bird species. Among the NGOs involved in the protection of birds of prey, the KOO is probably the most influential one. With ca. 500 members and volunteers, it was established in 1981 and is the oldest NGO in Poland. Searching for nests, setting borders of the occupied protection zones are activities entrusted to foresters and/or members of the KOO. Every year, 1,000-2,000 nests are censused by both professionals and amateurs, with 20 most active members of KOO controlling about 1,000 nests annually. Each nest is controlled twice a season, which allows determining the numbers of breeding pairs, breeding success and the number of nestlings reared. The results of these inventories are published in special reports in Newsletter of the Eagle Conservation Committee (Biuletyn Komitet Ochrony Orlow). 18 reports were published in the 1982-2012 period (http://www.koo.org.pl/promocja-i-edukacja/ biuletyn-koo). The State Bird Monitoring is financed by the Chief Inspectorate for Environmental Protection (GIOS), which is also the main data user. The key findings are published in a database and summarised in reports, all of which are publicly available on the webpage in Polish language, where basic information on individual programmes is also provided (http:// monitoringptakow.gios.gov.pl). An English version of the website is now in preparation and will be ready in the course of 2013. 3. National coverage, key species 3.1. State monitoring programme The State Bird Monitoring programme in Poland is engaged in 16 different projects concerning breeding species, with each project having its own network and coordinator as well as its own scheme. Monitoring schemes for birds of prey are conducted by the KOO, for owls by the Owls Protection Society, and monitoring of common breeding birds by the OTOP. More common and widespread species are monitored on a basis of sampling plots that are controlled a few times a year, while rare species are monitored through a country-wide census of all or most known breeding territories (Table 1). All monitoring schemes focus on population data - numbers, range and, for some species, reproduction rate as well. Presented here is the situation as existing in 2011. A nationwide programme to monitor 11 widespread species of birds of prey was launched in 2007 under the Monitoring of Birds of Prey (MPD) scheme. Therein, birds of prey are counted on forty 10 x 10 km sampling plots (Figure 1). These plots were selected during stratified random sampling, to ensure that field effort was maximized in areas with most birds. In addition, this approach allows estimating the population sizes of raptors in the whole country (Cenian 2009, Neubauer et al. 2011). In short, four surveys per year are performed on each sampling plot, and due to the different breeding phenology of birds these take place between 20 March and 20 July. At each plot, nine fixed observation points were selected. Data on observations, interpretations and ways of recording are maximally standardized. At each point, all the birds are counted for 30 min (for more methodological details, see http:// monitoringptakow.gios.gov.pl). The commonest species is the Buzzard Buteo buteo Table 1: Overview of main monitoring projects for birds of prey and owls in Poland Tabela 1: Pregled najpomembnejših projektov monitoringa ujed in sov na Poljskem Project title/ Naziv projekta Financed by/ Plačnik Area / Območje Raptor species included/ Vključene ptice roparice Duration (start year) / Trajanje projekta (začetno leto) Beneficiary/ Koristnik sredstev Monitoring of Birds of Prey (MPD) State Inspection of Environment (GIOS) 40-42 sampling plots (i0 X i0 km) P. apivorus M. migrans M. milvus H. albicilla C. aeruginosus C. pygargus A. gentilis B. buteo A. pomarina F. tinnunculus F. subbuteo 2007- Eagle Conservation Committee (KOO) Bird Monitoring Scheme: Osprey (MRY) State Inspection of Environment (GIOS) Entire territory of Poland P. haliaetus 2007- Eagle Conservation Committee (KOO) Bird Monitoring Scheme: Golden Eagle (MOP) State Inspection of Environment (GIOS) Entire territory of Poland A. chrysaetos 2007- Eagle Conservation Committee (KOO) Bird Monitoring Scheme: Greater Spotted Eagle (MOG) State Inspection of Environment (GIOS) Entire territory of Poland A. clanga 2007- Eagle Conservation Committee (KOO) Common Breeding Bird Monitoring (MPPL) State Inspection of Environment (GIOS) 500-645 sampling plots (i X i km) A. gentilis A. nisus B. buteo 2000- OTOP (Polish Birdlife partner) Monitoring of Flagship Birds (MFGP) State Inspection of Environment (GIOS) 40-48 sampling plots (i0 X i0 km) C. aeruginosus 2007- OTOP (Polish Birdlife partner) Monitoring of Breeding Forest Owls (MLSL) State Inspection of Environment (GIOS) 3 5-39 sampling plots (i0 X i0 km) B. bubo G. passerinum S. aluco S. uralensis A. otus A. funereus 2010- Owls Protection Society Peregrine Falcon Monitoring Falcon Society Entire territory of Poland F. peregrinus i998- Falcon Society Migratory birds at Baltic Sea Fund for Environmental Protection and Water Management in Gdansk Vistula Spit (Baltic Sea) all migratory species 2007- Drapolicz -Association of Migratory Birds Observers Figure 1: Distribution of sampling plots of the Monitoring of Birds of Prey (MPD) scheme in Poland - the same model, based on sampling plots is used in Common Breeding Bird Monitoring (MPPL), Monitoring of Flagship Birds (MFGP) and Monitoring of Breeding Forest Owls (MLSL); after Neubauer et al. (2011) Slika 1: Razporeditev vzorčnih ploskev v okviru projekta Monitoring ujed (MPD) na Poljskem - enak model, temelječ na vzorčnih ploskvah, se uporablja v okviru projektov Monitoring pogostih vrst ptic (MPPL), Monitoring karizmatičnih ptic (MFGP) in Monitoring gnezdečih gozdnih sov (MLSL); po Neubauer et al. (2011) — recorded on 39 out of 40 plots. The size of breeding population is estimated at 52,000—63,000 pairs. The least frequently recorded species is the Black Kite, registered at nine plots only; this low frequency causes population estimate to have low precision (450—1,300 pairs). Significantly higher numbers compared to some recently published estimates (Tomialojc & Stawarczyk 2003, BirdLife International 2004) concern the White-tailed (1,250—1,700 pairs) and Lesser Spotted Eagles (2,300—3,300 pairs) (Neubauer et al. 2011). The three rare species have their own monitoring schemes — Osprey (MRY), Greater Spotted Eagle (MOG) and Golden Eagle (MOP). These species are censused within their entire range with all known breeding territories controlled annually (Figure 2). The Greater Spotted Eagle's population seems to be stable at 22—23 pairs (including mixed pairs with Lesser Spotted Eagle; Maciorowski & Mizera 2010). The recent situation as far as the Osprey is concerned is critical: in 2009, only 24—29 nesting pairs were found (Neubauer et al. 2011) in contrast to 53 pairs and estimated population of 70—75 pairs in the 1990s and 2000 (Adamski et al. 1999, BirdLife International 2004, Mizera 2009) as shown on Figure 3. A special project aimed at few easily identifiable species is the Monitoring of Flagship Birds (MFGP), which includes only one bird of prey species, the Marsh Harrier. The last project dealing with birds of prey is the nationwide Common Breeding Bird Monitoring (MPPL; http://www.mppl.pl). Here, on the sampling plots of 1 x 1 km in size, all recorded bird species are counted. Such work was performed on 562 plots throughout the country in 2009 (random stratified sampling approach was used to ensure the representativeness of results). Field work has been carried out since 2000; each season, two surveys are performed along fixed two 1 km long routes. The project involved 290 volunteer ornithologists in the years 2008—2009 (Neubauer et al. 2011). Regarding birds of prey, the Common Breeding Bird Monitoring results include population indices and trends of several species, e.g. Goshawk, Sparrowhawk, Buzzard, Kestrel, Marsh Harrier, etc. (Chylarecki & Jawinska 2007, Neubauer et al. 2011). In 2010, the project Monitoring of Breeding Forest Owls (MLSL) that covers six species was launched. Included here are: Tawny Owl Strix aluco, Ural Owl S. uralensis, Long-eared Owl Asio otus, Tengmalm's Owl, Pygmy Owl and Eagle Owl. Currently, there are 35— 37 sampling plots, each 10 x 10 km in size. The most widespread and most numerous species are the Tawny Owl, Tengmalm's Owl and Pygmy Owl. 3.2. Other programmes Many ornithologists and regional or local organizations conduct various state-independent population studies of raptors. Monitoring of Peregrine Falcon population has not been included in the national scheme as yet, but has been conducted by the Falcon Society since first confirmed breeding of this species in Poland in 1998 (Sielicki & Sielicki 2009). Worth mentioning are the activities carried out by Drapolicz — Association of Migratory Birds Observers that include the ongoing autumn counts of migratory birds of prey (among other birds), which started in 2007, and the study of migration dynamics of owls, mainly the Long-eared and Short-eared A. flammeus Owls (initiated in 2011) at Vistula Spit in the Baltic Sea (Bela et al. 2012; http://www.drapolicz.org.pl/ index.php?lang=en). Some of these projects cover only small areas and are not conducted on regular basis due to dependence Figure 2: Distribution of sampling plots for monitoring of Osprey Pandion haliaetus (MRY) in Poland - the same model based on census study plots aimed to cover the species' entire range is used for Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos (MOP) and Greater Spotted Eagle A.. clanga (MOG); after Neubauer et al. (2011) Slika 2: Razporeditev vzor~nih ploskev za monitoring ribjega orla Pandion haliaetus (MRY) na Poljskem - enak model, ki temelji na preu~evanju celotnega areala vrste s {tetjem na dolo~enih ploskvah, se uporablja za planinskega orla Aquila chrysaetos (MOP) in velikega klinka~a A. clanga (MOG); po Neubauer et al. (2011) 300 270 >240 S 210 ,35180 "^150 'S 90 o Z 60 30 I 1111111 III! I»»»$»*gggggtggigigi Year / Leto Figure 3: Population development of Osprey Pandion haliaetus in Poland in 1800-2012; after MiZERA & SzYMKiEWicz (1996) and MiZERA (2009), supplemented (white columns -estimate, black columns - census data) Slika 3: Razvoj populacije ribjega orla Pandion haliaetus na Poljskem v obdobju 1800-2012; po Mizera & Szymkiewicz (1996) in Mizera (2009), dopolnjeno (beli stolpci - ocena, ~rni stolpci - podatki, pridobljeni s {tetjem) on availability of observers and their professionalism (especially as far as migrant counts at the sea are concerned). Also, some caution is needed in the interpretation of their results. 4. Strengths and weaknesses The current monitoring system is rather comprehensive and is still developing. The network of 400—500 researchers has officially been included into the project plus few more hundreds of volunteers. The instructions as how to conduct fieldwork for each programme are available on the website of each monitoring programmes. Two guides presenting the methodology for monitoring species or their groups (Chylarecki et al. 2009 for breeding birds) are available in Polish. These materials are easily adapted for other countries, if there is such a need. Some species currently not included (especially Peregrine Falcon) should be added to the State Bird Monitoring in the following years. The quality of birds of prey monitoring depends on the availability of specialists and volunteers interested in taking part. Networking, international exchange programmes, books and instructions should help. Polish monitoring scheme is very well organised and effective and could be used as model for other countries. Only well-designed monitoring programmes will produce robust results, which can then represent a base for generalizations (trends, population sizes) across wider areas. Monitoring of birds of prey needs to consider the variable breeding biology of species and specificity of areas where performed. 5. Povzetek Državni monitoring ptic na Poljskem vključuje večino gnezdečih vrst ujed in sov. Kot del večjega Državnega sistema za monitoring okolja se posveča šestnajstim različnim projektom, namenjenim preučevanju posameznih vrst ali skupinam vrst, vključno s pticami roparicami. Za monitoring ptic so zadolžene tri organizacije, in sicer Komite za varstvo orlov (KOO), Poljsko društvo za varstvo ptic (OTOP) in Društvo za zaščito sov, katerih delo koordinira Inštitut za zoologijo in muzej Poljske akademije znanosti na zahtevo Generalnega inšpektorata za varstvo okolja. V rabi sta dva modela monitoringa: prvi sloni na vzorčenju populacij (splošno razširjenih in pogostih vrst), drugi pa na popolnem (ali skoraj popolnem) štetju redkih vrst. Podatki so na voljo javnosti v poljskem jeziku. Poleg Državnega monitoringa ptic se z varstvom in preučevanjem ptic ukvarjajo še mnoge poklicne organizacije, nevladne agencije in posamezniki, pa čeprav ne v okviru pravega sistema monitoringa. Poleg zaščite, ki jo zagotavlja poljski zakon, so gnezda najredkejših vrst, vključno s pticami roparicami, zavarovana s posebnimi zaščitnimi conami, izvzetimi iz gozdnogospodarskih območij. Trenutno obstaja 2.900 takšnih con, ki skupaj pokrivajo 1,500 km2 ozemlja. 6. References Adamski, A., Lontkowski, J., Maciorowski, G., Mizera, T., Rodziewicz, M., Stawarczyk, T. & Waclawek, K. (1999): [Distribution and numbers of rare birds of prey in Poland at the end of the 20th century.] — Notatki Ornitologiczne 40 (1/2): 1—22. (in Polish) Bela, G., Janczyszyn, A. & Kosmicki, A. (2012): [Migration of Falconiformes, Columbiformes and Corvidae on the Vistula Spit in autumn 2009.] — Ptaki Pomorza 3: 135—138. (in Polish, English summary) BirdLife International (2004): Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 12. — BirdLife International, Cambridge. Cenian, Z. (2009): [National monitoring of birds of prey — evaluation methodology of the population and distribution in large sample areas.] — Studia i materialy Centrum Edukacji Przyrodniczo-Lesnej 11, 3 (22): 10— 21. (in Polish, English summary) Chylarecki, P. & Jawinska, D. (2007): [Monitoring of common breeding birds. Report for 2005—2006.] — OTOP, Warszawa. (in Polish, English summary) Chylarecki, P., Sikora, A. & Cenian, Z. (2009): [Monitoring of breeding birds. Methodological manual for protected species from the Birds Directive.] — GIOS, Warszawa. (in Polish) Maciorowski, G. & Mizera, T. (2010): [Research and conservation of Greater Spotted Eagle Aquila clanga in Poland — Project LIFE+.] — Studia i materialy Centrum Edukacji Przyrodniczo-Lesnej 12, 2 (25): 181—190. (in Polish, English summary) Mizera, T. (2006): [Twenty years of the zonal protection in Poland.] — Studia i Materialy Centrum Edukacji Przyrodniczo-Lesnej 8, 2 (12): 29—53. (in Polish, English summary) Mizera, T. (2009): [The Osprey, Pandion haliaetus, situation in Poland at the start of the 21st century.] — Studia i materialy Centrum Edukacji Przyrodniczo-Lesnej 11, 3 (12): 45—55. (in Polish, English summary) Mizera, T. & Szymkiewicz, M. (1996): The present status of the Osprey Pandion haliaetus in Poland. pp. 23—33 In: Meyburg, B.U. & Chancellor, R.D. (eds.): Eagle Studies. — WWGBP, Berlin. Neubauer, G., Sikora, A., Chodkiewicz, T., Cenian, Z., Chylarecki, P., Archita, B., Betleja, J., Rohde, Z., Wieloch, M., Wožniak, B., Zielinski, P. & Zielinska, M. (2011): [Monitoring of Polish breeding birds in 2008—2009.] — Biuletyn Monitoringu Przyrody 8 (1): 1—40. (in Polish, English summary) Sielicki, S. & Sielicki, J. (2009): Restoration of Peregrine Falcon in Poland 1989—2007. pp. 699—722 In: Sielicki, J. & Mizera, T. (eds.): Peregrine Falcon Populations — status and perspectives in the 21st Century. — Turul Publishing & Poznan University of Life Sciences Press, Warsaw - Poznan. Tomialojc, L. & Stawarczyk, T. (2003): [The avifauna of Poland. Distribution, numbers and trends.] — PTTP "pro Natura", Wroclaw. (in Polish, English summary) Arrived / Prispelo: 27. 3. 2013 Accepted / Sprejeto: 1. 7. 2013 a preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in the Slovak Republic Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic na Slovaškem Miroslav Dravecky1 & Zuzana Guziovä1 1 Raptor Protection of Slovakia (RPS), Kuklovska 5, SK-841 04 Bratislava, Slovak Republic, e-mail: dravecky@dravce.sk, guziova@dravce.sk In Slovakia, 33 diurnal and 12 nocturnal raptor species have been recorded so far. Of these, 18 diurnal raptor species and 10 owl species also breed in the country. Raptor monitoring has a long tradition in Slovakia; however, owl monitoring takes place mostly only at the local or regional level. For some species, specifically Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca, Saker Falcon Falco cherrug, Golden Eagle A. chrysaetos, Red-footed Falcon F. vespertinus and Red Kite Milvus milvus, the entire breeding populations have been monitored in the long term. The most comprehensive raptor monitoring has been covered by the Raptor Protection of Slovakia (RPS), the NGO specialized exclusively in raptors through its network of working groups for particular species. The Slovak Ornithological Society (SOS/BirdLife Slovakia) is mostly involved in monitoring of common raptors and wintering population of the White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla. Monitoring is mostly implemented with the ultimate objective of conserving the targeted species. Therefore, the most endangered raptor species at the international and national levels are the key monitored species. On-line databases became popular for storing monitoring data; recently, Aves-Symfony database operated by SOS, RPS and the Institute of Zoology has been developed. Well established network of professionals and volunteers present the major strength of monitoring for raptors in Slovakia. Unfortunately, not all raptor species are adequately covered by monitoring. Access to monitoring data is constrained by unwillingness of some experts to share data in common databases. Another problem is lack of capabilities to evaluate data at the scientific level. Modern monitoring methods, such as remote monitoring with radio or satellite tracking, are applied only rarely due to financial constraints. Monitoring activities do not sufficiently influence decision making. Key words: raptors, birds of prey, owls, monitoring, Slovakia Ključne besede: ptice roparice, ujede, sove, monitoring, Slovaška 1. Introduction So far, 33 diurnal raptor species have been recorded in Slovakia, 18 of which are regular breeders. Only eight species, i.e. the Red Kite Milvus milvus, White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla, Goshawk Accipiter gentilis, Sparrowhawk A. nisus, Buzzard Buteo buteo, Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca, Golden Eagle A. chrysaetos and Kestrel Falco tinnunculus, are breeding residents. Most of the observed raptors are migrants, either visiting Slovakia from spring to autumn to breed, or to winter or just occurring on migration. The group of vagrant visitors includes the Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus, Black Vulture Aegypius monachus, Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus and Steppe Eagle A. nipalensis. In 2012, two new diurnal raptor species were observed in Slovakia for the first time — the Black-winged Kite Elanus caeruleus (Väclav 2012) and Levant Sparrowhawk A. brevipes (Danko & Hrtan 2012). While the Buzzard and Kestrel are Table 1: Status and population size of diurnal raptors in Slovakia Tabela 1: Status in velikost populacij ujed na Slovaškem Species / Vrsta No. of breeding pairs/ Št. gnezdečih parov Source / Vir Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus 900—1,300 Karaska & Danko (2002A) Black-winged Kite Elanus caeruleus Non-breeding Vaclav (2012) Black Kite Milvus migrans 40—60 Chavko & Siryova (2002) Red Kite Milvus milvus 8—10 Maderič (2012) White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla 9 Chavko (2012A) Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus Non-breeding Danko (2002A) Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus Non-breeding Danko & Kropil (2002) Black Vulture Aegypius monachus Non-breeding Danko (2002B) Short-toed Eagle Circaetus gallicus 20—25 Danko (2002c) Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus 400—500 Karaska et al. (2002) Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus Non-breeding Danko (2002D) Pallid Harrier Circus macrourus Non-breeding Danko (2002E) Montagu's Harrier Circus pygargus 10—18 Noga (2011) Goshawk Accipiter gentilis 1,600—1,800 Karaska & Chavko (2002A) Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus 1,500—2,000 Karaska (2002) Levant Sparrowhawk Accipiter brevipes Non-breeding Danko & Hrtan (2012) Buzzard Buteo buteo 5,000—7,000 Kropil (2002A) Long-legged Buzzard Buteo rufinus Non-breeding Danko (2002F) Rough-legged Buzzard Buteo lagopus Non-breeding Kropil & Danko (2002) Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila pomarina 800—900 Karaska & Danko (2002B) Greater Spotted Eagle Aquila clanga Non-breeding Danko (2002g) Steppe Eagle Aquila nipalensis Non-breeding Danko (2002H) Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca 41—44 Chavko & Danko (2012) Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos 90—95 Kropil (2002B) Booted Eagle Aquila pennata 0—6 Danko (20021) Osprey Pandion haliaetus Non-breeding Karaska & Chavko (2002B) Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni Non-breeding Danko (2002J) Kestrel Falco tinnunculus 4,000—6,000 Darolova & Kropil (2002) Red-footed Falcon Falco vespertinus 3 Chavko (2012D) Merlin Falco columbarius Non-breeding Karaska & Chavko (2002c) Hobby Falco subbuteo 600—800 Karaska & Danko (2002c) Saker Falcon Falco cherrug 41—43 Chavko (2012B) Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 150—180 Chavko (2012c) the most numerous raptors in Slovakia, the Short-toed Eagle Circaetus gallicus, Red Kite and White-tailed Eagle are considered rare breeders with only a few pairs in the country (BirdLife International 2004). Table 1 includes an overview of diurnal raptors recorded in Slovakia. As far as nocturnal raptors — owls are concerned, 12 species have been recorded in Slovakia, 10 of which are breeders (BirdLife International 2004). While the Long-eared Owl Asio otus and Tawny Owl Strix aluco are the most frequently occurring species, the Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus and Hawk Owl Surnia ulula are rare visitors. Table 2 includes an overview of nocturnal raptors in Slovakia. Raptor monitoring has a long tradition in Slovakia (see Uhrin et al. 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 & 2012). In the past, there was no mechanism or systematic effort made to concentrate monitoring data, and neither was there any information on ongoing monitoring programmes readily available. Horizontal inventory of existing databases within the country and verification/ evaluation of existing data started some ten years ago with Slovakia's preparation to access the EU and related need to mobilize data for the purpose Table 2: Status and population size of owls in Slovakia Tabela 2: Status in velikost populacij sov na Slovaškem Species / Vrsta No. of breeding pairs/ St. gnezdečih parov Source / Vir Barn Owl Tyto alba 400-600 Sarossy (2002) Scops Owl Otus scops 40-80 Danko & Sarossy (2002) Eagle Owl Bubo bubo 300-400 Danko & Karaska (2002) Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus Non-breeding Danko et al. (2002) Hawk Owl Surnia ulula Non-breeding Sanica (2002) Pygmy Owl Glaucidium passerinum 1,000-1,500 pacenovsky (2002a) Little Owl Athene noctua 800-1,000 PaCENovsKY (2002b) Tawny Owl Strix aluco 2,500-3,000 Pacenovsky & Obuch (2002) Ural Owl Strix uralensis 1,400-2,500 Krisen et al. (2007) Long-eared Owl Asio otus 2,500-4,000 Kropil (2002c) Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus 0-50 Danko & Chavko (2002) Tengmalm's Owl Aegolius funereus 400-600 Pacenovsky (2002c) of identifying and designating its Special Protection Areas (SPAs), including those for raptors. Generally, monitoring of diurnal raptors has been developed in more comprehensive manner compared to owl monitoring. 2. Main players in raptors monitoring Currently, the main actors in monitoring for raptors in Slovakia can be classified into three categories: Government bodies and agencies Ministry of the Environment (MoE) holds general responsibility for the Integrated Environment Monitoring System in Slovakia (includes 12 subsystems/themes, one being "Biota") and for the preparation of the State of the Environment Reports (http://www1.enviroportal.sk/spravy-zp/en). The State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic (SNC SR) is a government agency generally responsible for the long- and medium-term monitoring of the Biota and holds responsibility for "Biota" monitoring subsystem. It is also specifically responsible for gathering detailed data for the purpose of Birds and Habitats Directives, including data for assessing conservation status of raptor species of conservation concern and for reporting purposes. Data are gathered by the SNC technical staff as well as by contracted individual experts, or more rarely by contracted institutions. In 2005, the SNC published a manual for the preparation of management plans including criteria and indicators for assessing conservation status of habitats and species of European importance (Polak & Saxa 2005). In this manual, criteria and indicators along with simple monitoring methodology are described for 13 diurnal and five nocturnal raptors. Monitoring data are stored in the "Information system on Taxa and Habitats" database, the access to which, however, is restricted to the public. Besides, two online databases for the SNC are under development. The raptor monitoring by SNC is financed by the state budget and, recently, also through projects mostly co-financed by the European Union. It is mostly concentrated on designating protected areas, particularly the Special Protection Areas in accordance with the EU Birds Directive. Academic institutions (universities, Slovak Academy of Sciences, museums) are involved in monitoring on project basis. Mostly, they have no long-term raptor monitoring programmes. Few exceptions include the Faculty of Natural Sciences of Comenius University in Bratislava, which has been dedicated for several years to monitoring of the wintering White-tailed Eagles along the Danube River (Bohus 2011), studying the diet composition of owls (Obuch & Karaska 2010, Obuch 2011) as well as population dynamics and diet of the Buzzard (Sotnar & Topercer 2009A & 2009B), and the Orava Museum with long-term regional monitoring scheme for the Lesser Spotted Eagle A. pomarina. NGOs Most important players from the NGO community in Slovakia with adopted raptor monitoring schemes are the Raptor Protection of Slovakia and the Slovak Ornithological Society/ BirdLife Slovakia. The Raptor Protection of Slovakia (RPS) is the only institution in the Slovak Republic exclusively specializing in raptor monitoring (both for raptors and with raptors) and conservation. The RPS (in the 1975-2004 period known as Group for Research of Birds of Prey and Owls) regularly and comprehensively monitors raptor species, both diurnal and nocturnal, and collects data on their breeding performance and threats. It holds records on raptors since the 1970s regularly published in annual reports (Danko 1976, 1977A, 1977B, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994A, 1994B, Danko et al. 1995A, 1995B & 2000). Results of monitoring in the past were published mostly in the journal Buteo (1986-2007). Monitoring is carried out by its members, both volunteers and professionals. From the late 1990s, monitoring of raptors was funded mostly on project basis (e.g. LIFE Nature & Biodiversity, CORO-SKAT, INTERREG etc.). The backbone for monitoring is the well functioning system of working groups for particular species. The Slovak Ornithological Society/BirdLife Slovakia (SOS/BirdLife Slovakia) carries out long-term monitoring of certain raptor species within the framework of international monitoring programmes. Monitoring of common raptors is part of the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (PECBM), in which SOS/BirdLife Slovakia has been participating in cooperation with the Technical University in Zvolen since 2005 (Slabeyova et al. 2009A). No other organisation in Slovakia holds such comprehensive data on common raptors and their trends (http:// vtaky.sk/stranka/97-Scitanie-beznych-druhov.html). Besides, monitoring of the wintering White-tailed Eagles is part of the Winter Water bird Census in Slovakia that has been implemented in Slovakia since 1991. Through this census, Short-eared Owl A. flammeus has been occasionally recorded as well (Slabeyova et al. 2008, 2009B & 2011). In the monitoring of other raptors, SOS/BirdLife Slovakia has been involved only on occasional basis, through projects. In cooperation with the RPS and SAS Institute of Zoology, it operates partly publicly accessible on-line database at Aves-Symfony (http://aves.vtaky.sk), where data on raptors are also registered, although many of them remain confidential and are not publicly accessible. Monitoring data gathered by the RPS and SOS/ BirdLife Slovakia are annually processed, with reports containing more general information on breeding populations and breeding success provided to the MoE and SNC. General information on species is also provided to other institutions on ad hoc basis when negotiating implementation of specific conservation measures, for instance, with energy distribution companies, foresters, etc. Accordingly, monitoring data are above all used for conservation purposes, mainly for assessing status and trend of raptor species, formulation of conservation measures, and formulation of management and policy documents, public awareness and education. 3. National coverage Raptor monitoring is generally taking place in the whole territory of Slovakia. However, there is no "formal" (i.e. run by state authorities) raptor-specific national monitoring network. Most comprehensive coverage of raptor monitoring is implemented by the RPS through working groups system. The following species are covered by the RPS working groups: Imperial Eagle, Golden Eagle, Lesser Spotted Eagle, White-tailed Eagle, Red Kite, Montagu's Harrier Circuspygargus, Saker Falcon Falco cherrug, Peregrine Falcon F. peregrinus, Red-footed Falcon F. vespertinus, Eagle Owl Bubo bubo, Scops Owl Otus scops, Pygmy Owl Glaucidium passerinum, Long-eared Owl and Little Owl Athene noctua. Groups dealing with Imperial Eagle, Golden Eagle, Red Kite, Saker Falcon and Red-footed Falcon are covering the entire breeding population in Slovakia in the long-term. As far as owls are concerned, the Long-eared Owl and Little Owl are best covered by monitoring. Particularly active is the working group for the latter species, although it embarked on its activities only recently. Records for the Long-eared Owl are available from 1993 onwards, gathered during winter censuses. This system has been functioning for years, mostly on voluntary basis, and is able to generate at least basic data even in the absence of external funds. The RPS also implements ad hoc or local monitoring of other raptors, not specifically covered by working groups, but not on systematic basis. Short reports by working groups are available annually in the "Dravce a sovy" (Raptors and Owls) journal, published by RPS (since 2005). Scientific articles on birds of prey and owls are published in the specialized journal Slovak Raptor Journal (from 2007). The SNC and SOS/BirdLife Slovakia also operate at the national level. However, the intensity and coverage of their raptor monitoring schemes depend on specific circumstances, such as methodology employed, availability of funding and, last but not least, on capacity. For instance, in common birds census run by SOS/BirdLife Slovakia, the point count sampling method has been employed for recording all birds, including raptors. More intensive raptor monitoring run recently by the SNC is concentrated in protected areas, particularly in SPAs. It is a part of the larger EU funded project and is focused, among other, on gathering data on distribution and abundance of key raptor species that are protected through the SPA network in Slovakia. 4. Key species and key issues Monitoring is mostly implemented with ultimate objective of conservation of the species concerned. Therefore, the most endangered raptor species are key species addressed by monitoring for raptors in Slovakia and involve: the globally threatened Imperial Eagle and Saker Falcon (VU and EN categories, IUCN 2013), nationally rare breeders like Short-toed Eagle, Red Kite, Black Kite, Red-footed Falcon, White-tailed Eagle and Montagu's Harrier, and particularly endangered species in Slovak Republic like Golden Eagle, Lesser Spotted Eagle and Peregrine Falcon. Monitoring of these species is generally focused on censuses, searching for the presence of species within known home ranges, searching for newly occupied territories, detection of active nests, evaluation of breeding success and determining reasons for breeding failures. Such "basic" monitoring is frequently complemented with studies of ecology, biology, ethology and genetics of the species, monitoring threatening factors and their influence on the targeted species' conservation status (e.g. Chavko et al. 2007, Dravecky et al. 2008a & 2008B, Vili et al. 2009, Chavko 2010, Pačenovsky & Sotnär 2010, Dobry 2011). The main threats to raptors in Slovakia include: electrocution, bird crime (illegal activities, poisoning, illegal shooting etc.), disturbance and logging in breeding territories, loss and degradation of natural breeding and feeding habitats. 5. Strengths and weaknesses Doubtless, the major strength of monitoring for raptors in Slovakia is the well established network of skilled, experienced and highly committed professionals and volunteers, organized particularly within a framework of RPS, but also within the SOS/ BirdLife Slovakia and SNC. This, along with quite a long record of data for some raptor species, creates a good basis for future raptor monitoring. Furthermore, the efforts to streamline monitoring and evaluation through officially established criteria and indicators for assessing conservation status are definitely going the right way. Web databases, such as the Aves-Symfony or databases operated by the SNC, provide for collection of data and, subject to agreement with data owners, can be utilized for conservation purposes. As to weaknesses, not all raptor species are adequately covered by monitoring. Moreover, not all monitoring data are entered in databases. Some experts are reluctant to share data because of a fear of their abuse. Monitoring results generally suffer from the lack of capabilities to evaluate data at the scientific level, not only for RPS and SOS/BirdLife Slovakia, but also for the SNC. Missing statistical evaluation of long-term data sometimes causes problems with using these data in international evaluations and nature conservation at the EU level, e.g. for infringement procedures. Modern approaches, like remote monitoring with radio or satellite tracking, are applied only rarely due to financial constraints. Last but not least, it is necessary to mention that the "follow up mechanism" has not been sufficiently developed, i.e. monitoring activities do not sufficiently influence decision making processes. 6. Priorities, capacity-building Monitoring of raptors in the Slovak Republic must be continuously promoted as an instrument for adaptive policy development and nature management, decision making and learning. Stimulated interest in monitoring and evaluation from decision making sphere might positively influence further development of raptor monitoring schemes. Monitoring data, however, must be complex, timely, reliable, correctly evaluated and readily available. With the objective to gain a complete picture of raptor populations and their dynamics at the national level, efforts should be made to achieve monitoring coverage of all raptors. Tailor-made monitoring schemes, including simple criteria and indicators for assessing conservation status, should be designed for those species that are not included in regular monitoring, yet in consideration of their conservation status and population size. Statistical literacy of raptor experts, i.e. the capacity to design, analyse and interpret statistical data that can support decision makers and their partners from public and private sectors, must be enhanced. Developing procedures and systems for the exchange or sharing of information and statistical data on raptors both at the national and international levels is also important. This can contribute to more efficient utilisation of monitoring data and avoid duplicated monitoring efforts by different experts or entities. Personal capacities need to be extended for raptor monitoring; particularly important is to stimulate young professionals' interest in raptors. This needs to be complemented with promotion of using modern remote monitoring methods. It is also important to strengthen public/voluntary capacities to participate in raptor monitoring though organising monitoring courses or by other tools, for instance by developing simple raptor monitoring manual promoting collection and on-line reporting of "minimum standard data". In conclusion, it should be noted that each capacity strengthening effort should involve all key players in raptor monitoring at the national level. 7. Povzetek Na Slovaškem je bilo doslej zabeleženih 33 vrst ujed in 12 vrst sov, med katerimi 18 vrst ujed in 10 sovjih vrst tudi gnezdi. Monitoring ptic roparic ima na Slovaškem sicer dolgo tradicijo, vendar monitoring sov v glavnem poteka le na lokalni in regionalni ravni. Nekatere vrste, in sicer kraljevi orel Aquila heliaca, sokol plenilec Falco cherrug, planinski orel A. chrysaetos, rdečenoga postovka F. vespertinus in rjavi škarnik Milvus milvus, so deležne dolgoročnega monitoringa njihovih celotnih populacij. Za najbolj celosten monitoring ptic roparic skrbi nevladna organizacija "Zaščita slovaških ptic roparic" (RPS), ki se prek svojega omrežja delovnih skupin posveča izključno tem pticam. Slovaško ornitološko društvo (SOS/BirdLife Slovaška) pa se po drugi strani ukvarja predvsem z monitoringom pogostih ptic roparic in s prezimujočo populacijo belorepca Haliaeetus albicilla. Sicer pa je končni cilj vseh monitoringov ohraniti ciljne vrste - ključne vrste so najbolj ogrožene ptice roparice tako na mednarodni kot državni ravni. Za shranjevanje podatkov monitoringa so postale zelo priljubljene spletne baze podatkov; nedavno je bila razvita tako imenovana Aves-Simfony, baza podatkov, ki jo upravljajo SOS, RPS in Inštitut za zoologijo. Največja prednost pri monitoringu ptic roparic na Slovaškem je zagotovo že dobro uveljavljeno omrežje strokovnjakov in prostovoljcev. Žal pa niso ustrezno spremljane vse vrste ptic roparic. Dostop do podatkov, pridobljenih z monitoringom, je omejen zaradi nepripravljenosti nekaterih izvedencev, da bi podatke v skupnih bazah delili z drugimi. Drug problem pa je nezadostna sposobnost vrednotenja podatkov na znanstveni ravni. Sodobne metode, kot na primer monitoring z radijskim in satelitskim sledenjem, se zaradi finančnih omejitev uporabljajo le poredkoma. Poleg tega pa dejavnosti monitoringa nimajo dovolj velikega vpliva na sprejemanje odločitev, ki posredno ali neposredno zadevajo ptice roparice. 8. References BirdLife International (2004): Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 12. - BirdLife International, Cambridge. Bohuš, M. (2011): [Census of wintering White-tailed Sea Eagles in Slovak section of the Danube river in winters 2008/2009-2010/2011.] - Tichodroma 23: 53-56. (in Slovak, English summary) Chavko, J. (2010): Trend and conservation of saker falcon (Falco cherrug) population in western Slovakia between 1976 and 2010. - Slovak Raptor Journal 4: 1-22. Chavko, J. (2012A): [White-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla).] - Dravce a sovy 8 (1): 7. (in Slovak) Chavko, J. (2012B): [Saker falcon (Falco cherrug).] - Dravce a sovy 8 (1): 8. (in Slovak) Chavko, J. (2012c): [Peregrine falcon (Falcoperegrinus).] - Dravce a sovy 8 (1): 9. (in Slovak) Chavko, J. (2012D): [Red-footed falcon (Falco vespertinus).] - Dravce a sovy 8 (1): 10. (in Slovak) Chavko, J. & Siryova, S. (2002): [The Black Kite (Milvus migrans)] pp. 168-170 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & KriŠ^n, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] -Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Chavko, J. & Danko, Š. (2012): [Eastern imperial eagle (Aquila heliaca)?] - Dravce a sovy 8 (1): 6. (in Slovak) Chavko, J., Danko, Š., Obuch, J. & Mihok, J. (2007): The Food of the Imperial Eagle (Aquila heliaca) in Slovakia. -Slovak Raptor Journal 1: 1-18. Danko, Š. (1976): [Report on activity of Group for Research of Birds of Prey and Owls in 1975.] Unpublished document 8. - Depon. in Group for Research of Raptors and Owls, Michalovce. (in Slovak) Danko, Š. (1977A): [Report on activity of Group for Rsearch and Protection of Birds of Prey and Owls in Czechoslovakia in 1975 and 1976.] pp. 93-104 In: Randk, A. (ed): Falconiana I. Proceedings from seminar "Current state of distribution and protection of raptors in Czechoslovakia", 24-25 September 1976, Nitra. -Ustav experimentalnej fytopatologie a entomologie SAV, Sekcia ochrany fauny Slovenskej zoologickej spoločnosti SAV & Sekcia ochrany vtactva Československej ornitologickej spoločnosti, Bratislava. (in Slovak, German summary) Danko, Š. (1977B): [Report on activity of Group for Research of Birds of Prey and Owls in Czechoslovakia in 1975.] Unpublished document 9. - Depon. in Group for Research of Raptors and Owls, Michalovce. (in Slovak) Danko, Š. (1978): [Report on activity of Group for Research of Birds of Prey and Owls in Czechoslovakia in 1977.] Unpublished document 10. - Depon. in Group for Research of Raptors and Owls, Michalovce. (in Slovak) Danko, Š. (1979): [Report on activity in 1978.] Unpublished document 12. - Depon. in Group for Research of Raptors and Owls, Michalovce. (in Slovak) Danko, Š. (1980): [Report on activity in 1979.] Unpublished document 11. — Depon. in Group for Research of Raptors and Owls, Michalovce. (in Slovak) Danko, Š. (1987): [Report on the Activity of the Group for Research and Protection of Birds of Prey and Owls in Czechoslovakia in 1985.] — Skupina pro vyzkum dravych ptakü a sov, Zpravy 6: 1—25. (in Slovak) Danko, Š. (1988): [Report on the Activity of the Group for Research and Protection of Birds of Prey and Owls in Czechoslovakia in 1986.] — Buteo 1: 3—31. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š. (1989): [Report on the Activity of the Group for Research and Protection of Birds of Prey and Owls in Czechoslovakia in 1987.] — Buteo 2: 1—36. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š. (1990): [Report on the Activity of the Group for Research and Protection of Birds of Prey and Owls in Czechoslovakia in 1988.] — Buteo 3: 1—34. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š. (1991): [Report on the Activity of the Group for Research and Protection of Birds of Prey and Owls in Czechoslovakia in 1989.] — Buteo 4: 1—28. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š. (1992): [Report on the Activity of the Group for Research and Protection of Birds of Prey and Owls in Czechoslovakia in 1990.] — Buteo 5: 1—30. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š. (1994A): [Report on the Activity of the Group for Research and Protection of Birds of Prey and Owls in Czechoslovakia in 1991.] — Buteo 6: 90—120. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š. (1994B): [Report on the Activity of the Group for Research and Protection of Birds of Prey and Owls in Czechoslovakia in 1992.] — Buteo 6: 121—151. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š. (2002A): [The Egyptian Vulture (Neophron percnopterus).] pp. 174—175 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š. (2002B): [The Black Vulture (Aegypius monachus).] pp. 176 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š. (2002c): [The Short-toed Eagle (Circaetus gallicus).] pp. 177—178 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š. (2002D): [The Hen Harrier (Circus cyaneus).] pp. 180—182 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š. (2002E): [The Pallid Harrier (Circus macrourus)?] pp. 182 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š. (2002F): [The Long-legged Buzzard (Buteo rufinus).] pp. 191—193 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š. (2002g): [The Spotted Eagle (Aquila clanga).] pp. 197—198. In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š. (2002H): [The Steppe Eagle (Aquila nipalensis)] pp. 198 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š. (20021): [The Booted Eagle (Hieraaetus pennatus)] pp. 202—204 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š. (2002J): [The lesser kestrel (Falco naumanni)?] pp. 206 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š., s.a. (1981): [Report on the Activity of the Group for Research of Birds of Prey and Owls in Czechoslovakia in 1980.] — Skupina pro vyzkum dravych ptakü a sov, Zpravy 1/80: 3—12. (in Slovak) Danko, Š., s.a. (1982): [Report on the Activity of the Group for Research and Protection of Birds of Prey and Owls in Czechoslovakia in 1981]. — Skupina pro vyzkum dravych ptakü a sov, Zpravy 2/81: 1—13. (in Slovak) Danko, Š., s.a. (1983): [Report on the Activity of the Group for Research and Protection of Birds of Prey and Owls in Czechoslovakia in 1982.] — Skupina pro vyzkum dravych ptakü a sov, Zpravy 3/82: 1—13. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š., s.a. (1984): [Report on the Activity of the Group for Research and Protection of Birds of Prey and Owls in Czechoslovakia in 1983.] — Skupina pro vyzkum dravych ptakü a sov, Zpravy 4/83: 1—15. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š., s.a. (1985): [Report on the Activity ofthe Group for Research and Protection of Birds of Prey and Owls in Czechoslovakia in 1984.] — Skupina pro vyzkum dravych ptakü a sov, Zpravy 5/84: 1—20. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š. & Kropil, R. (2002): [The Griffon Vulture (Gyps fulvus)?] pp. 175—176 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š. & Sarossy, M. (2002): [The scops owl (Otus scops).] pp. 358—360 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š. & Karaska, D. (2002): [The eagle owl (Bubo bubo)?] pp. 360—362 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š. & Chavko, J. (2002): [The short-eared owl (Asio flammeus).] pp. 376—378 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š. & Hrtan, E. (2012): The first observation of the Levant sparrowhawk Accipiter brevipes (Severtzov, 1850) in Slovakia. — Slovak Raptor Journal 6: 31—36. Danko, Š., Chavko, J. & Karaska, D. (1995A): [Report on the Activity of the Group on Protection of Birds of Prey and Owls in the Slovak republic in 1993.] — Buteo 7: 109—121. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š., Chavko, J. & Karaska, D. (1995B): [Report on the Activity of the Group on Protection of Birds of Prey and Owls in the Slovak republic in 1994]. — Buteo 7: 132—148. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š., Karaska, D. & Chavko, J. (2000): [Report on the activity of the Group on Protection of Birds of Prey and Owls of the Slovak Society for Ornithology in 1995]. — Tichodroma 13: 227—250. (in Slovak, English summary) Danko, Š., Karaska, D. & Kropil, R. (2002): [The snowy owl (Nyctaea scandiaca).] pp. 363 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Darolova, A. & Kropil, R. (2002): [The common kestrel (Falco tinnunculus).] pp. 207—209 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Dobry, M. (2011): The abundance of the little owl (Athene noctua) in Podunajska rovina lowland in 2009 and 2010. — Slovak Raptor Journal 5: 121—126. Dravecky, M., Danko, Š., Obuch, J., Kicko, J., Maderič, B., Karaska, D., Vrana, J., Šreibr, O., Šotnar, K., Vrlk, P. & Bohačk, L. (2008A): Diet of the Lesser Spotted Eagle (Aquila pomarina) in Slovakia. — Slovak Raptor Journal 2: 1—18. Dravecky, M., Maderič, B., Šotnar, K., Danko, Š., Harvančk, S., Kicko, J., Karaska, D., Vrlk, P., Vrana, J., Balla, M., Boucny, D. & Kišac, P. (2008B): Lesser Spotted Eagle (Aquila pomarina) colour ringing programme and its first results in the period 2000—2008 in Slovakia. — Slovak Raptor Journal 2: 27—36. IUCN (2013): The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. — [http://www.iucnredlist.org/], 28/5/2013. Karaska, D. (2002): [The Sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus).] pp. 187—189 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Karaska, D. & Chavko, J. (2002A): [The Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis).] pp. 185—187 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Karaska, D. & Chavko, J. (2002B): [The Osprey Pandion haliaetus).] pp. 204—205 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Karaska, D. & Chavko, J. (2002c): [The merlin (Falco columbarius).] pp. 211—212 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Karaska, D. & Danko, Š. (2002A): [The Honey Buzzard (Pernis apivorus)?] pp. 166—167 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Karaska, D. & Danko, Š. (2002B): [The Lesser Spotted Eagle (Aquila pomarina).] pp. 195—197 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Karaska, D. & Danko, Š. (2002c): [The Eurasian hobby (Falcosubbuteo).] pp. 213—214 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Karaska, D., Trnka, A. & Danko, Š. (2002): [The Marsh Harrier (Circus aeruginosus)?] pp. 178—180 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Krisen, A., Mihok, J., Danko, Š., Karaska, D., Pačenovsky, S., Saniga, M., Bodova, M., Balazs, C., Šotnar, K., Kornan, J. & OlekSak, M. (2007): Distribution, abundance and conservation of the Ural owl Strix uralensis in Slovakia. pp. 8—15 In: Müller, J., Scherzinger, W. & Moning, C. (eds): European Ural owl workshop, Bavarian Forest National Park. Tagungsbericht, Heft 8. — National Park Bayerischer Wald, Grafenau. Kropil, R. (2002A): [The Common Buzzard (Buteo buteo)?] pp. 189—191 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Kropil, R. (2002B): [The Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)?] pp. 201—202 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Kropil, R. (2002c): [The long-eared owl (Asio otus).] pp. 374—376 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Kropil, R. & Danko, Š. (2002): [The Rough-legged Buzzard (Buteo lagopus)?] pp. 193—195 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Maderič, B. (2012): [Red kite (Milvus milvus).] — Dravce a sovy 8 (1): 11. (in Slovak) Noga, M. (2011): [Montagu's harrier (Circus pygargus).] — Dravce a sovy 7 (1): 13. (in Slovak) Obuch, J. (2012): Spatial and temporal diversity of the diet of the tawny owl (Strix aluco). — Slovak Raptor Journal 5 (1): 1—120. Obuch, J. & Karaska, D. (2011): The Eurasian eagle-owl (Bubo bubo) diet in the Orava Region (N Slovakia). — Slovak Raptor Journal 4 (1): 83—98. Pačenovsky, S. (2002A): [The pygmy owl (Glaucidium passerinum).] pp. 364—367 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. 6 Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Pačenovsky, S. (2002B): [The little owl (Athene noctua)~\ pp. 367—369 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Pačenovsky, S. (2002c): [The Tengmalm's owl (Aegolius funereus).] pp. 379—381 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Pačenovsky, S. & Obuch, J. (2002): [The tawny owl (Strix aluco)?] pp. 369—371 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Pačenovsky, S. & Šotnar, K. (2010): Notes on the reproduction, breeding biology and ethology of the Eurasian pygmy owl (Glaucidium passerinum) in Slovakia. — Slovak Raptor Journal 4: 49—81. Polak P. & Saxa, A. (eds.) 2005: [Favourable Conservation Status of Habitats and Species of European Importance.] — State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic, Banska Bystrica. (in Slovak) Saniga, M. (2002): [The hawk owl (Surnia ulula).] pp. 364 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Sarossy, M. (2002): [The barn owl (Tyto alba)] pp. 356— 358 In: Danko, Š., Darolova, A. & Krisen, A. (eds.): [Birds distribution in Slovakia.] — Veda, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Slabeyova, K., Ridzon, J., Darolova, A., Karaska, D. & Topercer, J. (2008): Report on winter waterbird census in Slovakia in the season 2004/05. — SOS/BirdLife Slovensko, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Slabeyova, K., Ridzon, J. & Kropil, R. (2009A): Trends in common birds abundance in Slovakia during 2005— 2009. — Tichodroma 21: 1—13. (in Slovak, English summary) Slabeyova, K., Ridzon, J., Topercer, J., Darolova, A. & Karaska, D. (2009B): Report on winter waterbird census in Slovakia in the season 2005/06. — SOS/BirdLife Slovensko, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Slabeyova, K., Ridzon, J., Karaska, D., Topercer, J. & Darolova, A. (2011): Report on winter waterbird census in Slovakia in the season 2009/2010. — SOS/BirdLife Slovensko, Bratislava. (in Slovak, English summary) Šotnar, K. & Topercer, J. (2009A): Estimating density, population size and dynamics of Common Buzzard (Buteo buteo) in a West Carpathian region by a new method. — Slovak Raptor Journal 3: 1—12. Šotnar, K. & Topercer, J. (2009B): Feeding ecology of a nesting population of the Common Buzzard (Buteo buteo) in the Upper Nitra region, Central Slovakia. — Slovak Raptor Journal 3: 13—20. Uhrin, M., Danko, Š. & Latkova, H. (2008): Bibliography on birds of prey and owls in Slovakia. Part 1. Order Accipitriformes, genera Aquila, Hieraaetus & Haliaeetus. — Slovak Raptor Journal 2: 119—142. Uhrin, M., Danko, Š. & Latkova, H. (2009): Bibliography on birds of prey and owls in Slovakia. Part 2. Order Accipitriformes, genera Pernis, Milvus, Neophron, Gyps, Aegypius, Circaetus, Circus, Accipiter, Buteo & Pandion. — Slovak Raptor Journal 3: 73—88. Uhrin, M., Danko, Š. & Latkova, H. (2010): Bibliography on birds of prey and owls in Slovakia. Part 3. Order Falconiformes, genus Falco. — Slovak Raptor Journal 4: 115—131. Uhrin, M., Danko, Š. & Latkova, H. (2011): Bibliography on birds of prey and owls in Slovakia. Part 4. Order Strigiformes, genera Tyto, Otus, Bubo, Strix, Surnia, Glaucidium, Athene, Aegolius & Asio. — Slovak Raptor Journal 5: 137—163. Uhrin, M., Danko, Š. & Latkova, H. (2012): Bibliography on birds of prey and owls in Slovakia. Part 5. General references and supplements to previous parts. — Slovak Raptor Journal 6: 45—77. Vaclav, R. (2012): First observation of the black-winged kite Elanus caeruleus in Slovakia. — Slovak Raptor Journal 6: 27—30. Vili, N., Chavko, J., Szabo, K., KovAcs, S., Hornung, E., Kalmar, L. & Horvath, M. (2009): Genetic structure of the Imperial Eagle (Aquila heliaca) population in Slovakia. — Slovak Raptor Journal 3: 21—28. Arrived / Prispelo: 27. 3. 2013 Accepted / Sprejeto: 1. 7. 2013 a preliminary overview of raptor monitoring in Slovenia - an overview of methodologies, current monitoring status and future perspectives Predhodni pregled monitoringa ptic roparic v Sloveniji - pregled metodologij, trenutnega stanja monitoringa in perspektive Al Vrezec National Institute of Biology, Večna pot 111, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia, e-mail: al.vrezec@nib.si Slovenian Museum of Natural History, Prešernova 20, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia Among 48 raptor species (birds of prey, owls, shrikes) recorded recently in Slovenia, some long-term monitoring activities are being conducted for more than half of them, mainly for conservation and research purposes. However, national coverage is achieved only in 15% of the species, whereas other monitoring programmes are more or less local. Two monitoring approaches are considered, the species specific approach and assemblage approach. Current ongoing monitoring programmes for raptors in Slovenia lack monitoring of breeding success, which is now confined to only a few owl species. Use of nestboxes should therefore be considered more broadly in the future for some species at least. Key words: Slovenia, raptor monitoring, monitoring methodology, birds of prey, owls, shrikes Ključne besede: Slovenija, monitoring ptic roparic, metodologija monitoringa, ujede, sove, srakoperji 1. Introduction Despite a relatively long ornithological research tradition (Scopoli 1769) and certain conservation efforts for many raptor species in Slovenia (Beuk 1920), the actual bird monitoring programmes and studies were embarked upon fairly recently, specifically in the 1980s. The aims of these monitoring programmes were quite different taking into account specific scientific (Tome 2009) or conservation based issues (Polak et al. 2004). They were designed either as broad international actions (Božič 2005) or as a way of bird popularization by monitoring of charismatic bird species (Denac, D. 2010). Therefore long-term data on bird or specifically raptor populations in Slovenia are of quite different quality and quantity based on species specific or assemblage-oriented surveys such as Farmland Bird Index counts (Kmecl & Figelj 2012). In terms of raptors, only few long-term monitoring results from Slovenia have been published (e.g. Denac 2003, Rubinic 2009, Tome 2009, Vrezec et al. 2009), leaving most of the collected data unanalysed and unpublished. The main aim of this study was therefore to inventory data collections in Slovenia appropriate for raptor monitoring purposes. I have taken into account the published and unpublished long-term data on population size (breeding and non-breeding) and breeding success, including survey methods overview, and identified strong and weak points of current monitoring programmes with future perspectives and needs. In the present preliminary overview of raptor monitoring in Slovenia, I have followed broader ecological definition of raptors including birds of prey, owls and shrikes. 2. Methods For the purpose of this overview, an updated list of raptors recorded in Slovenia in the past 50 years was prepared. For each species the inventory of continuous or consecutive surveillances and especially long-term A. Vrezec: A preliminary overview of raptor monitoring in Slovenia — an overview of methodologies, current monitoring status and future perspectives Table 1: Overview of raptor monitoring in Slovenia (the number of species listed) Tabela 1: Pregled monitoringa ptic roparic v Sloveniji (z navedenim številom vrst) Falconiformes Strigiformes Laniidae Total / Skupaj No. of species 34 11 4 49 Breeders 15 9 3 27 Vagrants 10 1 0 11 Monitoring of breeding population 7 6 2 15 Monitoring of breeding success 2518 Raptor migration monitoring 13 0 1 14 Monitoring of wintering population 1 0 1 2 monitoring programmes was reviewed, taking into account the published data, unpublished reports, existing data bases or survey protocols. 3. Results and discussion In the past 50 years, 49 raptor species have been recorded in Slovenia. Breeding has been confirmed for 27 of them (five species became recently extinct or breed irregularly or in very low numbers), at least 22 species are regular migrants, and at least five species form regular wintering populations (SoviNc 1994, Geister 1995, Bordjan & Božič 2009, Hanžel & Šere 2011) (Table 1). From further analysis, 11 vagrant species have been excluded. For 71% of non-vagrant species, some long-term monitoring activities exist. 3.1. Monitoring schemes, data users Monitoring of breeding populations was carried out for 58% of the breeders, but the actual breeding success was ascertained only for 27% of them. In raptor migration monitoring, 37% of the species were considered, and only 5% in wintering population monitoring (Table 1). However, the spatial coverage and time series differ greatly among species. The largest data set was obtained from regular ringing of migrating passerines (coordinated by the Slovenian Museum of Natural History) for the Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio, which started as early as in 1927, but systematically continued at a permanent bird ringing station in 1987 (Božič 2009, Šere 2009). Other monitoring programmes are much shorter and confined mainly to the last 20 years. They were mostly conducted by DOPPS - BirdLife Slovenia, Sečovlje Salina Nature Park and the National Institute of Biology for research, conservation and management purposes. Data users and monitoring programmes' supporters are mainly governmental institutions from the field of nature conservation (Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation) and scientific research (Slovenian Research Agency, Ministry of Culture). Quite some monitoring efforts rely also on purely voluntary work. National coverage was achieved only in seven species (18%), mostly as breeding population monitoring. For 20 species (53%), the monitoring programmes were local (one or two sites). The latter were mainly migration monitoring programmes at specific sites, including monitoring of several migrating raptor species. 3.2. Monitoring methodology, key species and key monitoring issues Two monitoring approaches are considered in the scope of long-term data collection for raptors, species specific approach and assemblage approach. In the latter, raptors are target species of raptor migration monitoring, which is conducted at migration bottlenecks or other important migration sites, e.g. open wetlands, in Slovenia. Raptor migration monitoring has been conducted since 2005 on eight sites in Slovenia, but only on one more or less regularly within the scope of Natura 2000 network monitoring programme (Denac et al. 2010). This monitoring was conducted in spring and autumn and every raptor species was recorded, with Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus, Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus and Kestrel Falco tinnunculus as the most abundant raptors, the last two species as residents and not true migrants (Denac, K. 2010). Raptor migration is followed also within regular bird ringing programme coordinated by the Slovenian Museum of Natural History, but these data have not yet been fully evaluated for the monitoring purposes. Migration of raptors, mostly birds of prey, is followed seasonally and annually also in the scope of waterbird counts at larger wetlands in Slovenia. This has been regularly conducted since 2002 (since 1983 at only one site) on at least five sites, in which migrating as well as breeding and wintering raptor populations are considered, with Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus, Buzzard Buteo buteo, Red-footed Falcon F. vespertinus, Kestrel and Osprey Pandion haliaetus as the most abundant species (Bordjan & Božič 2009, Škornik 2009, Bordjan 2012). For the White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla, the usefulness of large scale and non-targeted data from International Waterbird Census (IWC) counts has been shown. In Slovenia, the IWC has been continuously conducted on almost all water bodies since 1997 (Stumberger 1997). Despite winter counts, this survey appeared to be very useful for estimating breeding population trends of the White-tailed Eagle (Vrezec et al. 2009). An increase in winter population (estimated with TRIM software) corresponded very well to the increase of new nests found. Breeding population of some species is followed in consecutive periods, although not annually, for example for the Red-backed Shrike, where local population is surveyed approximately every five years (Denac 2003). Since 2007, breeding populations of some common raptors, e.g. Kestrel and Red-backed Shrike, have been followed by annual bird surveys conducted on 102 plots over the country as part of the Farmland Bird Index programme, conducted by DOPPS - BirdLife Slovenia (Kmecl & Figelj 2012). Collection of biological material (carcasses, eggs, feathers etc.) that might be an important source for with raptor monitoring, i.e. monitoring of contaminants in raptor tissues, is conducted by the Slovenian Museum of Natural History, but with no specific collection programme for raptors so far. The species specific monitoring programmes are focused mainly on breeders (Table 2), with the exception of the Great Grey Shrike L. excubitor for which regular surveys of its winter numbers have been conducted since 2000, currently on two larger open areas in Slovenia at least, using the area count method (Bombek 2001). Some endangered raptor species have been included in the national monitoring scheme of qualification species of the Natura 2000 network: Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila pomarina, Peregrine Falcon F. peregrinus, Scops Owl Otus scops, Eagle Owl Bubo bubo, Ural Owl Strix uralensis and Lesser Grey Shrike L. minor (Rubinic 2009, Denac et al. 2010). However, the species specific monitoring programmes are focused mostly on territorial pair counts or chick presence in the nest at most, but rarely on other breeding and ecological parameters (Table 2). These were part of more detailed but local studies of feeding and breeding ecology in raptors (i.e. Long-eared Owl Asio otus, Tome 2003 & 2009) or research nestbox programme (i.e. Tawny S. aluco and Ural Owl, Vrezec 2007 & unpubl). Many monitoring programmes in Slovenia are part of a broad international cooperation, especially with BirdLife International. Migration monitoring was designed in cooperation with Austrian and Italian researchers (Mihelič & Genero 2005, Probst 2010), whereas species specific monitoring of owls was developed in close cooperation with Finnish, Croatian, Italian, Austrian and some other researchers (e.g. Vrezec & Tutis 2003). Currently, there is a bilateral project with Bosnia and Herzegovina going on, aimed at joint study of some owl species. 3.3. Strengths and weaknesses of current monitoring programmes, future perspectives Monitoring programmes should be cost-effective (McDonald-Madden et al. 2010) to ensure long-term surveillance according to limited financial and human resources on one hand and its information efficiency on the other, which includes large scale and complex survey approach. Since raptors are charismatic and usually well known species, it is important to search for possibilities at least for their population monitoring in current ongoing monitoring programmes, e.g. population monitoring of the White-tailed Eagle in Slovenia (Vrezec et al. 2009). In Slovenia, however, nearly a half of raptor species are currently not covered by any monitoring programme or only migrating population is monitored, while their breeding populations have not been taken into consideration. In Slovenia, monitoring of raptors' breeding success is currently confined to just few owl species (Table 2). The use of nestboxes is still underrepresented in raptor monitoring and research (Lambrechts et al. 2012) and should be more broadly used. In general, the conservation needs for nestboxes in order to supplement nest sites for hole nesting raptors are low due to still well preserved forest stands in Slovenia, which provide enough natural possibilities for breeding. Currently, nestboxes are used for Kestrel, Barn Owl Tyto alba, Scops Owl, Tawny Owl, Ural Owl, Tengmalm's owl Aegolius funereus and Little Owl Athene noctua, although mostly at the local level with low quantity and different success. However, the perspective of nestbox application in monitoring programmes is to recruit volunteers to maintain Table 2: Overview of species specific monitoring programmes for raptors in Slovenia Tabela 2: Pregled programov vrstno specifičnega monitoringa za ptice roparice v Sloveniji Species / Vrsta Time series/ Obdobje Spatial coverage/ Prostorska pokritost Methods/ Metode Other parameters monitored/ Drugi spremljani parametri Sources/ Viri Lesser Spotted Eagle Aqtula pomarina since 2004 Local Annual inspections of known breeding sites No Rubinič (2009) Golden Eagle Aqtula chrysaetos since 2008 National Annual inspections of known breeding sites Chick presence T. Mihelič (pers. comm.) Peregrine Falcon Falco peregritius since 2004 Local Annual inspections of known breeding sites Chick presence Rubinič (2009) Scops Owl Otus scops since 1998 National Point counts of territories (playback) Clutch and brood size (nestboxes) Denac K. (2003) Eagle Owl Bubo bubo since 1992 National Annual inspections of known breeding sites Chick presence Mihelič (201 i) Tawny Owl Strix aluco since 1998 Local Point counts of territories (playback) Clutch and brood size, female ringing (nestboxes), diet, prey abundance Vrezec (2003) Ural Owl Strix uralensis since 1997 National Point counts of territories (playback) Clutch and brood size, female ringing (nestboxes), diet, prey abundance Vrezec (2007) Long-eared Owl Asio otus 1982-2001 Local Nest inspections Clutch and brood size, diet, prey abundance Tome (2003, 2009) Tengmalm's Owl Aegoliusfunereus since 1997 Local Point counts of territories (playback) No Vrezec (2003) Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio since 1992 Local Area count Habitat Denac D. (2003) Lesser Grey Shrike Lanius minor since 1999 Local Area count Brood size Hudoklin (2008), Denac et al (2010) Great Grey Shrike Lanius excubitor* since 2000 Local Area count No Bombek (2001) * wintering population / prezimujoča populacija different kinds of nestboxes for raptors. Based on Finnish raptor monitoring programme (Saurola 2008), this provides good population as well as breeding success monitoring. In order to explain monitoring results, some key environmental parameters should be included in the monitoring programmes, which are considered in Slovenia only marginally for research needs (e.g. Tome 2009). Especially, there is a need for monitoring of threats, which have been studied in Slovenia only preliminary, e.g. roadkill (Rubinič & Vrezec 2001) and electrocution (Rubinic 2009), but not followed by a long-term scheme and connected to population monitoring programmes. The future perspectives of monitoring for raptors in Slovenia, largely stimulated by EURAPMON, are: (1) to collect current scattered data and to produce reliable national trends where possible, (2) to develop efficient field methods (survey, breeding success), (3) to start with nestboxes programme at the national level (volunteer-based), (4) to include ringing activity and advanced telemetry studies into raptor monitoring, (5) to include mortality monitoring or monitoring of threats, and (6) to start with systematic biological material collection of raptors for the purposes of monitoring with raptors. These issues should be largely enhanced by international cooperation at the point of general monitoring scheme establishment. Acknowledgements: To accomplish this overview, several colleagues offered me great help in obtaining additional information on unpublished but ongoing monitoring programmes for raptors in Slovenia: Dominik Bombek, Dejan Bordjan, Katarina Denac, Dare Fekonja, Dr Primož Kmecelj, Dr Urša Koce, Tomaž Mihelič and Dr Davorin Tome. 4. Povzetek Dolgoročni monitoring trenutno poteka za dobro polovico od 48 ptic roparic (ujed, sov, srakoperjev), zabeleženih v zadnjem obdobju v Sloveniji, predvsem za potrebe varstva in raziskovanja teh ptic. Vendar pa je na nacionalni ravni pokritih le 15 % vrst, medtem ko drugi programi monitoringa potekajo bolj ali manj na lokalno. V rabi sta dva pristopa monitoringa, in sicer vrstno specifični pristop in pristop na ravni združb. Sedanji programi monitoringa za ptice roparice v Sloveniji pa ne zajemajo monitoringa njihovega gnezditvenega uspeha, ki je trenutno omejen le na sove. V prihodnosti bi za nadaljnji razvoj monitoronga ptic roparic v Sloveniji morali razmisliti predvsem o: (1) zbiranju obstoječih a razpršenih podatkov, s katerimi bi lahko izračunali zanesljive populacijske trende vsaj za nekatere vrste, (2) razvoju učinkovitih terenskih metod (popisi, ugotavljanje gnezditvenega uspeha), (3) začetku programa z uporabo gnezdilnic na nacionalnem nivoju (s širšim vključevanjem prostovoljcev), (4) vključitvi obročkovalske aktivnosti in uporabe naprednih telemetrijskih tehnik v monitoring ptic roparic, (5) vključitvi monitoringa smrtnosti in dejavnikov ogrožanja v sheme monitoringa in (6) začetku sistematičnega zbiranja biološkega materiala ptic roparic za namene monitoringa onesnažil in strupov. Ti cilji morajo biti tesno povezani z mednarodnim sodelovanjem za postavitev nacionalne sheme monitoringa za ptice roparice v Sloveniji. 5. References Beuk, S. (1920): Spomenica. — Glasnik Muzejskega društva za Slovenijo 1 (1—4): 69—75. (in Slovene) Bombek, D. (2001): [Survey of the Great Grey Shrike Lanius excubitor at Dravsko and Ptujsko polje in December 2000.] — Acrocephalus 22 (104/105): 41—43. (in Slovene, English summary). Bordjan, D. (2012): [Waterbirds and raptors of Cerknica polje (southern Slovenia) in 2007 and 2008, with an overview of interesting observations till the end of 2010.] — Acrocephalus 33 (152/153): 25—104. (in Slovene, English summary) Bordjan, D. & Božič, L. (2009): [Waterbirds and raptors occurring in the area of Medvedce reservoir (Dravsko polje, NE Slovenia) during the 2002—2008 period.] — Acrocephalus 30 (141/142/143): 55—163. (in Slovene, English summary) Božič, L. (2005): [Results of the International Waterbird Census (IWC) in January 2004 and 2005 in Slovenia.] — Acrocephalus 26 (126): 123—137. (in Slovene, English summary) Božič, I.A. (2009): [Results of bird ringing in Slovenia: 1926—1982.] — Scopolia, Suppl. 4: 23—110. (in Slovene, English summary) Denac, D. (2003): Population decline and land-use changes in hunting habitat of the Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio at Šturmovci (NE Slovenia). — Acrocephalus 24 (118): 97—102. Denac, D. (2010): Population dynamics of the White stork Ciconia ciconia in Slovenia between 1999 and 2010. — Acrocephalus 31 (145/146): 101—114. Denac, K. (2003): Population dynamics of Scops Owl Otus scops at Ljubljansko barje (central Slovenia). — Acrocephalus 24 (119): 127—133. 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. Denac, K., Božič, L., Rubinic, B., Denac, D., Mihelič, T., Kmecl, P. & Bordjan, D. (2010): [Population monitoring of selected bird species. Technical report.] — DOPPS - BirdLife Slovenia, Ljubljana. (in Slovene) A. Vrezec: A preliminary overview of raptor monitoring in Slovenia — an overview of methodologies, current monitoring status and future perspectives Kmecl, P. & Figelj, J. (2012): [Monitoring of common bird species for estimation of Slovenian Farmland Bird Index. Report for 2012.] - DOPPS, Ljubljana. (in Slovene) (available at http://www.natura2000.gov.si/ index.php?id=211) Geister, I. (1995): [The Ornithological Atlas of Slovenia.] — DZS, Ljubljana. (in Slovene, English summary) Hanžel, J. & Sere, D. (2011): [The list of birds of Slovenia with an overview of rare species.] — Acrocephalus 32 (150/151): 143—203. (in Slovene, English summary) Hudoklin, A. (2008): [Ecological demands of the Lesser Grey Shrike Lanius minor in its breeding habitat at Sentjernejsko polje (SE Slovenia).] — Acrocephalus 29: 23—31. (in Slovene, English summary) Lambrechts, M.M., Wiebe, K.L., Sunde, P., Solonen, T., Sergio, F., Roulin, A., M0ller, A.P., Lopez, B.C., Fargallo, J.A., Exo, K.M., Dell'Omo, G., Costantini, D., Charter, M., Butler, M.W., Bortolotti, G.R., Arlettaz, R. & Korpimäki, E. (2012): Nest box design for the study of diurnal raptors and owls is still an overlooked point in ecological, evolutionary and conservation studies: a review. — Journal of Ornithology 153 (1): 23—34. Mcdonald-Madden, E., Baxter, P.W.J., Fuller, R.A., Martin, T.G., Game, E.T., Montambault, J. & Possingham, H.P. (2010): Monitoring does not always count. — Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25: 547—550. Mihelič, T. (2011): [Eagle Owl Bubo bubo] pp. 25—33 In: Denac, K., Mihelič, T., Denac, D., Božič, L., Kmecl, P. & Bordjan, D. (eds.): Population monitoring of selected bird species. Census of breeders in spring 2011 and summary of surveys in the 2010—2011 period. Final report. — DOPPS - BirdLife Slovenia, Ljubljana. (in Slovene) Mihelič, T. & Genero, F. (2005): Occurrence of Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus in Slovenia in the period from 1980 to 2005. — Acrocephalus 26 (125): 73—79. Polak, S., Kebe, L. & Koren, B. (2004): [Thirteen years of the Corn Crake Crex crex census at Lake Cerknica (Slovenia).] — Acrocephalus 25 (121): 61—72. (in Slovene, English summary) Probst, R. (2010): Important sites for migrating raptors in the Eastern Alps. — Acrocephalus 31 (145/146): 73—75. Rubinic, B. (ed.) (2009): [Birds in Slovenia in the year 2008.] — DOPPS - BirdLife Slovenia, Ljubljana. (in Slovene) Rubinič, B. & Vrezec, A. (2001): [A contribution to the knowledge of bird mortality on Slovene roads.] — Acrocephalus 22 (109): 219—223. (in Slovene, English summary) Saurola, P. (2008): Monitoring Birds of Prey in Finland: A Summary of Methods, Trends, and Statistical Power. — Ambio 37 (6): 413—419. Scopoli, I.A. (1769): [Annus I. historico-naturalis. Descriptiones Avium.] — Sumtib. Christ. Gottlob Hilscheri, Lipsiae. (in Latin) Sovinc, A. (1994): [The Atlas of Wintering Birds of Slovenia.] — Tehniška založba Slovenije, Ljubljana. (in Slovene) Sere, D. (2009): [A short report on birds ringed in Slovenia, 1983—2008.] — Scopolia, Suppl. 4: 23—110. (in Slovene, English summary) Skornik, I. (2009): [A Faunistic-Ecological Contribution to the Knowledge of Birds in the Sečovlje Salina.] — Soline pridelava soli, Seča. (in Slovene, English summary) Stumberger, B. (1997): [Results of the mid-winter waterfowl census in January 1997 in Slovenia.] — Acrocephalus 18 (80/81): 29—39. (in Slovene, English summary) Tome, D. (2003): Functional response of the Long-eared Owl (Asio otus) to changing prey numbers: a 20-year study. — Ornis Fennica 80 (2): 63—70. Tome, D. (2009): Changes in the diet of long-eared owl Asio otus: seasonal patterns of dependence on vole abundance. — Ardeola 56 (1): 49—56. Vrezec, A. (2003): Breeding density and altitudinal distribution of the Ural, Tawny, and Boreal Owls in North Dinaric Alps (central Slovenia). — Journal of Raptor Research 37 (1): 55—62. Vrezec, A. (2007): The Ural Owl (Strix uralensis macroura) — Status and overview of studies in Slovenia. pp. 16—31 In: Müller, J., Scherzinger, W. & Moning, C. (eds.): European Ural Owl workshop. — Nationalparkverwaltung Bayerischer Wald, Grafenau. Vrezec, A., Bordjan, D., Perušek, M. & Hudoklin, A. (2009): Population and ecology of the White-tailed Eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) and its conservation status in Slovenia. — Denisia 27: 103—114. Vrezec, A. & Tutiš, V. (2003): Characteristics of North Dinaric Ural Owl (Strix uralensis macroura) population. pp. 75 In: Schwerdtfeger, O. & Schwerdtfeger, J. (eds.): Ecology and Conservation of European Owls. International Symposium Dornbirn 2003. — Dornbirn. Arrived / Prispelo: 27. 3. 2013 Accepted / Sprejeto: 1. 7. 2013 a preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Sweden Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic na Švedskem Peter Hellström1,2 & Björn Helander2 1 Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, SE—106 91 Stockholm, Sweden, e-mail: peter.hellstrom@zoologi.su.se 2 Swedish Museum of Natural History, Department of Contaminant Research, P.O. Box 50007, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden. Swedish diurnal raptor and owl monitoring is to a large extent based on species specific projects with long-standing traditions, migration counts at specific migration hot-spots, and a nation-wide bird survey. The best-known and long-lived projects are the Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus and White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla projects, which continue to make important contributions to the knowledge about effects of environmental pollutants in wild birds. For many diurnal birds of prey, trend estimation is based on the long time series (1973-) of migration counts at Falsterbo in southernmost Sweden, whereas possibilities to detect population trends in most owl species are still relatively low. New protocols, however, are being developed to better incorporate night active-birds such as owls in the Swedish Bird Survey. Much raptor monitoring data is being collected by volunteers. Sweden has several valuable networks for bird monitoring in general, although special efforts could be directed towards better coordination and publication of the on-going raptor work within a common framework. Potential threats (e.g. forestry, wind power development, train collisions, declining prey populations, pollutants) and their effects on raptor populations should preferably also be included in monitoring protocols to a higher extent than at present. Key words: diurnal raptors, owls, monitoring, Sweden, Falsterbo, Swedish Bird Survey, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, environmental pollutants Ključne besede: ujede, sove, monitoring, Švedska, Falsterbo, Švedski popis ptic, Švedsko društvo za varstvo narave, okoljska onesnažila 1. The raptor fauna of Sweden The Swedish raptor fauna consists of 18 regularly breeding species of diurnal raptors (Falconiformes) and 11 species of owls (Strigiformes). 18 additional raptor species (the term raptors includes both diurnal raptors and owls in this paper) have been recorded in Sweden, but do not breed in the country. The most common birds of prey are Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus, Buzzard Buteo buteo and Goshawk A. gentilis, whereas the commonest owl species are Tengmalm's Owl Aegolius funereus, Pygmy Owl Glaucidium passerinum and Tawny Owl Strix aluco (Ottosson et al. 2012; see Table 1 for population estimates). 2. Main players Monitoring for raptors in Sweden is conducted by several actors, ranging from government agencies to volunteer-based interest groups. Environmental monitoring on a national level is coordinated by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) and is used to assess the status of the environment, more specifically 16 environmental quality objectives. The national monitoring is divided into 10 programme areas, with three sub-programmes containing raptor monitoring. The White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla population along the Baltic Sea coast is included in the sub-programme Marine top predators in the "coasts and seas" programme area. The two other sub-programmes that include raptors are Falsterbo bird migration counts and the Swedish Bird Survey, both in the "landscape" programme area. The Swedish Red List is compiled by the Swedish Species Information Centre (ArtDatabanken) and serves as the basis for specific action plans that involve monitoring funded by SEPA. The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) has played an important role by initiating long-term projects for White-tailed Eagle (Helander 1975 & 1983) and Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus (Lindberg 1975). The Swedish Ornithological Society (SOF) regularly organizes nation-wide surveys of selected species. Some organizations have a species-specific focus, such as "Kungsörn Sverige" (Golden Eagle Sweden; Birkö 2011). Kungsörn Sverige is a new national interest group that coordinates the regional (county-wide) Golden Eagle monitoring groups, and communicates with organizations and administrators. In addition, a symposium is held yearly with contributions from the Nordic countries. Highly coordinated and structured initiatives such as Kungsörn Sverige are valuable for effective management and conservation, and might be a good example to follow. Volunteers make important contributions to raptor monitoring in various ways, e.g. by reporting observations to the Species Gateway (http://www. artportalen.se), a web-based reporting system operated by the Swedish Species Information Centre. It should be acknowledged that virtually all large-scale monitoring programmes for raptors in Sweden involve important contributions made by a large number of volunteers. Further, about 160 people in Sweden have ringing licenses covering raptors (see Table 1). 3. National coverage Sweden lacks a national network for raptor monitoring. Therefore, monitoring for raptors is shared between the national monitoring programme, action plans and species-specific projects. Traditionally, monitoring in Sweden has focused on rare species and there is therefore less information available from breeding areas on more common species. The Swedish Bird Survey, national representative of the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme, coordinated by Department of Ecology at Lund University, is a volunteer-based system with standard routes that cover most of Sweden. Data collected by the Swedish Bird Survey is used e.g. to calculate EU Bird Indices, with results published in yearly monitoring reports (e.g. Lindström & Green 2013) and scientific papers (e.g. Jiguet et al. 2013, Lindström et al. 2013). The number of observed raptors on the standard routes is low, so assessment of raptor population trends is complemented by migration counts from Falsterbo bird observatory. The migratory bird counts at Falsterbo started in the 1940s, and have been carried out with standardized methodology since 1973 (Kjellen & Roos 2000). Overall, quantitative information on population trends and status is much better for diurnal raptors than for owls. For 18 regularly breeding diurnal raptor species, data quality is generally good if all available sources are taken into account (Ottvall et al. 2009). But for several owl species, virtually no data are available for trend estimation. 4. Key species and key issues Key projects that survey the majority of the geographical distribution with national coordination by SEPA and the county administration boards concern White-tailed Eagle (Helander et al. 2003), Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos (Birkö 2011), and Peregrine Falcon (Lindberg 2009). Montagu's Harrier Circus pygargus (Rodebrand 1996), Osprey Pandion haliaetus (e.g. Odsjö & Sondell 2001) and Gyrfalcon F. rusticolus (Falkdalen et al. 2011) are monitored within the framework of one or several projects in either restricted areas or without national coordination. The first four mentioned species currently have an action plan, where conservation actions and monitoring are important components (Helander 2009, Hjernquist 2011, Lindberg 2011, Rodebrand 2011). An action plan is not a legal document and only serves as a recommendation for conservation and monitoring administrators. As per 2013, all action plans including raptors (except for Montagu's Harrier) have been down-prioritized by SEPA, and the county administrations therefore have limited possibilities to work with the existing raptor action plans. Much attention has been paid to effects of environmental pollutants on reproduction and population recovery in White-tailed Eagle (Helander et al. 2002 & 2008) and Peregrine Falcon (Lindberg 1983 & 2009). The time series of White-tailed Eagle brood size and proportion of successful breeding attempts are the only bird series in Sweden's Official Statistics (Naturvardsverket 2013), which demonstrates the importance of this species as an environmental sentinel. Among owls, substantial Table 1: List of raptor species breeding in Sweden; eight bird of prey and five owl species are listed in the Swedish national red list. Population estimates (point estimates with range) are from Ottosson et al. (2012). The numbers of active ringers and ringed nestlings are also compiled for each species in the 2000-2010 period (for White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla and Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus, the ringing license is issued to the project leader, but ca. 10 ringers contribute as helpers). Tabela 1: Seznam ptic roparic gnezdečih na Švedskem; osem vrst ujed in pet sovjih vrst je uvrščenih v švedski Rdeči seznam. Ocene njihovih populacij (točkovne ocene z intervali) so prikazane po Ottosson et al. (2012). Za obdobje 2000-2010 je zbrano tudi število aktivnih obročkovalcev in obročkanih mladičev (za belorepca Haliaeetus albicilla in sokola selca Falco peregrinus je bilo dovoljenje za obročkanje izdano vodji projekta, kakih 10 obročkovalcev je bilo pomočnikov). Species / Vrsta Red List category/ Kategorija v Rdečem Action plan/ Akcijski načrt Estimated no. of breeding pairs/ Ocenjeno št. Active ringers/ Št. aktivnih obročkovalcev No. of ringed nestlings / Št. obročkanih mladičev seznamu gnezdečih parov 2000—2010 2000—2010 Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus VU 6,625 (5,180—8,070) 19 155 Black Kite Milvus migrans 10 (3—20) Red Kite Milvus milvus 2,054 (1,933—2,181) 4 173 White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla NT 2009—2013 533 (533—600) 1—10 3,191 Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus 1,498 (1,317—1,676) 34 1,003 Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus NT 859 (690—1,025) 1 4 Montagu's Harrier Circus pygargus EN 2011—2015 59 (45—74) 6 39 Goshawk Accipiter gentilis 7,600 (4,500—10,700) 36 1,281 Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus 43,700 (21,750—65,800) 20 1,022 Buzzard Buteo buteo 31,100 (17,160—45,060) 43 1,827 Rough-legged Buzzard Buteo lagopus NT 3,000 (1,700—5,200) 17 187 Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos NT 2011—2015 682 (585—805) 27 1,191 Osprey Pandion haliaetus 4,060 (3,380—4,700) 40 3,522 Kestrel Falco tinnunculus 6,431 (4,495—8,367) 74 26,939 Merlin Falco columbarius 6,180 (4,567—7,893) 7 101 Hobby Falco subbuteo 2,335 (1,695—2,975) 13 71 Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus VU In prep? 114 (80—136) 7 278 Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus VU 2011—2014 282 (232—332) 1—10 1,928 Barn Owl Tyto alba CR 10 (5—17) 2 28 Eagle Owl Bubo bubo NT 474 (393—557) 53 1,350 Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus CR 0 (0—0) 0 0 Hawk Owl Surnia ulula 2,273 (1,125—13,510) 9 88 Pygmy Owl Glaucidium passerinum 19,340 (9,640—29,550) 23 880 Tawny Owl Strix aluco 17,750 (14,950—20,670) 84 10,422 Ural Owl Strix uralensis 2,680 (2,025—3,415) 24 3,385 Great Grey Owl Strix nebulosa NT 402 (201—603) 16 759 Long-eared Owl Asio otus 8,625 (2,605—14,565) 26 128 Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus NT 1,655 (755—4,702) 9 20 Tengmalm's Owl Aegolius funereus 32,125 (16,760—91,470) 42 2,305 effort has been devoted to restocking of the Eagle Owl Bubo bubo population with captive breeding. The key threats currently addressed and discussed by monitoring in Sweden (not in any particular order of importance) are effects of pollutants, lead poisoning, forestry practices, wind power, wild bird crime, electrocution and power line collisions, vehicle collisions, human disturbance and changes in prey abundance (e.g. Helander et al. 2009A & 2009B, Ottvall et al. 2009, Rydell et al. 2011). Many of these topics are of such general importance that any networking activity within EURAPMON would benefit Swedish perspectives. Recently, location of wind farms has been viewed as a major problem in Sweden, and we currently lack sufficient planning for raptors (and other birds) in relation to location of wind farms. Nest site protection is also a high-priority issue. 5. Strengths and weaknesses Two obvious strengths among Swedish raptor monitoring are the Peregrine Falcon and White-tailed Eagle projects that were initiated by the SSNC in the early 1970s, and remain unparalleled in Swedish nature conservation both in terms of longevity and success. Both projects are network projects with a large number of participants, primarily operating on a volunteer basis. The existing networks are indeed necessary to maintain the status and quality of these projects. Further, the migration counts at Falsterbo are the longest available time-series for several species (Kjellen & Roos 2000, Kjellen 2012). Although annual numbers and proportion of migrants that funnel over the Falsterbo area vary between species, population changes can be assessed for ca. 14 raptor species. In addition to population trends, migration phenology and reproductive output is studied. However, the geographical origin of migrating birds is not known and the counts reflect a mixture of birds from different breeding sites and countries, thereby limiting the usefulness of migration counts for active management. The Swedish Bird Survey has extensive spatial coverage, but the number of observations of raptors per route and year is low (e.g. Lindström & Green 2013), which results in low statistical power for trend analyses. However, the recent addition of night routes (Green 2010) will be an important tool for monitoring of common owl species (Pygmy Owl, Tawny Owl, Ural Owl S. uralensis, Long-eared Owl Asio otus and Tengmalm's owl). There are thus some considerable gaps in Swedish raptor monitoring (Ottvall et al. 2009). The number of ornithologists decreases towards north, which coincides with an increase in habitat heterogeneity. Therefore, data on common raptors in northern Sweden is only locally available. On a national level, little is known regarding population trends in owls (Ottvall et al. 2009), which partly can be explained by the scattered distribution and cyclic breeding pattern of e.g. Snowy Owl B. scandiacus, Short-eared Owl A. flammeus, Hawk Owl Surnia ulula and Great Grey Owl S. nebulosa. But there is little information available on population trends also for well-known species with a southerly distribution (Tawny Owl), and for forest species (Ural owl and Tengmalm's owl). For migratory raptors, there is a lack of information on carry-over effects from wintering habitats and stop-over sites on e.g. body condition. The EURAPMON network could be important for mapping winter distribution and abundance of short-distance migrants, as well as collaborative efforts on long-distance migration. A large proportion of bird monitoring in Sweden is based on surveillance monitoring, which provides weak inference about species that breed in low densities (Nichols & Williams 2006), such as most raptors. The current monitoring system should preferably be combined with a more scientific and hypothesis-driven approach towards explaining changes in population numbers. For instance, many diurnal raptor and owl populations are limited by food abundance and/or nest sites, and it should be possible to design and combine the existing (e.g. small mammal monitoring) survey protocols that link populations to these limiting factors. Sweden will benefit from an increased collaborative effort within EURAPMON, both for and with raptors. Since Sweden lacks a comprehensive network for raptor monitoring, we could benefit from best-practice sharing on how to set up a large-scale monitoring system (see e.g. Saurola 2008, Wernham et al. 2008), where it is made clear to policy makers why raptor monitoring is a high-priority topic, and in the next step prioritize areas for monitoring. Increased understanding of pathways of environmental pollutants (e.g. brominated flame retardants, DDE, PCB) will further strengthen the use of raptors as environmental sentinels (Lindberg et al. 2004, Helander et al. 2008). Efforts to coordinate raptor surveys in northern Fennoscandia are essential for new information on several owl species, Golden Eagle, Gyrfalcon and Rough-legged Buzzard B. lagopus. A coordinated monitoring of Ospreys, a species for which Sweden has a high responsibility, would be valuable. There are several independent Osprey projects that could benefit from co-operation and international sharing with Finland in particular (Saurola 1997). Further, reporting of data, results and trends could be improved, as a large quantity of monitoring work (done e.g. by local projects and ringers) is rarely published in print. 6. Priorities, capacity-building There are several immediate possibilities for capacity-building in Sweden. Expertise based on work with rare species could be applied to more common species. A relatively small group of ornithologists are active as ringers, and it should be possible to coordinate ringing activities within a broader framework. Ringers collect information on clutch and brood size, breeding phenology, sex ratio and dispersal - valuable data that can be used to study demography and effects of climate change on bird populations. There is a lack of demographic data, particularly survival, for many species. Based on ringing reports since 2000 (Table 1), it is evident that nestbox-breeders receive the most attention (Kestrel F. tinnunculus, Pygmy Owl, Tawny Owl, Ural Owl, Tengmalm's Owl). Special attention within EURAPMON should be paid to standardize methods and measurements (body measures and moult patterns). Sweden should also improve its reporting on raptors. The Species Gateway is used to some extent for this, but it is evident that many observations and nests are not reported at all. The Species Gateway could be improved in some aspects with respect to raptor surveys (although it is not well suited for more vulnerable species such as the eagles and large falcons), and discussions with other countries within EURAPMON on how to secure, report and publish data are of high value. Co-ordination of several action programmes and more effective monitoring should be prioritized. Monitoring of some raptors could also be coordinated with the national monitoring programme for small mammals (Hörnfeldt 2013). Volunteers and interest groups have always been important for monitoring, and the contribution made by volunteers should not be underestimated. However, there is a need for recruitment of new volunteers, and discussions should be made within EURAPMON on how to raise interest in raptors among e.g. university students. Acknowledgements: Thomas Wenninger, The Swedish Bird Ringing Centre (RC), extracted the ringing records from RC databases. 7. Povzetek Švedski monitoring ujed in sov poteka večinoma v okviru projektov, ki se dolga leta že tradicionalno posvečajo določenim vrstam, štetju selivk na pomembnih selitvenih točkah in popisovanju ptic na nacionalni ravni. Najbolj poznana projekta z najdaljšo zgodovino na Švedskem zadevata sokola selca Falco peregrinus in belorepca Haliaeetus albicilla, ki še vedno pomembno prispevata k poznavanju učinkov okoljskih onesnažil na prostoživeče ptice. Ocenjevanje trendov mnogih ujed temelji na dolgoletnem (od leta 1973) štetju selivk pri Falsterboju na skrajnem jugu Švedske, medtem ko so možnosti za ugotavljanje populacijskih trendov pri večini sovjih vrst razmeroma majhne. Sicer pa so prav zdaj v pripravi načrti za boljše vključevanje nočno aktivnih ptic, kot so sove, v okvir švedskega popisovanja ptic. Za mnoge podatke, pridobljene na osnovi monitoringa, se je treba zahvaliti prostovoljcem. Švedska ima več dragocenih omrežij za splošni monitoring, vendar pa bi bilo treba vložiti več naporov v boljšo koordinacijo in objavljanje zdaj potekajočega dela na področju ptic roparic v skupnem okviru. Sploh pa bi se morali v načrtih za monitoring v veliko večji meri kot danes posvečati tudi potencialnim grožnjam (npr. gozdarstvo, razvoj vetrne energije, trki z vlaki, vse manj plena za te ptice, onesnažila) in njihovim vplivom na populacije ptic roparic. 8. References Birkö, T. (2011): [The Golden Eagle in Sweden during ten years.] pp. 30-39 In: Bentz, P.-G. & Wirdheim, A. (eds): The Bird Year 2010. - Swedish Ornithological Society, Stockholm. (in Swedish) Falkdalen, U., Hörnell-Willebrand, M., Nygärd, T., Bergström, T., Lind, G., Nordin, A. & Warensjö, B. (2011): Relations between willow ptarmigan (Lagopus lagopus) density and gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus) breeding performance in Sweden. pp. 171-176 In: Watson, R.T., Cade, T.J., Fuller, M., Hunt, G. & Potapov, E. (eds.): Gyrfalcon and Ptarmigan in a changing world. Vol. II. Proceedings of the Conference, 1-3 February 2011, Boise, Idaho. - The Peregrine Fund, Boise. Green, M. (2010): [Night routes programme - short report for 2010.] - Naturvardsverket/SEPA, Stockholm. (in Swedish) Helander, B. (1975): [The White-tailed Eagle in Sweden.] - Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, Stockholm & Bohuslänningen AB, Uddevalla. (in Swedish, English summary) Helander, B. (1983): Reproduction of the White-tailed Sea Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla (L.) in Sweden, in relation to food and residue levels of organochlorine and mercury compounds in the eggs. PhD thesis. - Department of Zoology, Stockholm University. Helander, B. (2009): [Action plan for white-tailed eagle 2009-2013 (Haliaeetus albicilla).] - Naturvärdsverket/ SEPA, Stockholm. (in Swedish, English summary) (available at http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/ publikationer/978-91-620-5938-5.pdf) Helander, B., Olsson, A., Bignert, A., Asplund, L. & Litzen, K. (2002): The role of DDE, PCB, coplanar PCB and eggshell parameters for reproduction in the White-tailed Sea Eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) in Sweden. - Ambio 31 (5): 386-403. Helander, B., Marquiss, M. & Bowerman, W. (eds.) (2003): SEA EAGLE 2000. Proceedings from the international conference, 13-17 September 2000, Björkö, Sweden. - Swedish Ornithological Society, Stockholm. Helander, B., Bignert, A. & Asplund, L. (2008): Using raptors as environmental sentinels: monitoring the white-tailed sea eagle Haliaeetus albicilla in Sweden. — Ambio 37 (6): 425—431. Helander, B., Axelsson, J., Borg, H., Holm, K. & Bignert, A. (2009A): Ingestion of lead from ammunition and lead concentrations in white-tailed sea eagles (Haliaeetus albicilla) in Sweden. — Science of the Total Environment 407 (21): 5555—5563. Helander, B., Räikkönen, J. & Bignert, A. (2009B): [Analysis of collisions with eagles along State Rail 2000—2007.] — Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm. (in Swedish, English summary) Hjernquist, M. (2011): [Action plan for golden eagle 2011—2015 (Aquila chrysaetos).] — Naturvärdsverket/ SEPA, Stockholm. (in Swedish, English summary) (available at http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/ publikationer6400Z978-91-620-6430-3.pdf) Hörnfeldt, B. (2013): [National Monitoring of Small Mammals.] (in Swedish) — [http://www.slu.se/sv/ fakulteter/s/om-fakulteten/institutioner/institutionen-for-vilt-fisk-och-miljo/personal/lista/birger-hornfeldt/ miljoovervakning-av-smagnagare], 19/6/2013. Jiguet, F., Barbet-Massin, M., Devictor, V., Jonzen, N. & Lindström, A. (2013): Current population trends mirror forecasted changes in climatic suitability for Swedish breeding birds. — Bird Study 60 (1): 60—66. Kjellen, N. (2012): Migration counts at Falsterbo. — [http:// www.falsterbofagelstation.se/index_e.html], 19/6/2013. Kjellen, N. & Roos, G. (2000): Population trends in Swedish raptors demonstrated by migration counts at Falsterbo, Sweden 1942—1997. — Bird Study 47 (2): 195—211. Lindberg, P. (1975): [The peregrine falcon in Sweden.] — Swedish Society for Nature Conservation & Tryckeribolaget Svea, Stockholm. (in Swedish, English summary) Lindberg, P. (1983): Relations between the diet of Fennoscandian peregrines Falco peregrinus and organochlorines and mercury in their eggs and feathers, with a comparison to the gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus. PhD thesis. — University of Göteborg. Lindberg, P. (2009): The fall and the rise of the Swedish Peregrine population. pp. 137—144 In: Sielicki, J. & Mizera, T. (eds.): Peregrine Falcon Populations — status and perspectives in the 21st Century. — Turul Publishing & Poznan University of Life Sciences Press, Warsaw -Poznan. Lindberg, P. (2011): [Action plan for peregrine falcon 2011—2014 (Falco peregrinus).] — Naturvärdsverket/ SEPA, Stockholm. (in Swedish, English summary) (available at http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/ publikationer6400Z978-91-620-6426-6.pdf) Lindberg, P., Sellström, U., Häggberg, L. & De Wit, C. (2004): Higher brominated diphenyl ethers and hexabromocyclododecane found in eggs of peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) breeding in Sweden. — Environmental Science & Technology 38 (1): 93—96. Lindström, A. & Green, M. (2013): [Monitoring population changes of birds in Sweden. Annual report for 2012.] — Ekologiska institutionen, Lunds universitet, Lund. (in Swedish, English summary) (available at http:// www.zoo.ekol.lu.se/birdmonitoring/Publikationer.htm) Lindström, A. & Green, M. Paulson, G., Smith, H.G. & Devictor, V. (2013): Rapid changes in bird community composition at multiple spatial scales in response to recent climate change. — Ecography 36 (3): 313—322. Naturvärdsverket (2013): Environmental Statistics A-Ö. — [http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Sa-mar-miljon/ Statistik-A-O], 19/6/2013. (search for "Havsörn", White-tailed Eagle in Swedish) Nichols, J.D. & Williams, B.K. (2006): Monitoring for conservation. — Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21 (12): 668—673. Odsjö, T. & Sondell, J. (2001): Population status and breeding success of osprey Pandion haliaetus in Sweden, 1971—1998. — Vogelwelt 122: 155—166. Ottosson, U., Ottvall, R., Elmberg, J., Green, M., Gustafsson, R., Haas, F., Holmqvist, N., Lindström, A., Nilsson, L., Svensson, M., Svensson, S. & Tjernberg, M. (2012): [Birds in Sweden — Numbers and distribution.] — Swedish Ornithological Society, Halmstad. (in Swedish, English summary) Ottvall, R., Edenius, L., Elmberg, J., Engström, H., Green, M., Holmqvist, N., Lindström, A., Tjernberg, M. & Pärt, T. (2009): Population trends for Swedish breeding birds. — Ornis Svecica 19 (3): 117—192. Rodebrand, S. (1996): [The Montagu 's Harrier Circus pygargus in Öland, and Sweden.] — Calidris 25: 99—116. (in Swedish, English summary) Rodebrand, S. (2011): [Action plan for Montagu's harrier 2011—2015 (Circus pygargus)?] — Naturvärdsverket/ SEPA, Stockholm. (in Swedish, English summary) (available at http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/ publikationer6400/978-91-620-6465-5.pdf) Rydell, J., Engström, H., Hedenström, A., Kyed Larsen, J., Pettersson, J. & Green, M. (2011): [Effects of wind power on birds and bats. A synthesis report.] — Naturvärdsverket/SEPA, Stockholm. (in Swedish) Saurola, P. (1997): The osprey (Pandion haliaetus) and modern forestry: a review of population trends and their causes in Europe. — Journal of Raptor Research 31 (2): 129—137. Saurola, P. (2008): Monitoring birds of prey in Finland: a summary of methods, trends, and statistical power. — Ambio 37 (6): 413—419. Wernham, C.V., Etheridge, B., Holling, M., Riddle, G., Riley, H.T., Stirling-Aird, P.K., Stroud, D., Thompson, D.B.A. & Wilson, J.D. (2008): The Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme: objectives, achievements in the first four years, and plans for future development. — Ambio 37(6): 460—465. Arrived / Prispelo: 27. 3. 2013 Accepted / Sprejeto: 1. 7. 2013 a preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Belgium Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Belgiji Glenn Vermeersch1 & Jean-Yves Paquet2 1 Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Kliniekstraat 25, BE-1070 Brussels, Belgium, e-mail: Glenn.vermeersch@inbo.be 2 Aves-Natagora Ornithological Society, Study Department; Rue Nanon 98, BE-5000 Namur, Belgium, e-mail: jean-yves.paquet@aves.be Belgium is divided in three highly autonomous regions: Flanders in the north, Wallonia in the south and Brussels in the centre. Each region has its own regional government and, therefore, its own nature administration. Because of this situation, large-scale bird monitoring projects and atlas work have been implemented at the regional level resulting in different methodology, scale and timing. However, scientists responsible for the coordination of these projects meet on a regular basis and it is statistically possible to merge the data and produce national status assessments, trends and indices. Although small, Belgium hosts 20 breeding raptor species, many of which, however, in small numbers (Vermeersch et al. 2004 & 2007, Weiserbs & Jacob 2007, Jacob et al. 2010). Main players Large scale bird monitoring projects and atlas work in Wallonia and Brussels are coordinated by Aves-Natagora (BirdLife partner in Wallonia) in collaboration with the regional nature administration "Departement d'Etude des Milieux Naturels et Agricoles" (DEMNA) in Wallonia and Brussels Institute for the Environment (BIM) in Brussels. Similar work is conducted in Flanders where Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), a scientific institute of the Flemish government coordinates the projects in collaboration with Natuurpunt, a non-governmental organisation, and Flemish BirdLife partner that provides the essential volunteer-network. Data on these large-scale projects are easily accessible and are merged to produce national reports (e.g. for cyclic reports under the Birds Directive 2009/147/EC). Apart from these organisations, independent working groups are active in all three regions, focusing mainly on one or two species per group. Harriers, kites, owls and Peregrine Falcons Falco peregrinus are monitored on a voluntary basis within the framework of these groups. The resulting data are less accessible and more patchily distributed. Many of the independent working groups monitor breeding success of the study species and many young birds are ringed at the nest. These ringing data are collected at the national level by the Royal Belgian Institute for Natural Sciences (KBIN). Main data users The three regional nature administrations are the main users of the collected ornithological data. They are mainly used for the development of several indicators and for nature directives reports. Nature associations form another group of data users. They are able to quickly inform a large number of people since they coordinate the volunteers and thanks to the rapidly growing number of their members. Data can sometimes be used for risk-assessment: impact of planned windmills, large infrastructure building plans and other potential problems. Coordination Although we have no national coordinating scientific institute, Aves, INBO and BIM work closely together to compile the cyclic Birds Directive reports as well as trends and indices for the European Bird Census Council (EBCC) and BirdLife International. Key species and issues Apart from the large scale monitoring and atlas projects, which cover a wide array of species, most independent working groups focus on owls, harriers, kites and Peregrine Falcons. In Wallonia, Eagle Owl Bubo Bubo and Tengmalm's Owl Aegolius funereus breeding numbers are closely monitored. In both Wallonia and Flanders, Barn Owl Tyto alba and Little Owl Athene noctua receive much attention. Barn Owl is probably the best studied bird species in Flanders with long-term data on its breeding success and survival. Wallonia has a separate programme for Red Kites Milvus milvus, but coverage is restricted to the core area of its breeding range. Breeding numbers of Marsh Circus aeruginosus, Montagu's C. pygargus and Hen Harriers C. cyaneus are monitored on a yearly basis in Wallonia. The relationship between the presence of these species and the implementation of agri-environmental schemes has received growing attention in both Flanders and Wallonia. In Flanders, the nature conservancy is interested in presence/absence data of Marsh Harriers in relation to ground water levels in reedbeds. INBO has recently started a new research project focusing on movements, habitat choice and breeding success of Marsh Harriers in fragmented landscapes (Anselin et al. 2011). An important issue is the illegal trade of Eagle Owl and Peregrine Falcon resulting in increasing time investment in site protection. Finally, the location of new wind farms has received considerable attention recently (Everaert 2011), especially in relation to the breeding grounds of the endangered Red Kite. Strengths and weaknesses Being one of the most densely populated and highly accessible countries in Europe, the large scale monitoring schemes in Belgium are characterised by a very good coverage (sample size) and a high number of skilled volunteers. The development of databases and online data-collection has received a lot of attention so that data can rapidly be used in various reports and risk-assessments. Obvious weaknesses are the non-existing integration of independent working groups at a national or even a regional level and the integration of the ringing data in the monitoring schemes. A growing problem is the fact that our young highly skilled and most active birdwatchers hardly show any interest in actively contributing to the monitoring schemes, resulting in an ageing pool of volunteers. Despite of the different monitoring schemes, we have no good data for a few diurnal or nocturnal raptor species like Long-eared Owl Asio otus, Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus, Goshawk Accipiter nisus and Hobby F. subbuteo. We would highly welcome input from workshop-participants to provide a useful standard protocol for monitoring raptors at a regional scale. Belgian priorities To summarize, Belgium should coordinate the different independent working groups at a regional and national levels and invest in monitoring of "difficult" species based on standard protocols. Moreover, we should integrate national ringing data in large-scale monitoring schemes and provide standard protocols for ringers. Last but not least, appointing a national coordinator is of vital importance to achieve these priorities. References & supporting bibliography Anselin, A., Castelijns, H. & De Bruyn, L. (2011): Movements, Habitat Choice And Breeding Success Of The Marsh Harrier (Circus aeruginosus) In Fragmented Landscapes. Poster presentation. 8th Conference of the European Ornithologists' Union, 27-30 August 2011, Riga, Latvia. De Bruyn, L., Anselin, A., Bauwens, D., Colazzo, S., Devos, K., Maes, D., Vermeersch, G. & Kuijken, E. (2003): Red lists in Flanders: scale effects and trend estimation pp. 111-120 In: Longh, de H.H. (ed.): The harmonisation of red lists for threatened species in Europe - The Netherlands Commission for International Nature Protection, Leiden. Everaert, J. (2011): Site selection for new wind farms in Flanders (Belgium): new dynamic decision-instrument for birds and bats. pp. 86 In: May, R. & Bevanger, K. (eds.): Proceedings of the Conference on Wind energy and Wildlife impacts, 2-6 May 2011, Trondheim, Norway. - NINA Report 693. - [http://www.nina.no/ archive/nina/PppBasePdf/rapport/2011/693.pdf] Jacob, J.-P., Dehem, C., Burnel, A., Dambiermont, J.L., Fasol, M., Kinet, T., Van Der Elst, D. & Paquet, J.Y. (eds.) (2010): [Breeding Bird Atlas of Wallonia 2001-2007.] Serie Faune Flore Habitats no. 5. - Aves et la Region Wallonne, Gembloux. (In French, English summary) Paquet, J.-Y., Jacob, J.-P., Kinet, T. & Vansteenwegen, C. (2010): [Common bird population trends in Wallonia, 1990-2009.] - Aves 47: 1-19. (In French, English summary) Vermeersch, G. & Anselin, A. (2009): [Breeding bird in Flanders in 2006-2007: recent status and trends of rare, colonial and exotic bird species and species of the Flemish Red List and/or European Birds Directive.] - Mededelingen van het Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek, 2009 (3). Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek, Brussels. (In Dutch, English summary) Vermeersch, G., Anselin, A., Devos, K., Herremans, M., Stevens, J., Gabriels, J. & Van Der Krieken, B. (2004): [Atlas of Flemish Breeding Birds 2000-2002.] Mededelingen van het Instituut voor Natuurbehoud 23. - Brussels. (In Dutch, English summary) Vermeersch, G., Anselin, A., Onkelinx, T. & Bauwens, D. (2007): Monitoring common breeding birds in Flanders: a new step towards an integrated system. - Bird Census News: 20 (1): 30-35. Vermeersch, G., Anselin, A. & Devos, K. (2007): [Status and trends of diurnal raptor species in Flanders.] -Natuur.oriolus: 73: 41-44. (In Dutch, English summary) Weiserbs, A. & Jacob, J.-P. (2007): [Breeding birds of Brussels 2000-2004: distribution, numbers, development.] - Aves, Liege. (In French) Arrived / Prispelo: 27. 3. 2013 Accepted / Sprejeto: 1. 7. 2013 a preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Estonia Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Estoniji Rein Nellis Environmental Board, Tallinna 22, EE—93819 Kuressaare, Estonia, e—mail: rein.nellis@keskkonnaamet.ee Estonia is situated on the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea. It has a long coastline and more than 1,500 islands and islets. The ground is mostly flat, rich in lakes and rivers. Forests cover over 40% and mires ca. 22% of the Estonian territory (Leibak et al. 1994). Altogether, 41 raptor species have been registered in Estonia (21 species of Accipitriformes, 8 species of Falconiformes and 12 species of Strigiformes) of which 21 species have large breeding populations or breed regularly in few pairs (Elts et al. 2009). Main players The Estonian raptor-monitoring programme is carried out by members of the NGO Estonian Ornithological Society (EOS, http://www.eoy.ee/en) raptor monitoring group, NGO Eagle Club (http:// www.kotkas.ee/eagle-club) and some employees of the Environmental Board. The coordinator of raptor monitoring at study plots is Dr Ülo Väli from the Estonian University of Life Sciences, while monitoring of eagles alone is coordinated by members of the Eagle Club (four coordinators for five breeding species). The EOS raptor monitoring group works mainly at permanent study plots, whereas Eagle Club members carry out their eagle monitoring programme across the entire country. During the last 10 years, about 30 active fieldworkers have been implementing the raptor-monitoring programme in Estonia. Several institutions under the governance of the Ministry of the Environment use raptor-monitoring results. The Estonian Environment Information Centre (EEIC) aims at collecting, processing and generalizing data on the Estonian nature and the factors influencing it. The Information Centre provides reliable environmental information for the decision-makers in Estonia, for the public both in Estonia and abroad, and for various organizations. The Environmental Board works to preserve the diversity of nature, to protect natural habitats and to ensure favourable conditions for different species (e.g. by funding and coordinating national monitoring programmes and managing the creation and implementation of species action plans). The results of monitoring are also used by ornithologists from the EOS and the Eagle Club for estimating the raptors' population sizes and calculating trends (e.g. Löhmus et al. 1998, Elts et al. 2003, Elts et al. 2009), as well as for promoting the conservation of raptors in Estonia (e.g. Väli 2003, Männik 2006). Estonia co-operates with Latvia through the European Regional Development Fund project "ESTLAT Eagles cross borders". The partners of Estonia in the LIFE project "Arrangement of Spotted Eagles and Black Stork conservation in Estonia (EAGLELIFE)", which was implemented in the 2004— 2009 period, were Belarus, Latvia and Lithuania. Estonia participates in pan-European colour-ringing programmes for the White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla, Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila pomarina, Golden Eagle A. chrysaetos and Osprey Pandion haliaetus. Estonian academic raptor researchers also have close contacts with researchers from Finland, Sweden, Spain, etc. National coverage The Estonian raptor monitoring scheme includes two main parts. First, all 21 raptor species breeding in Estonia are monitored annually at permanent study plots (the minimum size of a plot is 50 km2), which are located in different counties over the country. There were 16 such plots in 2012, with a total area of 1,595 km2 (Figure 1). The number of species, the number and locations of occupied territories as well as nest-sites and information on their productivity are gathered from these particular plots (see Löhmus 1999 & 2004). Second, scarce raptors that occur at permanent study plots in few pairs, e.g. eagles and Eagle Owl Bubo bubo, are monitored all over the country. For this purpose, 25—90% of the known nest-sites of these species are visited and locations of known territories and nest-sites mapped every year. In addition to the nation-wide monitoring, the most numerous eagle species, i.e. the Lesser Spotted Eagle, is also studied at special monitoring plots, with a total area of 3,205 km2 in 2012. These plots provide representative information on breeding densities and productivity of this species for estimating the size and trend of the Estonian population (Väli et al. 2011). Additional information on Estonian raptors is gathered through several other projects and national Figure 1: All raptors breeding in Estonia are monitored annually at permanent study plots (black areas, studied in 2012) Slika 1: Vse ptice roparice, ki gnezdijo v Estoniji, so deležne letnega monitoringa na stalnih popisnih ploskvah (~rno obarvane povr{ine, vrste preu~evane leta 2012) monitoring programmes carried out by EOS: (1) Common Breeding Bird Monitoring programme (part of the Pan-European Scheme) shows long-term changes in the number of Buzzard Buteo buteo; (2) Estonian Breeding Bird Atlas (fieldwork was carried out from 2003 to 2009) gives an overview about distribution of raptor species breeding in Estonia; (3) EOS project "Bird of the Year" has produced interesting results about Goshawk Accipiter gentilis (Nellis 2006) and Tawny Owl Strix aluco (see EOS homepage) and (4) wintering bird count and wintering raptor count give information on the wintering populations of the Buzzard, Rough-legged Buzzard B. lagopus and Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus. The Estonian Rarities Committee collects and independently verifies the records of rare raptors observed in Estonia (among other species). The activities carried out by NGO "Estbirding" are targeted to rare species — all interesting observations are collected and published on the web page of this NGO. The members of Estbirding have made overviews about the Red-footed Falcon Falco vespertinus influx in 2005 and Hawk Owl Surnia ulula wintering in Estonia. There is an open online database for birdwatchers and naturalists as a part of a web interface for all the taxa found in Estonia (eBiodiversity; http://elurikkus. ut.ee). Information on the raptors' regional occurrence, wintering, phenology and breeding success is available in this database. The Estonian Red List of Threatened Species is also available in this interface. Migration counts are being made at Kabli Bird Station (ringing and migration counts since 1969) and Sorve Bird Observatory (established by Finnish non-profit NGO Estonian Birding Society in 1999). Key species All 21 regularly breeding raptor species in Estonia are monitored at study plots, while the most threatened (White-tailed Eagle, Greater Spotted Eagle A. slanga, Golden Eagle, Osprey and Eagle Owl) or the more abundant species with a long-term negative population trend (Goshawk) are monitored all over the country. These species, along with the Lesser Spotted Eagle, can be considered the key species addressed by the monitoring for raptors in Estonia. The main purpose of the monitoring and protection activities so far has been to protect populations through the conservation of suitable nesting sites of these species. National action plans have been compiled for these species and all monitoring and protection activities are carried out according to these plans (e.g. Väli 2003, Männik 2006, Nellis 2006). Strengths and weaknesses The main strengths of monitoring for raptors in Estonia are a long dataset, experienced enthusiastic birdwatchers, the organizations within the framework of which they work, existence of the national raptor monitoring programme, and academic researchers dedicated to raptors. Raptors have been studied at a few plots already in the late 1950s and early 1960s in Estonia (Randla 1976, Löhmus 1999, Tuule et al. 2011), but the monitoring has been making marked progress only since 1989 (Löhmus 1999). The monitoring of the numbers of eagles was embarked upon at the beginning of 20th century, while monitoring of their productivity started in the 1980s (Randla 1976). Raptor monitoring at permanent study plots and monitoring of eagles became part of the national monitoring programme in 1994 (Löhmus 1999). The Estonian University of Life Sciences and University of Tartu provide a basis for academic raptor research in Estonia. The research interest covers different areas of raptor population ecology and conservation, such as population dynamics (e.g. Tuule et al. 2011, Väli et al. 2011), habitat selection (e.g. Löhmus 2001, Löhmus 2003B, Väli et al. 2004), telemetry studies (e.g. Väli & Sellis 2007, Sellis et al. 2007), population genetics and hybridization (e.g. Löhmus & Väli 2001, Väli et al. 2010 & 2011), impacts of forestry on raptors (e.g. Löhmus 2003B, 2005 & 2006, Rosenvald & Löhmus 2003), etc. There is, however, a shortage of information on the productivity of some species breeding in low densities (Löhmus 1999 & 2004) and raptor populations living in Important Bird Areas (IBAs). These areas probably need periodic inventories, as there are no study plots for monitoring raptors in most of them. The Ministry of Environment is now working, in co-operation with the EOS, to fill this gap of knowledge. Priorities, capacity-building In Estonia, there is an urgent need to increase efforts at study plots, to recruit more observers and/or change to more cost-effective methods for assembling adequate information on low-density species. There is also a need to increase regional co-operation for monitoring low-density raptors (specially migrating species), as populations of these species should be considered and monitored as one at least at the regional level. Development of co-operation and research at the national and European scales (especially on topics like wind farms impact, effects of pollutants, electrocution, etc.) should be the main priority of monitoring for raptors in Estonia. References Elts, J., Kuresoo, A., Leibak, E., Leito, A., Lilleleht, L., Luigujöe, L., Löhmus, A., Magi, E., & Ots, M. (2003): [Status and numbers of Estonian birds, 1998-2002.] -Hirundo 16 (2): 58-83. (in Estonian, English summary) Elts, J., Kuresoo, A., Leibak, E., Leito, A., Leivits, A., Lilleleht, V., Luigujöe, L., Magi, E., Nellis, R. & Ots, M. (2009): [Status and numbers of Estonian birds, 2003-2008.] - Hirundo 22 (1): 3-32. (in Estonian, English summary) Leibak, E., Lilleleht, V. & Veromann, H. (eds.) (1994): Birds of Estonia. Status, Distribution and Numbers. -Estonian Academy Publishers, Tallinn. Löhmus, A. (1999): [Monitoring of raptors and owls in Estonia, 1994-1998.] - Hirundo 12 (1): 19-35. (in Estonian, English summary) Löhmus, A. (2001): Habitat selection in a recovering Osprey Pandion haliaetus population. - Ibis 143 (4): 651-657. Löhmus, A. (2003A): Do Ural owls (Strix uralensis) suffer from the lack of nest sites in managed forests? - Biological Conservation 110 (1): 1-9. Löhmus, A. (2003B): Are certain habitats better every year? A review and a case study on birds of prey. - Ecography 26 (5): 545-552. Löhmus, A. (2004): [Monitoring raptors and owls in Estonia, 1999-2003: decline of the Goshawk and the Clockwork of vole-cycles.] - Hirundo 17 (1): 3-18. (in Estonian, English summary) Lohmus, A. (2005): Are timber harvesting and conservation of nest sites of forest-dwelling raptors always mutually exclusive? - Animal Conservation 8 (4): 443-450. Löhmus, A. (2006): Nest-tree and nest-stand characteristics of forest-dwelling raptors in east-central Estonia: implications for forest management and conservation. - Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, Biology & Ecology 55 (1): 31-50. Löhmus, A., Kuresoo, A., Leibak, E., Leito, A., Lilleleht, V., Kose, M., Leivuts, A., Luigujöe, L. & Sellis, U. (1998): [Status and numbers of Estonian birds.] - Hirundo 11 (2): 63-83. (in Estonian, English summary) Löhmus, A. & Vali, Ü. (2001): Interbreeding of the Greater Aquila clanga and Lesser Spotted Eagle A. pomarina. -Acta Ornithoecologica 4 (2/3/4): 377-384. Mannik, R. (2006): Osprey and its conservation in Estonia. - Hirundo, Suppl. 10: 1-58. Nellis, R. (2006): The Eagle Owl and its conservation in Estonia. - Hirundo, Suppl. 9: 1-64. Nellis, R. (2006): Goshawk - bird of the year 2005. -Hirundo 19 (2): 81-93. Randla, T. (1976): [Raptors of Estonia.] - Valgus, Tallinn. (in Estonian) Rosenvald, R. & Lohmus, A. (2003): Nesting of the black stork (Ciconia nigra) and white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) in relation to forest management. - Forest Ecology and Management 185 (3): 217-223. Sellis, U., Mannik, R. & Vali, Ü. (2007): [Maria on migration: a satellite-telemetrical study on spring and autumn migration of an Estonian osprey (Pandion haliaetus)]. - Hirundo 20 (1): 1-13. (in Estonian, English summary) Tuule, E., Tuule, A. & Löhmus, A. (2007): [Nesting ecology of birds of prey and owls near Saue, 19592006.] - Hirundo 20 (1): 14-36. (in Estonian, English summary) Tuule, E., Tuule, A. & Löhmus, A. (2011): Fifty-year dynamics in a temperate raptor assemblage. - Estonian Journal of Ecology 60 (2): 132-142. Vali, Ü. (2003): The Lesser Spotted Eagle and its conservation in Estonia. - Hirundo Suppl. 6: 1-64. Vali, Ü., Treinys, R. & Löhmus, A. (2004): Geographical variation in macrohabitat use and preferences of the Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila pomarina. - Ibis 146 (4): 661-671. Vali, Ü. & Sellis, U. (2007): Occurrence of satellite-tracked Greater Spotted Eagles Aquila clanga from Estonia in the Sava River valley. - Ciconia 16: 94-95. Vali, Ü., Dombrovski, V., Treinys, R., Bergmanis, U., Daroczi, S.J., Dravecky, M., Ivanovski, V., Lontkowski, J., Maciorowski, G., Meyburg, B.-U., Mizera, T., Zeitz, R. & Ellegren, H. (2010): Widespread hybridization between the Greater Spotted Eagle Aquila clanga and the Lesser Spotted Eagle A. pomarina (Aves: Accipitriformes) in Europe. - Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 100 (3): 725-736. Vali, Ü., Mannik, R., Nellis, R., Sein, G. & Tuvi, J. (2011): [Monitoring Estonian eagles: examples of following status and abundance of rare species.] pp 92-106 In: Kull, T. Liira, J. & Sammul, M. (eds.): Yearbook of the Estonian Naturalists' Society 86. - Estonian Naturalists' Society, Tartu. (in Estonian, English summary) Arrived / Prispelo: 27. 3. 2013 Accepted / Sprejeto: 1. 7. 2013 a preliminary overview of raptor monitoring in Georgia Predhodni pregled monitoringa ptic roparic v Gruziji Alexander Abuladze Institute of Zoology, Ilia State University, Kakutsa Cholokashvili Str. 3/5, GE-Tbilisi 0162, Georgia, e-mail: aleksandre.abuladze@iliauni.edu.ge Monitoring of birds of prey started in Georgia in 1975 (Flint & Galushin 1981). The basic aim of the project was to obtain data on numbers and population trends needed for conservation. 40 raptor species have been recorded in the country; 34 of them are regular, while six are vagrants. Breeding raptors Breeding has been confirmed for 26 species; another 4 species are occasional breeders. Numbers of breeding pairs are the following: Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus (200-450), Black Kite Milvus migrans (500), White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla (2-3), Lammergeier Gypaetus barbatus (2022), Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus (110), Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus (40-45), Black Vulture Aegypius monachus (15), Short-toed Eagle Circaetus gallicus (25), Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus (110-130), Montagu's Harrier C. pygargus (15-20), Goshawk Accipiter gentilis (240), Sparrowhawk A. nisus (750-800), Levant Sparrowhawk A. brevipes (45-60), Buzzard Buteo buteo (1,250-1,500), Long-legged Buzzard B. rufinus (55-60), Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila pomarina (60-75), Imperial Eagle A. heliaca (35-40), Golden Eagle A. chrysaetos (up to 35), Bonelli's Eagle A. fasciata (1-3), Booted Eagle A. pennata (70-100), Kestrel Falco tinnunculus (1,6002,100), Red-footed Falcon F. vespertinus (occasional breeder), Hobby F. subbuteo (230-250), Lanner Falcon F. biarmicus (1-2), Saker Falcon F. cherrug (occasional breeder) and Peregrine Falcon F. peregrinus (40) (Abuladze 2013). During the study period (i.e. 1975-2012), monitoring revealed that nine species increased, seven remained stable and five declined, with unclear trends for the other five species. Two species which were regular breeders, no longer breed regularly: Osprey Pandion haliaetus in the 1950s and Lesser Kestrel F. naumanni in the 1990s (Abuladze 1996, 2008 & 2013). Passage of raptors Georgia is of special importance for migrating raptors owing to its location between Europe and Asia, located on their path from breeding grounds in Scandinavia, European Russia, the Urals and West Siberia to the Mediterranean, Middle Eastern and African wintering grounds. Monitoring of migrating raptors started in 1976. Counts were carried out in migration corridors in the 1976-1992, 1997-2002 and 2005-2006 periods in spring and autumn from constant stations during 52-67 days in autumn (704-782 hrs, 8-14 hrs/day) and 22-31 days in spring (219-335 hrs, 7-14 hrs/day) (Abuladze et al. 2011A). 34 species are typical transit migrants. Among these, 28 species are regular migrants (Honey Buzzard, Black Kite, White-tailed Eagle, Egyptian Vulture, Short-toed Eagle, Marsh Harrier, Hen Harrier C. cyaneus, Pallid Harrier C. macrourus, Montagu's Harrier, Goshawk, Sparrowhawk, Levant Sparrowhawk, Buzzard, Long-legged Buzzard, Rough-legged Buzzard B. lagopus, Lesser Spotted Eagle, Greater Spotted Eagle A. clanga, Imperial Eagle, Steppe Eagle A. nipalensis, Booted Eagle, Osprey, Lesser Kestrel, Kestrel, Red-footed Falcon, Merlin F. columbarius, Hobby, Saker Falcon and Peregrine Falcon), while six species - Crested Honey Buzzard P. ptilorhynchus, Red Kite Milvus milvus, Shikra Accipiter badius, Bonelli's Eagle, Lanner Falcon and Eleonora's Falcon F. eleonorae are occasional passage visitors. Lammergeier and Golden Eagle are residents with local altitudinal movements; Griffon Vulture and Black Vulture (Gavashelishvili et al. 2012) are nomadic species with wide movements outside the breeding seasons (Verhelst et al. 2011). Data on species composition, numbers, diurnal activity, flight direction, flight altitude, correlation with weather conditions, stop-over sites, behaviour and threats were collected. Autumn passage is particularly intensive, with three well-distinguished waves. The most important flyways and bottlenecks are: the Eastern Black Sea Flyway with the "Batumi Bottleneck" (850,000 ind. of 34 species), "Mtkvari Valley Flyway" (250,000+ ind., 26 species), "Alazani Flyway" (200,000+ ind., 24 species) and "Javakheti Flyway" (200,000+ ind., 25 species) (Figure 1). The most important and well-known among them is the Eastern Black Sea Flyway with the Batumi Bottleneck. During the last decade, up to 2 million raptors of 34 species in autumn and up to 700,000 raptors of 32 species in spring have been estimated to migrate across Georgia. Especially numerous are Honey Buzzard (250,000-700,000 ind. in autumn), Buzzards B. b. vulpinus, B. b. buteo (200,000-600,000) and Black Kite (80,000-170,000) (Verhelst et al. 2011, Abuladze et. al. 2011A, Abuladze 2013). Figure 1: The most important flyways and bottlenecks during the raptors' autumn passage in Georgia. The arrows on the map indicate known flight directions across the country, while the encircled areas are stop-over sites along the most important flyways. Slika 1: Najpomembnejše selitvene poti in ozka grla med jesensko selitvijo ujed v Gruziji. Puš~ice na zemljevidu prikazujejo znane smeri preletov ~ez državo, obkrožena obmo~ja pa so po~ivališ~a vzdolž najpomembnejših selitvenih poti. Raptors in winter Georgia is also important for the wintering raptors, which are represented by 23 species: 18 occur regularly, three irregularly and two occasionally. Counts of wintering raptors were carried out in the 1977—1991, 1997—1999 periods and in 2004 and 2006. Coverage of wintering areas was 45% in 1977—1982, 75—85% in 1983—1991, 40% in 1997—1999, and about 30% in 2004 and 2006. Total numbers of wintering raptors greatly fluctuated, i.e. from 4,400 individuals in hard, cold, snowy winters to 14,700 individuals in mild, warm, snowless winters. Numbers were directly correlated with the meteorological situation in surrounding regions, especially in the foothills and steppes of the North Caucasus. Raptors are distributed in wintering habitats unevenly and prefer areas with abundant food resources and favourable hunting conditions. Preferred wintering habitats are located in areas with warm and snowless winters. Kolkheti Lowland in the western part of the country should be considered as the most important wintering area, holding up to 70% of all wintering raptors. The narrow strip of the Black Sea coastlands holds up to 10—15%, and other parts of the country 15—30% of all wintering raptors. Vertical limits of wintering habitats are 0—1,000 m a.s.l., usually up to 600 m a.s.l. Solitary birds have been recorded higher up in warm winters — up to 1,700 m a.s.l. At times, wintering conditions are more favourable in anthropogenic landscapes than in natural habitats (due to more stable food resources and less severe weather impacts). Raptors are 290 usually concentrated in mosaic biotopes, including small forests, which are used as shelters against bad weather and as night roosts. Black Kite is by far the most numerous wintering raptor (3,000—12,000 ind.) (Abuladze 2013, Abuladze et al. 2002 & 2011B). Main players The main actors in monitoring for raptors in Georgia are: (1) Governmental organisations — the Ministry of Environment Protection of Georgia carries out the bio-monitoring programme with funding from SVS/BirdLife Switzerland; raptors are part of this programme. 12 specialists from different regions participate in this project. (2) Research organisations — there are only two centres in Georgia, researchers of which carry out monitoring of raptor populations. The Institute of Zoology of the Ilia State University (formerly of the Academy of Sciences of Georgia) has carried out the long-term monitoring on breeding, migratory and wintering populations since the 1970s. In recent years, the Institute of Ecology has been monitoring some species using modern methods, like tracking with satellite-received radio-transmitters (Gavashelishvili et al. 2006 & 2012). (3) Solitary researchers monitor raptor populations at the local level in some regions (Edisherashvili 1999). (4) Several NGOs (Bird Conservation Union of Georgia, "Bude", Georgian Centre for the Conservation of Wildlife, PSOVI) also carry out small-scale monitoring activities at the regional level or on certain species of raptors; they also carry out applied research on the impact of technical constructions on raptor populations. Special attention must be paid to the activities by members of the international project Batumi Rap-tor Count (http://www.batumiraptorcount.org). Since 2008, each autumn participants of this project have monitored migrating raptors at the Black Sea coast in SW Georgia, in one of the most important bottlenecks in the Western Palearctic (Verhelst et al. 2011). Contacts have been established with all neighbouring countries of the region (but there are currently no contacts with Russia due to political reasons). Until 1992, projects were carried out within the framework of former USSR programmes (Flint & Galushin 1981). Since then, contacts have been established with researchers from Azerbaijan, Armenia and Turkey, but at a fairly small scale and concentrating on some issues (specific raptor species or trans-boundary projects). Besides, small scale projects with some European countries are mostly carried out through individual contacts or private initiatives. There are representatives of international organisations in Georgia, such as WWF, IUCN and BirdLife International, which carry out the various programmes of these organisations, with Georgia participating in them. In Georgia, the main users of data collected during raptor monitoring are governmental organizations, ministries and departments, research institutes, universities, mass-media, national parks, nature reserves, and some international organizations. National coverage Comprehensive monitoring of raptors in Georgia was carried out during the 1970s and 1980s, but in the 1990s there were no such possibilities due to financial, political and social challenges to monitoring the whole territory of Georgia. However, in recent years the extent of monitoring has grown. Wintering and migratory species are monitored well, but breeding species are not covered comprehensively. At the present time, there is unfortunately no national coordination or network for monitoring raptors. Threats The main threats to raptors in Georgia, causing declines in some raptor species, are illegal shooting, falconers' activities, and the transformation and destruction of breeding and feeding habitats. Economic activities such as the construction of railways, roads, oil and gas pipelines, ports, airports, alpine resorts and creation of reservoirs endanger the raptors' habitats. The impact of newly constructed power transmission lines may also be negative. The main threat to migratory raptors is illegal shooting. The practice of trapping hawks and large falcons for falconry purposes also presents one of the major raptor conservation problems in Georgia (Maanen et al. 2001, Abuladze et al. 2011c, Jansen 2011). Weaknesses and challenges At present, the main problems relate to monitoring of breeding populations, since there is no governmental funding, a lack of monitoring specialists and no national monitoring scheme adapted to modern conditions. Another gap is the lack of owl monitoring. For the regions Abkhazia and South Ossetia, we lack any data for the last 20 years due to the political instability of the areas. However, taking into account the diversity of raptors, the rich species composition, the especially high numbers of migrants, and regular presence of several otherwise rare or accidental species in Europe there is plenty to interest researchers and motivate more monitoring. Among the specific areas of weakness, or challenges, for which Georgia might benefit from international sharing of good/best practice, we should mention the funding schemes, training opportunities, new methods and technologies adapted for small countries like Georgia. The lack of professional researchers involved in monitoring of diurnal and nocturnal raptor populations, training of young researchers, engagement in international programmes together with funding, introduction of inexpensive methods of monitoring of raptors should be considered as the main capacity-building needs to strengthen monitoring for raptors in Georgia. References Abuladze, A. (1996): Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila pomarina in Georgia. pp. 349-355 In: Meyburg, B.U & Chancellor, R.D. (eds.): Eagle studies. - World Working Group on Birds of Prey, Berlin, London & Paris. Abuladze, A. (2008): [Changes in the species composition and numbers of the birds of prey in Georgia in 19752007.] pp. 162-166 In: Galushin, V.M., Melnikov, V.N., Chudnenko, D.E. & Sharikov, A.V. (eds.): Research and Conservation of the Raptors in Northern Eurasia. Materials of the 5th Conference on Raptors of Northern Eurasia, 4-7 February 2008, Ivanovo, Bulgaria. - Ivanovo State University. (in Russian) Abuladze, A. (2013): Birds of Prey of Georgia. Materials towards a Fauna of Georgia, Issue VI. - Institute of Zoology, Ilia State University & Publishing house "Lasha Khvichia", Tbilisi. Abuladze, A., Eligulashvili, B. & Shergalin, J. (2002): Wintering of raptors in Georgia. pp. 141 In: Yosef, R., Miller, M.L. & Pepler, D. (eds.): Raptors in the New Millenium. Proceedings of the World Conference on Birds of Prey & Owls "RAPTORS 2000", 2-8 April 2000, Eilat, Israel. - Israel International Birding & Research Center in Eilat, Israel. Abuladze, A., Kandaurov, A. & Eligulashvili, B. (2011A): Seasonal migrations of Birds of Prey across Georgia: results of the long-term studies. pp. 3-4 In: Materials of the International Conference "The Birds of Prey and Owls of Caucasus", 26-29 October 2011, Tbilisi, Abastumani, Georgia. Abuladze, A., Kandaurov, A., Edisherashvili, G. & Eligulashvili, B. (201 ib): Wintering of raptors in Georgia: results of long-term monitoring. pp 4-5 In: Materials of the International Conference "The Birds of Prey and Owls of Caucasus", 26-29 October 2011, Tbilisi, Abastumani, Georgia. Abuladze, A., Kandaurov, A., Bukhnikashvili, A., Natradze, I., Kokhia, M., Bekoshvili, D., Gorgadze, O., Edisherashvili, G., Goderidze, A., Gertsvolf, A., Eligulashvili, B., Kashta, Ye., Shekiladze, Sh., Mtatsmindeli, A., Rostiashvili, G., Beruchashvili, G. & Abuladze, G. (2011c): The analysis of recorded causes of death of adult birds of prey and owls in Georgia in 1973-2011. pp. 5-7 In: Materials of the International Conference "The Birds of Prey and Owls of Caucasus", 26-29 October 2011, Tbilisi, Abastumani, Georgia. Edisherashvili, G. (1999): [The modern status of the raptors of Shida Qarthli Region.] pp. 242-246 In: Proceedings of Tskhinvali State Pedagogical Institute. (in Russian) Flint, V.E. & Galushin, V.M. (1981): Strategy of raptor conservation in the USSR. - Journal of Raptor Research 15 (1): 1-3. Gavashelishvili, A., McGrady, M.J., & Javakhishvili, Z. (2006): Planning the conservation of the breeding population of cinereous vultures (Aegypius monachus) in the Republic of Georgia. - Oryx 40 (1): 76-83. Gavashelishvili, A., McGrady, M., Ghasabian, M. & Bildstein, K.L. (2012): Movements and habitat use by immature Cinereous Vultures (Aegypius monachus) from the Caucasus. - Bird Study 59 (4): 442-462. Jansen, J. (2011): The Protocol for long-term raptor migration monitoring along Eastern Black Sea flyway in Batumi, Georgia. pp. 20-21 In: Materials of the International Conference "The Birds of Prey and Owls of Caucasus", 26-29 October 2011, Tbilisi, Abastumani, Georgia. Maanen, Van E., Goradze, I., Gavashelishvili, A. & Goradze, R. (2001): Trapping and hunting of migratory raptors in western Georgia. - Bird Conservation International 11 (2): 77-92. Verhelst, B., Jansen, J. & Vansteelant, W. (2011): South West Georgia: an important bottleneck for raptor migration during autumn. - Ardea 99 (2): 137-146. Arrived / Prispelo: 27. 3. 2013 Accepted / Sprejeto: 1. 7. 2013 a preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Greece Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Grčiji Dimitris E. Bakaloudis School of Forestry and Natural Environment, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, P.O. Box 241, University campus, GR—541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece e—mail: debakaloudis@for.auth.gr One of the fundamental concerns in raptors' conservation is the monitoring of their populations (Andersen 2007). A long-term monitoring of raptor populations can help to identify early threats either concerning the birds or their habitats, and thereby is a useful tool for establishing adequate conservation measures (Witmer 2005). In most ornithological advanced countries, monitoring programmes have started during the last few decades. On the other hand, although many scientists and ornithologists have appeared in Greece during the last two decades, there is no comprehensive scheme for monitoring the populations of birds of prey as yet. Greece, due to its position among three continents and due to its variable climate, which in turn affects the vegetation and habitats, supports diverse raptor communities. From a total of 442 birds that occurred in the country, 38 (8.6%) species are diurnal raptors of which 24 (63.2%) breed here (Handrinos 2009). In addition, eight out of nine owls breed in the country. Both in the mainland and on the islands, 4 vultures, 6 eagles, 3 buzzards, 3 hawks, 1 kite, 1 harrier and 6 falcons breed as well. However, except for the Black Vulture Aegypius monachus in Dadia forest in northeastern Greece and for the Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus and the Lammergeier Gypaetus barbatus in Crete, there is no other long-term national monitoring programme in progress in the country. The aim of this study was to present briefly an overview of monitoring for raptors in Greece. Main players The main actors in monitoring raptors' population and distribution in Greece are the Universities, mainly the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in northern Greece, the University of Patras in Peloponnesus, and the Natural History Museum of Crete University in southern Greece. Furthermore, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are activated in monitoring programmes, mainly under LIFE projects, and in a few cases the Forestry Service has collaborated in these projects. Recently, the authorities of the 27 National Parks are also responsible in monitoring all biotic (including raptors) and abiotic features within their areas. Unfortunately, only in a few occasions foreign ornithologists have collaborated in monitoring programmes. These ornithologists originated from Spain, Austria, Germany, England and Belgium, and most of these scientists were volunteers working during the data collection. The data collected from those projects were used by the ornithologists either for publications in scientific journals or for formulating conservation recommendations to the Greek government. National coverage Information concerning raptor population across the country is limited for a few regions and only for specific periods of time. The first monitoring programme started during the end of the 1980s in Dadia forest (north-eastern Greece), concentrating on the Black Vulture population recovery after the establishment of the first feeding station (Vlachos et al. 1999). Today, the authority of the National Park with the help of the WWF Greece is continuing the monitoring programme (Poirazidis 2003, Poirazidis et al. 2011). Another monitoring project for the Griffon vulture and the Lammergeier in Crete has been run by the Natural History Museum of Crete University since the mid-1990s (ongoing; Xirouchakis & Nikolakakis 2002). The Eleonora's Falcon Falco eleonorae monitoring project was carried in Dionysades island complex in Crete by Dr D. Ristow and Prof M. Wink (Heidelberg University) from 1965 to 2001 (e.g. Ristow et al. 1989). In addition, two monitoring projects were carried out in the country (for the Lesser Kestrel F. naumanni during 2001—2002, and for the Eleonora's Falcon during 2005—2006); both were realized in a short period of time. However, there is no national integrated monitoring programme for raptors in Greece. Monitoring of migrating raptors was established at several sites (e.g. Antikythira Island, Mount Olympus, etc.) in the last few years with the help of Italian ornithologists (Lucia et al. 2011, Panuccio et al. 2012). After the first meeting of ornithologists that took place in Aegina Island in 2002, a web-based network has been established in order to exchange information among scientists, concerning mainly the vultures' population, distribution, and threats. Key species and key issues In general, the key species addressed by monitoring in Greece are the four vultures, specifically the Black Vulture, the Griffon Vulture the Lammergeier and the Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus, although two falcon species, the Eleonora's Falcon and the Lesser Kestrel, were also considered (Dimalexis et al. 2008, Vlachos et al. 2004, respectively). Especially for the Lesser Kestrel, a number of colonies have been systematically monitored since 1998, including the reproductive success and process, radio-telemetry, feeding ecology, habitat use and foraging ecology. A further ringing programme for juvenile Lesser Kestrels was initiated in 2009. The key issues that were addressed by the monitoring programmes were to census the populations, identify the reasons for their population decline, establish conservation measures, and recommend their protection and recovery to the government. Strengths and weaknesses The main weaknesses of monitoring for raptors in Greece are (1) the cost of this action, (2) the large partitioning of the country, and (3) the low level of public awareness for birds. Greece covers ca. 132,000 km2 and consists of thousands of small and large islands covering 25,000 km2 (18.9%). Thus, this makes a national monitoring scheme for raptors difficult and costly. However, there are strengths in the monitoring of some raptors, such as the recovery of the Black Vulture population in Dadia forest, and the improvement of the breeding colonies of the Lesser Kestrel in Thessaly. Although the data concerning most of raptors in Greece are patchy, information on their distribution and population is limited and has not been obtained from a systematic monitoring programme (Meyburg & Meyburg 1987, Handrinos & Akriotis 1997). Furthermore, except from a few sporadic observations there are no data for some species such as the Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus, the Levant Sparrowhawk A. brevipes, the Peregrine Falcon F. peregrinus, and the Hobby F. subbuteo. Therefore, the knowledge from international experts would be beneficial for the implementation of a realistic monitoring programme across the country. Priorities, capacity-building A fundamental priority to strengthen monitoring for raptors in Greece is the development of an atlas for birds of prey, which will describe accurately their status, distribution and population estimates. Species-specific long-term data are also important for the continuation of threatened and/or charismatic raptors, such as Black Vulture, Egyptian Vulture, Lammergeier, Lesser Kestrel and Eleonora's Falcon. Furthermore, we need to shift from short-term and local projects to an integrative long-term monitoring programme under the auspices of the Institutes. Although there are some ornithologists and scientists across the country, the main capacity-building needs are to strengthen a realistic monitoring programme are personnel, and a satisfactory budget to address the specificities throughout Greece. References Andersen, D.E. (2007): Survey techniques. pp. 89—100 In: Bird, D.M. & Bildstein. K.L. (eds.): Raptor Research and Management Techniques. — Hancock House, Surrey. Dimalexis, A., Xirouchakis, S., Portolou, D., Latsoudis, P., Karris, G., Fric, J., Georgiakakis, P., Barboutis, C., Bourdakis, S., Ivovič, M., Kominos, T. & Kakalis, E. (2008): The status of Eleonora's Falcon (Falco eleonorae) in Greece. — Journal of Ornithology 149 (1): 23—30. Handrinos, G. (2009): Birds. pp. 213—354 In: Legakis, A. & Maragou, P. (eds.): [The Red Book of Endangered Animals in Greece.] — Hellenic Zoological Society, Athens. (in Greek) Handrinos, G. & Akriotis, T. (1997): The Birds of Greece. — Christopher Helm, London. Lucia, G., Agostini, N., Panuccio, M., Mellone, U., Chiatante, G., Tarini, D. & Evangelidis, A. (2011): Raptor migration at Antikythira, in southern Greece. — British Birds 104 (5): 266—270. Meyburg, B.-U. & Meyburg, C. (1987): Present status of diurnal birds of prey (Falconiformes) in various countries bordering the Mediterranean. — Ricerche Biologia Selvaggina 12, Suppl.: 147—152. Panuccio, M., Agostini, N. & Barboutis, C. (2012): Raptor migration in Greece: a review. pp. 16—17 In: Proceedings of the 2nd Italian Conference on raptors, October 2012, Treviso. Poirazidis, K. (2003): [Dadia-Lefkimi-Soufli forest reserve, diurnal raptor assemblages. Status report of raptor species populations.] — WWF Greece, Athens. (in Greek) Poirazidis, K., Schindler, S., Kakalis, E., Ruiz, C., Bakaloudis, D.E., Scandolara, C., Eastham, C., Hristov, H. & Catsakorakis, G. (2011): Population estimates for the diverse raptor assemblage of Dadia National Park, Greece. — Ardeola 58 (1): 3—17. Ristow, D., Scharlau, W. & Wink, M. (1989): Population structure and mortality of Eleonora's Falcon (Falco eleonorae). pp. 321—326 In: Meyburg, B.-U. & Chancellor, R.D. (eds.): Raptors in the modern world. — World Working Group on Birds of Prey, Berlin. Vlachos, C.G., Bakaloudis, D.E. & Holloway, G.J. (i999): Population trends of Black Vulture Aegypius monachus in Dadia Forest, north-eastern Greece following the establishment of a feeding station. — Bird Conservation International 9 (2): 113—118. Vlachos, C.G., Bakaloudis, D.E. & Chatzinikos, E. (2004): Status of the Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni in Thessaly, Central Greece. pp. 731-736 In: Chancellor, R.D. & Meyburg, B.-U. (eds.): Raptors worldwide: proceedings of the 6th World Conference on Birds of Prey and Owls, 18-23 May 2003, Budapest, Hungary. - World Working Group on Birds of Prey and Owls, Berlin & MME/BirdLife Hungary, Budapest. Witmer, G.W. (2005): Wildlife population monitoring: some practical considerations. - Wildlife Research 32 (3): 259-263. Xirouchakis, S. & Nikolakakis, M. (2002): Conservation implications of the temporal and spatial distribution of the Bearded Vulture Gypaetus barbatus in Crete. - Bird Conservation International 12 (3): 211-222. Arrived / Prispelo: 27. 3. 2013 Accepted / Sprejeto: 1. 7. 2013 a preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Italy Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Italiji Arianna Aradis1 & Alessandro Andreotti2 1 Universita degli Studi di Palermo, Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Forestali, Lab. Zoologia applicata, V. le Scienze 13, IT-90128 Palermo, Italy, e-mail: arianna.aradis@unipa.it 2 ISPRA - Istituto Superiore per la Ricerca e la Protezione Ambientale, Via Ca Fornacetta, 9, IT-40064 Ozzano dell'Emilia, Bologna, Italy, e-mail: alessandro.andreotti@isprambiente.it Owing to its great latitudinal extension and environmental heterogeneity, Italy hosts a relatively large number of birds of prey. Considering both diurnal and nocturnal species, 47 taxa are known to occur regularly in the country, 31 of which breed here, while two have gone extinct as breeders (Table 1). Furthermore, twice a year Italy is reached by a large number of migrants on their way between Europe and Africa. Big concentrations of migrating raptors occur in some important bottlenecks (e.g. Marettimo Island, Messina Strait, Monte Conero Promontory, Monte Beigua). Table 1: Number of raptor species occurring in Italy Tabela 1: Število vrst ptic roparic, ki se pojavljajo v Italiji Family/ Družina No. of all species/ Št. vseh vrst No. of breeding species / Št. gnezdečih vrst Accipitridae 27 15 Falconidae 10 7 Strigidae 10 9 On a national scale, reviews on the status of raptors were published in 1992 (Brichetti et al. 1992) and 2003 (Brichetti & Fracasso 1993) for diurnal species and in 2006 (Brichetti & Fracasso 2006) for owls. Among the species nesting in Italy, 17 are classified as Species of European Conservation Concern - SPECs (BirdLife International 2004), three are included in the IUCN Red List (IUCN 2012), while four are Critically Endangered (CR) according to the Red List of the Italian Breeding Birds (Peronace et al. 2011). To promote the conservation of some of the most endangered species, the Italian Ministry for the Environment issued the national action plans for the Lanner Falcon Falco biarmicus feldeggii, the Eleonora's Falcon F. eleonorae and the Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus (Andreotti & Leonardi 2007 & 2009, Spina & Leonardi 2007). A regional action plan has been drafted for the conservation of the Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus in Sardinia (Schenk et al. 2008). Monitoring is currently carried out by different actors and with different aims, especially to evaluate trends of common species and species of conservation concern. Main players In Italy, many actors are promoting programmes for raptor monitoring: — State Forestry Corp (CFS), — Departments of several Universities (e.g. Milano, Palermo, Pavia, Urbino), — Institute for the Environmental Protection and Research - ISPRA, — National Parks (e.g. Aspromonte National Park; Stelvio National Park) and other protected areas instituted by national or regional laws, — Natural History Museums (e.g. Tridentine Museum of Natural Sciences), — NGOs (ALTURA - Associazione Tutela Uccelli Rapaci e loro Ambienti; Legambiente; LIPU - Lega Italiana Protezione Uccelli, BirdLife International partner in Italy; MEDRAPTORS - Mediterranean Raptor Migration Network; Ornis Italica; WWF), — Regional Administrations. Co-operation has been promoted with foreign ornithologists to study vulture populations and raptor wintering and migration. Switzerland, Austria and France are partners in the "International Bearded Vulture Monitoring" (IBM) project to follow the birds' movements across country borderlines. A tight collaboration with Slovenian and Croatian ornithologists is currently in progress within the framework of the Griffon Vulture monitoring programmes in the eastern Alps. Since 2011, Italy has been involved in the European census of the wintering Red Kite Milvus milvus, a project coordinated by LPO (Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux), France. Moreover, collaboration has been established with Spanish researchers to study the migration of the Short-toed Eagle Circaetus gallicus through satellite tracking technology (University of Alicante) and the Black Kite M. migrans (Donana Biological Station and CSIC). The Italian Ministry for the Environment requires monitoring data in order to report on the status of protected species according to the Birds Directive, as well as to designate and manage Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Important Bird Areas (IBAs). Other frequent users of the data obtained from raptor monitoring are: (1) Co-ordinators of reintroduction/restocking programmes to evaluate the status of the new established populations and to formulate management decisions; (2) National Parks to manage land use (e.g. presence of Goshawk Accipiter gentilis and forest management plans) and to stipulate conservation actions; (3) Developers and advisors of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures: Regional Offices to assess the impact of local projects (wind farms, regional motorways etc.) and the Commission for National Impact Assessment of the Ministry for the Environment to assess the impact of major projects (e.g. bridge over the Messina Strait, motorways). National coverage Italy still lacks national coordination for raptor monitoring. Some efforts have been made to promote co-operation among groups working on the same species, to standardize monitoring protocols and to assess the size of the breeding populations (e.g. Allavena et al. 2006, Magrini et al. 2007). A national coordination for the Lanner Falcon was established in the 2003-2004 breeding seasons to acquire relevant information for the Italian action plan (Andreotti & Leonardi 2007, Andreotti et al. 2008). In the Alps, a network for vulture monitoring was promoted in 2008 by the Lombardy Region, Stelvio National Park and Alpi Marittime Natural Park (RIMANI project). Aims of this network are to follow and study dynamic population of re-introduced individuals of Lammergeier Gypaetus barbatus and to observe and record other vulture species which are slowly colonizing the Alps (Griffon Vulture, Black Vulture Aegypius monachus) or occasionally occurring (Egyptian Vulture). There is informal national coordination for monitoring the raptor migration (Migrans project), supported by a group of people depending on different organisations (NGOs, Parks). The spatial coverage of monitoring depends on the species themselves. For some of them (e.g. Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos, Peregrine Falcon F. peregrinus, Griffon Vulture), comprehensive monitoring is being implemented all over the country. In some areas, monitoring projects have been carried out intensively for many years (e.g. Fasce et al. 2011). In other parts of the country, the knowledge of raptor populations is still scarce (e.g. Calabria). The monitoring is generally done at the local or regional levels and it is quite patchy across Italy. In some regions, atlases of breeding raptors have been recently published following standardised methods (Aradis et al. 2012). Counts of migrating birds of prey have been carried out mostly in the last two decades both during post- and pre-breeding migration periods in several bottlenecks (mountain passes, promontories, small islands and straits) to describe flyways and movements strategies (e.g. Panuccio 2011). Some of this research work has been the result of joint efforts based on simultaneous observations at different watchpoints (e.g. Agostini 2002, Agostini et al. 2002). In recent years, satellite telemetry has been used to carry out detailed studies on migration (e.g. Mellone et al. 2011). Key species and key issues Monitoring activities are carried out in different periods of the year, addressing different target species. In the breeding period, the species like Golden Eagle, Bonelli's Eagle A. fasciata, Peregrine Falcon, Lanner Falcon, Lesser Kestrel F. naumanni, Eleonora's Falcon, Egyptian Vulture, Griffon Vulture and Lammergeier receive fairly solid coverage across their entire breeding range. Red Kite, Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus, Montagu's Harrier Circus pygargus, Eagle Owl Bubo bubo and Tengmalm's Owl Aegolius funereus are monitored only on a local scale, while Buzzard Buteo buteo and Kestrel F. tinnunculus are monitored within the framework of the national common bird census project to evaluate the breeding population trends (Progetto Mito; Rete Rurale Nazionale & LIPU 2012). In the non-breeding period, Red and Black Kites are counted at night roosts (partial monitoring), while Marsh Harrier is included in International Waterbird Census (IWC) (Baccetti et al. 2002). Among the most numerous species in the migration periods are Black Kite, Marsh Harrier, Short-toed Eagle and Honey Buzzard Pernis apivoris. Monitoring is usually aimed at censusing populations or, as far as Endangered and Critically Endangered species are concerned, to assess their status (e.g. Egyptian Vulture, Sara et al. 2009). However, data on threats to raptors are also gathered. The main threats monitored by different projects are habitat loss, disturbance, illegal hunting, egg collecting and stealing of young falcons from their nests, poisoning, collisions with aerial structures (wires, power lines, wind farms), both in the breeding areas and in bottlenecks where migrants funnel. The effects of collisions with power lines were studied in details, and guidelines to mitigate the impact have been written (Rubolini et al. 2005, Pirovano & Cocchi 2008). An international networking might help to improve our knowledge on new coming threats whose effects are not yet fully understood (e.g. wind farms). Furthermore, it might allow a better understanding of flyways especially relevant for the protection of stopover key sites. Strengths and weaknesses The main strength of the monitoring programmes carried out in Italy is the high motivation and enthusiasm of several ornithologists working in the field, in most cases on a voluntary basis. The qualitative level of field observers is generally high. The weaknesses are the lack of a national coordination and the low level of communication among a part of ornithologists, who are scarcely inclined to co-operate and share their own data with others for several reasons (e.g. fear to expose nests to robbery, jealousy, distrust). Lack of economic resources from various institutions is also a major limiting factor. Studies and monitoring of owl populations are quite scarce. Some diurnal species are not adequately monitored, in particular tree-nesting raptors (such as the Goshawk, whose population is probably underestimated in remote areas due to the harsh census conditions). Some of the less covered areas are in southern Italy (Calabria, Campania and Sardinia), in spite of their richness in species of relevant conservation importance; this lack of data is partially related to the low number of active ornithologists and ringers there. About threats, the role of pesticides, rodenticides, pollutants, chemical contaminants and collisions with wind farms is not adequately investigated and the relevance of their impacts on population trends is not well known. European monitoring network could facilitate commencement of national programmes, at least for some species of diurnal raptors currently monitored by local ornithological groups. Furthermore, international standardised protocols could improve the efficiency of monitoring in Italy, both to evaluate population sizes and trends and to assess the impact of some threats (e.g. electrocution, windfarms). Special attention should be paid to define guidelines for Before-After Control-Impacts monitoring within the framework of project evaluation and impact assessment. Priorities, capacity-building The highest priority to strengthen monitoring in Italy is to create a National Coordination aimed at organizing a network of regional focal points and to draw standardized species-specific protocols. Ideally, the coordination for each species or species groups should be provided by public institutions such as the Italian Ministry for the Environment, universities, museums or ISPRA to ensure adequate resources in terms of economy and/or staff, temporal continuity, correct use of the data and to train regional focal points to guarantee a strict connection between local observers and the national network. Povzetek V Italiji manjkajo celostni popisi in monitoringi populacij ptic roparic na nacionalni ravni. Da bi lahko uresničili mednarodne projekte, ki zadevajo brkatega sera Gypaetus barbatus, beloglavega jastreba Gyps fulvus, kačarja Circaetus gallicus, črnega Milvus migrans in rjavega škarnika M. milvus, je bilo vzpostavljeno sodelovanje z nekaterimi tujimi državami (Švica, Avstrija, Francija, Španija). S strani različnih nevladnih organizacij je bilo zastavljenih nekaj regionalnih in lokalnih projektov monitoringa več vrst in dogovorjena neformalna nacionalna koordinacija za monitoring selečih se ujed. Namen monitoringa je navadno ugotoviti velikost populacij, pridobljene podatke pa različni deležniki uporabljajo v glavnem za poročanje statusa vrst, zavarovanih v skladu Direktivo o pticah EU, načrtovanje zavarovanih območij, upravljanje s prostorom, načrtovanje naravovarstvenih akcij in ocenjevanje vplivov nacionalnih in lokalnih projektov. References Agostini, N. (2002): [The migration of birds of prey in Italy.] pp. 157-182 In: Brichetti, P. & Gariboldi, A. (eds.): Manuale di Ornitologia. Vol. 3. - Edagricole - Il Sole 24 Ore, Bologna. (in Italian) Agostini, N., Baghino, L., Coleiro, C., Corbi, F., & Premuda, G. (2002): Circuitous autumn migration in the Short-toed Eagle (Circaetus gallicus). - Journal of Raptor Research 36 (2): 111-114. Allavena, S., Andreotti, A., Angelini, J. & Scotti, M. (2006): Proceedings of the Congress "Status and conservation of the Red Kite (Milvus milvus) and the Black Kite (Milvus migrans) in Italy and southern Europe", 11-12 March 2006, Serra San Quirico, Italy. - Parco Naturale della Gola della Rossa e di Frasassi, Comunita Montana dell'Esino Frasassi & Altura. (in Italian) Andreotti, A. & Leonardi, G. (2007): [National Action Plan for the Lanner Falcon (Falco biarmicus feldeggii).] Quaderni di Conservazione della Natura 24. - Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare & Istituto nazionale per la fauna selvatica. (in Italian, English summary) Andreotti, A. & Leonardi, G. (2009): [National Action Plan for Egyptian Vulture (Neophron percnopterus).] Quaderni di Conservazione della Natura 30 — Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare & ISPRA. (in Italian, English summary) Andreotti, A., Leonardi, G., Sara, M., Brunelli, M., De Lisio, L., De Sanctis, A., Magrini, M., Nardi, R., Perna, P. & Sigismondi, A. (2008): Landscape-scale Spatial Distribution of the Lanner Falcon (Falco biarmicus feldeggii) breeding population in Italy. — Ambio 37 (6): 440—444. Aradis, A., Sarrocco, S. & Brunelli, M. (eds.) (2012): [Analysis of the status and distribution breeding birds of prey in Lazio.] Quaderni Natura e Biodiversita 2/2012. — ISPRA & ARP, Lazio. (in Italian, English summary) Baccetti, N., Dall'antonia, P., Magagnoli, P., Melege, L., Serra, L., Soldatini, C. & Zenatello, M. (2002): [Results of the censuses of wintering waterbirds in Italy: distribution, population estimates and trends in 1991— 2000.] — Biol. Cons. Fauna: 111: 1—240. (in Italian, English summary) BirdLife International (2004): Birds in Europe: Population estimates, trends and conservation status. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 12. — BirdLife International, Cambridge. Brichetti, P. & Fracasso, G. (2003): [Ornitologia Italiana.] Vol. 1. Gaviidae—Falconidae. — Perdisa Editore, Bologna. (in Italian) Brichetti, P. & Fracasso, G. (2006): [Ornitologia Italiana.] Vol. 3. Stercorariidae—Caprimulgidae. — Perdisa Editore, Bologna. (in Italian) Brichetti, P., De Franceschi, P. & Baccetti, N. (eds.) (1992): [Fauna of Italy.] Vol. 29. Aves, Part I. — Calderini, Bologna. (in Italian). Fasce, P., Fasce, L., Villers, A., Bergese, F. & Bretagnolle, V. (2011): Long-term breeding demography and density dependence in an increasing population of Golden Eagles Aquila chrysaetos. — Ibis 153 (3): 581—591. IUCN (2012): The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. — [www.iucnredlist.org], 27/5/2013. Magrini, M., Perna, P. & Scotti, M. (2007): Proceedings of the Congress "Golden Eagle, Lanner and Peregrine in peninsular Italy: status of knowledge and conservation problems", 26—28 March 2004, Serra San Quirico, Italy. — Parco Naturale della Gola della Rossa e di Frasassi. (in Italian) Mellone, U., Liminana, R., Mallia, E. & Urios, V. (2011): Extremely detoured migration in an inexperienced bird: interplay of transport costs and social interactions. — Journal of Avian Biology 42 (5): 468—472. Panuccio, M. (2011): Wind Effects on Visible Raptor Migration in Spring at the Strait of Messina, Southern Italy. — Journal of Raptor Research 45 (1): 88—92. Peronace, V., Cecere, J.G., Güstin, M. & Rondinini, C. (2012): [2011 Red List of breeding birds in Italy.] — Avocetta, 36: 11—58. (in Italian) Pirovano, A. & Cocchi, R. (2008): [Guidelines for mitigating the impact of power lines on birds.] — ISPRA. (in Italian) Rete Rurale Nazionale & LIPU (2013): [Common birds in Italy. Updating population trends in 2012.] — [http://www.reterurale.it/farmlandbirdindex] (in Italian, English summary) Rubolini, D., Güstin, M., Bogliani, G. & Garavaglia, R. (2005): Birds and powerlines in Italy: an assessment. — Bird Conservation International 15 (2): 131—145. Sara, M., Greci, S. & Di Vittorio, M. (2009): Status of Egyptian Vulture (Neophron percnopterus) in Sicily. — Journal of Raptor Research 43 (1): 66—69. Schenk, h., Aresu, M. & Naitana, S. (2008): [Proposal for an Action Plan for the Griffon Vulture (Gyps fulvus) in Sardinia.] — Legambiente Sardegna, Cagliari. (in Italian) Spina, F. & Leonardi, G. (2007): [National Action Plan for the Eleonora's falcon (Falco eleonorae).] — Quaderni di Conservazione della Natura 26. — Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare & & Istituto nazionale per la fauna selvatica. (in Italian, English summary) Arrived / Prispelo: 27. 3. 2013 Accepted / Sprejeto: 1. 7. 2013 a preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Latvia Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Latviji Jänis Reihmanis Latvian Fund for Nature, Dzirnavu str. 73 - 2, LV-1011 Riga, Latvia, e-mail: janis.reihmanis@ldf.lv Latvia is situated in Northern Europe and belongs to the Boreal biogeographical region (EC 2005). Most of the country is composed of fertile lowland plains and moderate hills. Forests account for 56% of the total land area. Mires occupy 9.9% of Latvia's territory. Of these, 42% are raised bogs. Raptor assemblages (both diurnal and nocturnal) are comprised of species characteristic of Northern Europe. Species composition of breeding raptors is similar (forms one cluster) to that in the neighbouring Estonia and Fennoscandian countries - Finland, Sweden and Norway (Lopez-Lopez et al. 2008). Including all historical records and rare vagrants, Latvia's list of raptors includes 28 diurnal raptor species and 13 owl species. Out of these, at least 17 diurnal birds of prey and at least 7 owl species can be counted as regularly breeding species (BirdLife International 2004, Latvijas putni 2013). Main players The Latvian Ornithological Society (LOB, BirdLife Partner) was a co-ordinating organisation for most bird monitoring schemes, including those for raptors, when these schemes were state-supported. In 2010 and 2011, there were no state-supported programmes implemented since no funding was granted. Some monitoring schemes were based only on the enthusiasm of individual experts, their ability to raise funds and/or their willingness to work voluntarily. Thus, individual experts can be considered as the main actors in monitoring for raptors, regardless of their institutional affiliation. Several project-based monitoring and research activities were/are co-ordinated by the Latvian Fund for Nature (Latvijas Dabas fonds). Monitoring of bird migration is carried out by the Laboratory of Ornithology, Institute of Biology, University of Latvia. Since 2012, the joint stock company "Latvijas valsts meži" (Latvia's State Forests) supports monitoring for the Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila pomarina and Golden Eagle A. chrysaetos. Regional co-operation includes regular meetings of diurnal raptor experts from the neighbouring Baltic States and Belarus. Meetings have been taking place since 2005 and act as basis for discussing the broad spectrum of raptor-related topics at the regional scale, such as monitoring and research, conservation, development of common project ideas, etc. These meetings have resulted in several joint publications (e.g. VäLl et al. 2010). Latvian raptor scientists have cooperated with colleagues from Germany (Scheller et al. 2001, Helbig et al. 2005, Meyburg et al. 2011). This collaboration concentrated mostly on the Lesser Spotted Eagle. More diurnal raptor and owl species have been included during the co-operation within MEROS programme (Mammen 2003, Kovacs et al. 2008). Since 1984, raptor specialists have been co-operating with the Swedish Museum of Natural History within colour-ringing scheme of the White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla. The Latvian Fund for Nature is currently implementing the project "Eagles cross borders", during which research and monitoring of the White-tailed Eagle and Osprey Pandion haliaetus is carried out in Latvia and Estonia. Data obtained during different monitoring schemes (in which raptors are included to some extent) are used by NGO's - LOB and Latvian Fund for Nature, for species conservation purposes. Information is used by experts from these NGO's also during the preparation of site management plans for Natura 2000 sites. Raptor species listed in Annex I of the EU Birds Directive are monitored within the Monitoring of Natura 2000 sites scheme. Data from all monitoring schemes are used by the Ministry of Environment and Rural Development for reporting to the European Commission - e.g. for Article 12 report (Birds Directive). National coverage For state-supported monitoring schemes, the Nature Conservation Agency was the responsible supervising public authority, with LOB co-ordinating their implementation. As state institutions showed no interest in monitoring data in 2010 and 2011, most schemes were stopped or implemented by individual experts at a minor scale. Exceptions are the Latvian Breeding Bird Monitoring scheme (LBBM - data submitted to the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme) and comprehensive surveys for several species. LBBM managed to obtain some funding and is still running, co-ordinated by LOB. The Latvian Fund for Nature is a coordinating body for the White-tailed Eagle monitoring, while LOB is coordinating Osprey monitoring in Latvia. In Latvia, there is no unified, countrywide and standardized monitoring scheme targeted exclusively on all raptor species, i.e. there is no special programme designed to include all raptor (diurnal and nocturnal) species and to obtain reliable data for the whole country. Raptor data are split among several national and regional schemes, each having their own methodology and data recording standards. As there is no special programme for raptor monitoring in Latvia, the available data come from several schemes and are of variable degree of patchiness. There are several species for which comprehensive surveys do exist. Those having such a scheme are mainly rare and charismatic species, such as the White-tailed Eagle (Kuze et al. 2010), Golden Eagle, Osprey (Kalväns 2011) and Eagle Owl Bubo bubo (Lipsbergs 2011). There are experts who work with these species and attempt to monitor most known active nests. The LBBM scheme generates national trends for four common diurnal raptor species — Buzzard Buteo buteo, Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus, Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus and Goshawk A. gentilis (Aunins 2010). This is the most reliable scheme in terms of sampling design, however, the number of raptors (even common ones) recorded is rather insufficient, since the confidence intervals of obtained trends remain very high. There is survey-plot-based research in the Lesser Spotted Eagle (Bergmanis 2009) and five most common breeding owl species — Tengmalm's Owl Aegolius funereus, Long-eared Owl Asio otus, Short-eared Owl A. flammeus, Tawny Owl Strix aluco and Ural Owl S. uralensis (Avotins 2009). The results obtained during these studies are valuable as long-term and in-depth research; however, distribution of survey-plots is distinctly patchy. Therefore, the number of survey-plots is insufficient to obtain reliable population trends for the whole country for such a widespread species. There was an attempt to expand the number of owl survey-plots to improve coverage at the national scale. Monitoring for Natura 2000 sites includes species listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive. This scheme is designed to survey only protected areas and does not take into account birds or habitats outside these sites. Therefore, spatial bias cannot be avoided in design of this scheme. Key species and key issues Summing up, at least some kind of monitoring exists or has existed in recent years for eight species of diurnal raptors and six owl species. Monitoring of bird migration is carried out by the Institute of Biology, University of Latvia. Standardized migration counts are conducted at Pape ornithological station (south-western Latvia). Diurnal species for which the data obtained are sufficient to draw conclusions about the migration process include two most common species — the Buzzard and Sparrowhawk (Keiss & Petersons 2009). Nocturnal migration is monitored at Pape ornithological station as well. The Long-eared Owl is an owl species with the highest number of captured/ringed birds. Kolkasrags (Slitere National Park, north-western Latvia) is the migration site where important bird congregations occur during the spring migration. The site is on the list of Important Bird Areas (IBAs) that are currently known to be important congregatory raptor sites in Africa and Eurasia, under the CMS Agreement on the Conservation of Migratory Birds of Prey. The high concentration of migratory birds demonstrates that the Kolkasrags is a vital site, where birds are funnelled in a narrow corridor. Thus, the geographical location of Kolkasrags at the northernmost point of the Kurzeme peninsula gives a unique opportunity for conducting flyway population counts to monitor raptor populations from large northeastern European areas (Reihmanis 2010). Monitoring of migratory birds (including diurnal raptors) has been conducted there for several years (Kazubiernis 2007). At Kolkasrags, monitoring (by means of mist-net trapping) of migratory owls has been conducted since 2011. Migratory owls are best represented by the Long-eared Owl (Grandäns 2013). Other common breeding owl species also are listed as target species in this research. Forestry practice is most often mentioned as threat, both by destroying habitats and causing disturbance. Agricultural land abandonment and land use change are identified as threats to species like the declining Lesser Spotted Eagle (Meyburg et al. 2004). The whole monitoring system and all species could benefit from international networking. We are seeking to establish long-term monitoring scheme for raptors to determine population trends for the country's breeding raptors. We are interested in designing monitoring scheme compatible with other countries, based on common standardized methods and being linked to the international monitoring system. Strengths and weaknesses The main strengths of raptor monitoring in Latvia are highly motivated experts, accumulated experiences and the existing well-established research programmes. Weaknesses include shortage of volunteers with necessary skills, which leads to insufficient coverage across the country and species, and lack of coordination for raptor monitoring. The existing monitoring schemes provide insufficient data on countrywide trends of widely dispersed species e.g. Lesser Spotted Eagle, Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus, Buzzard, Sparrowhawk, Marsh Harrier and Goshawk. Information on the effects of environmental pollutants on raptor populations are almost entirely missing in Latvia. Only some preliminary research has been carried out on this topic, such as the study of DDT effect on breeding Black Stork Ciconia nigra (Strazds & Grinblate 2009). Cost effective country-wide monitoring of both common and those with conservation concern status raptor species is the issue we are interested in terms of best practice obtained in other countries. International sharing of best practice could be used to promote understanding of sampling design principles. Priorities, capacity-building Priorities to strengthen monitoring for raptors in Latvia are to increase the number of motivated and trained surveyors to obtain representative countrywide coverage and population trends for many breeding species. To work on these trends, unified, countrywide and standardized monitoring schemes need to be launched. However, fundraising for such raptor monitoring schemes is still a challenge in Latvia. Thus, to strengthen monitoring for raptors, the main capacity-building needs are (1) securing long-term continuity of funding, (2) development and launching of unified monitoring that focuses on most raptor populations and its trends, and (3) attracting more surveyors. References Aunins, A. (2010): [Monitoring of diurnal birds.] Report to LVGMA. - Latvian Ornithological Society, Riga. (in Latvian) Avotins A. (2009): [Woodland (nocturnal) birds.] pp. 18-32 In: Kerus, V. (ed.): [Monitoring of Biodiversity in year 2009, section Monitoring of Birds.] Report to LVGMA. - Latvian Ornithological Society, Riga. (in Latvian) Bergmanis, U. (2009): [Lesser Spotted Eagle.] pp. 35-43 In: Kerus, V. (ed.): [Monitoring of Biodiversity in year 2009, section Monitoring of Birds.] Report to LVGMA. - Latvian Ornithological Society, Riga. (in Latvian) BirdLife International (2004): Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 12. - BirdLife International, Cambridge. European Commission (2005): Commission Decision of 13 January 2005 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region (2005/101/EC). -OJ L 40, 11.2.2005: 1-181. (available at http://eur-lex. europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:04 0:0001:0181:EN:PDF) Grandäns, G. (2013): Spring migration of Long-eared Owl Asio otus at Kolka, Latvia in 2011. pp. 5 In: OlehnoviCs D. (ed.): Proceedings of the 54th International Scientific Conference of Daugavpils University, 18-20 April 2012, Daugavpils, Latvia. - Daugavpils Universitätes Akademiskais apgäds „Saule". Helbig, A.J., Seibold, I., Kocum, A., Liebers, D., Irwin, J., Bergmanis, U., Meyburg, B.-U., Scheller, W., Stubbe, M. & Bensch, S. (2005): Genetic differences and hybridization between greater and lesser spotted eagles (Accipitriformes: A. clanga, A. pomarina). -Journal of Ornithology 146 (3): 226-234. Kalväns, A. (2011): Changes in distribution and numbers of the Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) in Latvia. pp. 177 In: Fusani, L., Coppack, T. & Strazds, M. (eds.): Programme and Abstracts of the 8th Conference of the European Ornithologists' Union, 27-30 August 2011, Riga, Latvia. - Latvian Ornithological Society, Riga. Kazubiernis, J. (2007): [The monitoring of migratory birds and bats in year 2006.] Report to LVGMA. - Institute of Biology, University of Latvia, Riga. (in Latvian) Keiss, O. & Petersons, G. (2009): [The final report on monitoring of migratory birds and bats in year 2008.] Report to LVGMA. - Institute of Biology, University of Latvia, Riga. (in Latvian). KovAcs, A, Mammen, U.C. & Wernham, C.V. (2008): European monitoring for raptors and owls: state of the art and future needs. - Ambio 37 (6): 408-412. Kuze, J., Lipsbergs, J. & Bergmanis, U. (2010): [Recent news on research and nest protection of White-tailed Eagle in Latvia.] - Putni dabä 2010 (1/2): 10-19. (in Latvian) Latvijas putni (2013): [http://www.putni.lv], 15/5/2013. Lipsbergs, J. (2011): [What is going on with Eagle Owl Bubo bubo in Latvia?] - Putni dabä 2011 (1): 6-19. (in Latvian) Lopez-Lopez, P., Benavent-Corai, J. & Garoa-Ripolles, C. (2008): Geographical assemblages of European raptors and owls. - Acta Oecologica 34 (2): 252-257. Mammen, U. (2003): No Chance of European Monitoring of Raptors and Owls? - Ornis Hungarica 12/13: 1-2. Meyburg, B.-U., Scheller, W. & Bergmanis, U. (2004): Home range size, Habitat utilisation, Hunting and Time budgets of Lesser Spotted Eagles Aquila pomarina with regard to Disturbance and Landscape Fragmentation. pp. 615-635 In: Chancellor, R.D. & Meyburg, B.-U. (eds.): Raptors Worldwide. - WWGBP/MME, Budapest. Meyburg, B.-U., Bergmanis, U., Langgemach, T., Graszynski, K., Hinz, A., Börner, I., Sömmer, P. & Meyburg, C. (2011): Experience with the hacking method for support of the Lesser Spotted Eagle (Aquila pomarina) population in Germany. pp. 61 In: Fusani, L., Coppack, T. & Strazds, M. (eds.): Programme and Abstracts of the 8th Conference of the European Ornithologists' Union, 27-30 August 2011, Riga, Latvia. - Latvian Ornithological Society, Riga. Reihmanis, J. (2010): The effect of topography on spatial pattern and directional preference of selected diurnal non-passerine species during spring migration: visual study at bottleneck site of European Union importance - Slitere Nature Reserve, Latvia. In: 2nd Conference on Bird Migration and Global Change: movement ecology and conservation strategies, 17-20 March 2010, Strait of Gibraltar, Algeciras, Spain. Scheller, W., Bergmanis, U., Meyburg, B.-U., Furkert, B., Knack, A. & Röper, S. (2001): [Home range size, habitat utilisation and time budgets of Lesser Spotted Eagles (Aquila pomarina).] -Acta ornithoecologica 4 (2/3/4): 75-236. (in German) Strazds, M. & Grinblate, S. (2009): Preliminary report about the impact of DDT and other pesticides on breeding success of Black Stork in Latvia. pp. 83 In: Keller, V. & O'Halloran, J. (eds.): Abstracts of the 7th Conference of the European Ornithologists' Union, 21-26 August 2009, Zurich, Switzerland. - Swiss Ornithological Institute, Sempach. Väli, Ü., Dombrovski, V., Treinys, R., Bergmanis, U., Daroczi, S.J., Dravecky, M., Ivanovski, V., Lontkowski, J., Maciorowski, G., Meyburg, B.-U., Mizera, T., Zeitz, R. & Ellegren, H. (2010): Widespread hybridization between the Greater Spotted Eagle Aquila clanga and the Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila pomarina (Aves: Accipitriformes) in Europe. - Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 100 (3): 725-736. Arrived / Prispelo: 27. 3. 2013 Accepted / Sprejeto: 1. 7. 2013 a preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Malta Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic na Malti Edward Bonavia Malta Raptor Coordinator, 12 Dar Il-Poeta, Triq Hal Xluq, Siggiewi, SGW 1440, Malta, e—mail: edbon@maltanet.net A total of 31 species of raptors have been recorded in Malta, nine of which are vagrants (Maltese Rarities Committee unpubl.). Most raptors are seen on spring (mainly from mid March to mid May) and on autumn (mainly in September and October) migration (Sammut & Bonavia 2004). Only two species ofraptors have ever bred in Malta — the Kestrel Falco tinnunculus and the Peregrine Falcon F. peregrinus (Sultana et al. 2011). Both, however, are rare and irregular. Main players BirdLife Malta is the only organisation in Malta that monitors raptors. Founded in 1962 as Malta Ornithological Society (MOS), local birders have been monitoring raptors voluntarily since then. Since the mid-1990s, monitoring of migrating raptors was undertaken more systematically by a handful of birders both in the spring (mid-March to mid-May) and autumn (mid-August to end October). In the past few years, BirdLife Malta organised raptor camps both in the spring and autumn and a large number of international birders and activists take part to monitor raptor migration and illegal raptor hunting. BirdLife Malta is a partner of BirdLife International. Throughout Raptor Camp we exchange data through e-mails with "Lega Italiana Protezione Uccelli" (LIPU, the Italian BirdLife Partner), which monitors raptors across the Straits of Messina. Raptor camps are sponsored by the following BirdLife Partners: Swedish Ornithological Society (SOF), "Vogelbescherming Nederland", and Nature And Biodiversity Conservation Union (NABU, Germany) and therefore we collaborate closely with these organisations, too. Throughout the camps BirdLife Malta also collaborates closely with the Committee Against Bird Slaughter (CABS), which also organises bird protection camps twice a year in Malta. All raptor data are currently inputted by individual birders in the web-based "Worldbirds Malta" database run by BirdLife Malta and used to compile systematic lists published in Il-Merill (e.g. Bonavia et al. 2010), the only scientific ornithological journal in Malta, published by BirdLife Malta. National coverage The author has been appointed as the national raptor coordinator by BirdLife Malta. There is no formal national network for monitoring raptors currently in Malta, as there are only a few birders on the Islands. Due to a lack of human and financial resources in Malta, monitoring is carried out only voluntarily by a few birders and thus only on individuals' initiatives. The author has monitored daily the best site for raptor migration in the autumn (Buskett) since the mid-1990s. Contrary to the autumn, raptors migrate on a broad front in spring, and therefore a large number of raptors are not recorded. Due to the small number of birders present in Malta there is a tendency that all birders end up at the same location and usually monitor raptors only in the afternoon. Thus, a large number of raptors migrating over Malta both in the spring and autumn are not being recorded. Key species Key migrant raptor species include Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus (mid Apr—May and Sep—Oct), Black Kite Milvus migrans (Mar—Apr and Aug—Sep), Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus (Mar—May and end Aug— Oct), Pallid Harrier C. macrourus (Mar—Apr and Sep— Oct), Montagu's Harrier C. pygargus (Apr and end Aug—Sep), Osprey Pandion haliaetus (Mar—May and end Aug—Oct), Lesser Kestrel F. naumanni (Mar—Apr and Sep—Oct), Kestrel (Mar—Apr and mid Sep—early Nov), Red-Footed Falcon F. vespertinus (mid Apr— May), Hobby F. subbuteo (Apr—May and Sep—Oct), and Eleonora's Falcon F. eleonorae (Apr—Oct). The major site monitored in Malta is Buskett (Figure 1), where a large number of raptors congregate in autumn. Buskett comprises a small wooded area and a valley, surrounded by hills, in the western part of Malta. At 220 m a.s.l. it provides a fine view over the northern and eastern half of the island. It is one of the few wooded areas in the islands and thus attractive to raptors, combining an area of relatively high land (ideal for the formation of thermals) with a sheltered and reasonably safe roosting place. Between 2,000 and 4,000 raptors are seen annually from Buskett in the autumn, the majority being Honey Buzzards, Marsh Harriers, Kestrels and Hobbies (Sammut & Bonavia 2004). From 2008 onwards, 1—2 pairs of Kestrels started breeding in Gozo (Sultana et al. 2011) and possibly a pair of Peregrine Falcons along the Southwestern cliffs Figure 1: Raptor camp participants together with local birdwatchers counting birds of prey migrating over Buskett, Malta Slika 1: Ornitologi in udeleženci tabora za monitoring ptic roparic med štetjem ujed, selečih se prek Busketta na Malti of Malta in the last two years. A few Kestrels winter in the Maltese Islands, mainly in Gozo (Sultana & Gauci 1982). Key issues and threats The most critical issue facing raptor conservation in Malta is illegal hunting. The problem is not only a local issue, but has international ramifications as well, as it has a serious impact on the migratory raptors of Europe. Species listed on the global IUCN Red List such as Pallid Harrier are killed regularly and Ospreys carrying rings from Scandinavian countries are frequently shot down. Even in the case of species, which are not threatened at a global or European level, such as the Honey Buzzard or Marsh Harrier, if birds migrating over Malta are coming from specific countries where the species is at a critically low level, then the death of even a few of these birds could cause their extirpation from that country (Raine 2011). In Malta, there are currently around 10,000 hunters. With such a small landmass, Malta has one of the highest numbers of hunters in Europe with a density of 50 hunters per km square (Raine 2011). Illegal poachers shoot at raptors as these are relatively easy targets especially when trying to roost. Although both the local law and the EU Birds Directive prohibit the shooting of raptors in Malta, law enforcement is poor. The Administrative Law Enforcement (ALE), the police unit responsible for dealing with wildlife crime, is under-staffed and under-resourced. This is caused primarily by a lack of priority given to the issue by the Maltese Government. All this means that illegal hunters are unlikely to be caught committing their crimes. Even when apprehended, hunters often get laid off with light sentences or even simply warnings or probationary sentences (Raine 2011). The low number of raptors that breed and winter here are a direct result of illegal hunting together with minimal protection of habitats in Malta. There are very few reserves and there is a lot of disturbance in most areas thus making it difficult for raptors to breed or winter here. While the level of illegal hunting has been reduced in the past few years, thanks to BirdLife Malta and raptor camp volunteers, illegal hunting on the island is still at a level which shocks and horrifies visitors from overseas (Raine 2011). Out of the 337 shooting incidents in 2010, 47.7% were targeted at raptors involving 12 species. BirdLife Malta receives an average of 40 injured raptors annually in recent years. International networking is necessary especially to curb the illegal hunting. Pressure is needed from other European countries to end this illegal raptor hunting once and for all. As seen, illegal hunting in Malta can have a significant impact on international conservation projects. Even after joining the European Union in 2004, Malta has continued to allow hunting in spring, despite the fact that it is not permitted under the Birds directive. Human and financial resources are needed to monitor the migration of raptors both in the spring and autumn and also to monitor illegal hunting. Raptor camps are the ideal platform for this and if these were to be extended to a longer period and a larger number of participants were to attend we will safeguard a larger number of raptors. A proper Wildlife Crime unit in Malta and a rehabilitation centre to treat injured raptors are also urgently required. Strengths and weaknesses The main strength of monitoring for raptors in Malta lies in the fact that although there are only a handful of birders in Malta they are well qualified in identifying and spotting raptors. There are also several dedicated and motivated people (both local and foreign) to safeguard European raptors and volunteer to support raptor camps. Furthermore, all raptor data are easily accessible. On the other hand, the main weaknesses include lack of financial resources for monitoring raptors, which means that everything is done on a voluntary basis. Additionally, there are limited human resources (no more than 15 active birders) and, finally, rampant illegal hunting of raptors is practised, causing a lot of disturbance when raptors are monitored. There are a number of gaps in monitoring for raptors in Malta. These include the difficulty in estimating the actual raptor numbers that migrate over Malta. Monitoring is carried out only in a few areas and mainly in afternoons due to work commitments by local birders. In spring, sites are monitored depending on weather conditions, thus no systematic monitoring is done at any particular site for the entire spring season. In autumn, only one site (Buskett) is well covered. Other sites need to be monitored for the whole period. No regular observations are made in the sister island of Gozo. There is, therefore, a gap in the actual numbers of raptors that migrate over the Maltese Islands. An additional gap is that illegal hunting is monitored well only during raptor camps thanks to the international participants. They are present for only a short period (two weeks in spring and two weeks in autumn) and can cover just a few places. Thus there is a gap in the actual number of raptors being shot down. The main challenges include human and financial resources. There are only a few birders in Malta, who can monitor only a small fraction of the islands, and everything is voluntary as there is no financial help. Monitoring is done by individuals' own free will and therefore time allotted for raptor monitoring is quite restricted. Law enforcement is not helping in reducing illegal raptor hunting. Priorities, capacity-building There are several priorities to strengthen monitoring for raptors in Malta. These include having a better picture of the actual amounts of raptors that migrate over the Maltese Islands during both spring and autumn migration. More foreign birders are needed to help few local birders to monitor key sites. Additional documentation of illegal hunting is required to improve illegal raptor hunting in the near future. Participation at Raptor camps has to be increased and more help is needed to organize longer-lasting camps (both financially and in terms of human resources). Finally, ecotourism should be promoted so that tourists start visiting Malta as a raptor watching destination. The following are the main capacity-building needs: — implementation of an interpretation centre at Buskett, — establishment of new nature reserves offering protection for raptor species, — start-up of a raptor rehabilitation centre to treat injured raptors, — more human resources required, — more financial resources required, — more pressure from EU governments to the EU to curb illegal hunting and spring hunting in Malta, — more raptor enthusiasts participating at raptor camps. Povzetek Malteško otočje leži na pomembni selitveni poti mnogih ptic roparic. Selitev teh ptic na otočju redno spremljajo že od leta 1962, ko je bila ustanovljena organizacija BirdLife Malta. Žal pa zaradi pomanjkanja človeških in finančnih virov, a tudi redkih zavarovanih območij na otočju sistematični monitoring poteka le na eni lokaciji (Buskett), in še to zgolj v jesenskem času. Avtor članka tu opravlja dnevni monitoring že od sredine 90-ih. V zadnjih nekaj letih BirdLife Malta redno organizira tako spomladanske kot jesenske tabore za monitoring selitve ptic roparic pa tudi nezakonitih lovskih dejavnosti, pri čemer ji pomagajo tuji prostovoljni aktivisti in ornitologi. Ptice roparice seveda ne privlačijo le opazovalcev ptic, marveč tudi divje lovce, kar pomeni, da je na različnih malteških lokacijah žal še vedno ustreljenih veliko teh ptic. Vsi podatki o pticah roparicah se vnašajo v bazo podatkov, ki je osnova za pripravo letnih sistematičnih seznamov, ki so nato objavljeni v znanstveni ornitološki reviji organizacije BirdLife Malta. V tem kratkem prispevku njen avtor poleg monitoringa ptic roparic našteva vrsto prednosti in slabosti pa tudi potreb po krepitvi zmogljivosti, nujnih za izboljšanje monitoringa na Malti. References Bonavia, E., Borg, J.J., Coleiro, C., Raine, A. & Sultana, J. (2010): Systematic List 2000-2005. - Il-Merill 32: 55-109. Raine, A. (2011): A Photographic Guide to the Birds of Malta. - Langford Press, Peterborough. Sammut, M. & Bonavia, E. (2004): Autumn raptor migration over Buskett, Malta. - British Birds 97 (7): 318-322. Sultana, J. & Gauci, C. (1982): A new Guide to the Birds of Malta. - The Ornithological Society, Malta Sultana, J., Borg, J.J., Gauci, C & Falzon, V. (2011): The Breeding Birds of Malta. - Birdlife Malta, Malta. Arrived / Prispelo: 27. 3. 2013 Accepted / Sprejeto: 1. 7. 2013 a preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Portugal Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic na Portugalskem Luis Palma CIBIO Research Centre in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources, Universidade do Porto, Campus de Vairäo, PT-4485-661 Vairäo, Portugal, e-mail: luis.palma@cibio.up.pt Portugal has a diverse assemblage of diurnal raptor and owl species, made up of the majority of species that occur in the Iberian Peninsula. 22 diurnal raptors and six owl species are accounted for as regular breeders, with a few others wintering or occurring as migrants or vagrants. Some of the breeding species are especially noteworthy, such as the Spanish Imperial Eagle Aquila adalberti, which is currently building up its numbers as a breeding bird after ca. 30 years of extinction as a breeder in Portugal, and the Bonelli's Eagle A. fasciata, whose fast growing tree-nesting population already sums about 100 pairs in the south of the country. Most of the raptors populations are currently recovering after a period of general decline during the 20th century. Only one species went extinct recently as a breeder, the Osprey Pandion haliaetus, but is now being reintroduced. Main players There are four main types of actors performing raptor and owl monitoring: (1) people working for environmental agencies and Natural Parks (involved in the management of protected areas and endangered species); (2) people working for private companies (carrying out EIA - environmental impact assessment studies, especially of wind farms, power lines and dams); (3) members of environmental NGOs (involved in EIA and conservation projects); (4) academic researchers. As for the latter, monitoring has been part of some long-term scientific projects, namely of the Bonelli's Eagle tree-nesting population in the south of the country, and of shorter academic studies (BSc, MSc and PhD theses) covering several species such as the Eagle Owl Bubo bubo, the Bonelli's Eagle, the Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus or the Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni among others. These studies have been carried out within universities and research centres, e.g. the Universities of the Algarve, Evora, Lisbon, Tras-os-Montes e Alto Douro and Porto, and the CIBIO (Research Centre in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources). Additionally, tree-nesting Bonelli's Eagles were also widely monitored during the 4.5 years of a LIFE Nature project (2008-2011), coordinated by NGO "Centro de Estudos da Avifauna Iberica". Some collaboration has been established with Spain, concerning both state entities and NGOs, on the monitoring of cliff-nesting species (vultures, large eagles and Eagle Owls) in border areas, and of some endangered priority species (Spanish Imperial Eagle, Bonelli's Eagle and Black Vulture Aegypius monachus). Bonelli's Eagle research has been the subject of substantial scientific collaboration between Portugal, Spain and France, covering ecological, demographic and genetic issues. In turn, the Noctua-Portugal Programme, a monitoring scheme of owls and nightjars, coordinated by GTAN-SPEA (working group on nocturnal birds of the Portuguese Society for the Study of Birds), follows the same methodology of Noctua-Spain, allowing data to be analysed altogether for the Iberian Peninsula. Out of Europe, collaboration existed in the recent past with Cape Verde on the monitoring of the country's Osprey population. Main users of the data obtained from monitoring are officials of the Institute for Nature Conservation and Biodiversity (including protected areas) and other environmental agencies for e.g. protected areas management, emergency conservation measures, evaluation of infrastructure projects and issue of permits (construction, hunting, recreation). Also NGOs (e.g. Quercus, LPN - Liga para a Protec^äo da Natureza, CEAI - Centro de Estudos da Avifauna Iberica, ATN - Associa^äo Transumancia e Natureza) have used monitoring data for intervention in conservation emergencies and for the planning and development of conservation projects, as well as private environmental companies (e.g. STRIX, Bio3, Mäe d'Agua, Oriolus, Profico Ambiente) for the EIA and monitoring of infrastructure and development projects. Big companies, e.g. of the energy and industrial paper pulp sectors, which need up-to-date data on the distribution and breeding condition of species of higher conservation rank to incorporate impact preventive and mitigation measures on their production and management schemes are also regular users of monitoring data. Research institutes (e.g. CCMAR — Centre of Marine Sciences, CIBIO) Universities (e.g. Algarve, Evora, Tras-os Montes e Alto Douro) and scientific societies (SPEA) also use monitoring in academic, research and conservation projects. For example, under the scope of long-term multidisciplinary research on tree-nesting Bonelli's Eagles, monitoring of the population was comprehensively and continuously carried out from 1991 to 2010. Only from 2011 onwards has it been patchily carried out. Also, both within the scope of research and conservation initiatives, Lesser Kestrel is another species that has been the object of regular monitoring since 1994. National coverage Traditionally, monitoring has been mostly restricted to areas with the richest cliff-nesting raptor communities or with top endangered species (e.g. Black Vulture, Egyptian Vulture, Spanish Imperial Eagle, Bonelli's Eagle, Lesser Kestrel). This has occurred mainly in areas of the north-east and central east along the Spanish border, and in the south-west uplands as well as in the open lowlands of the south-east. However, there is no formal national coordination or national network for raptor monitoring in Portugal. Common raptor and owl species have been monitored in a few academic and research studies, and in some EIA studies. In this kind of studies, the Eagle Owl has been one of the most often surveyed species. Additionally, the Common Bird Census carried out by SPEA since 2004, although not specifically aimed at raptors and owls despite being a countrywide survey, has obtained some information on common raptor species like Black-winged Kite Elanus caeruleus, Black Kite Milvus migrans, Buzzard Buteo buteo, Booted Eagle A. pennata, Kestrel F. tinnunculus and Little Owl Athene noctua. Currently, the only countrywide survey is the above mentioned owl monitoring scheme of GTAN-SPEA, which started in 2010. Another SPEA working group (especially dealing with the monitoring and conservation of Bonelli's Eagle in highly urbanised habitats) has recently expanded fieldwork to include common forest diurnal raptor species counts in suburban areas. SPEA has also regularly monitored Buzzards in the Azores and Madeira archipelagos, as well as Barn Owl Tyto alba in Madeira in partnership with Madeira National Park. In recent years, monitoring has been carried out by some private environmental companies within the impact assessment of wind farms, infrastructures and development projects throughout mountainous areas of the western part of the country. A long-term study of autumn raptor migration in Sagres area (southwestern corner of the country) has been undertaken almost annually since 1990, at first organized by the local Natural Park staff, then by SPEA (1996— 2001) and from 2005 onwards by STRIX, a private environmental company, linked with impact monitoring of local wind farms. In summary, despite diurnal raptor and owl monitoring has been often though patchily carried out, Portugal lacks a long-term comprehensive and countrywide monitoring programme encompassing all of the country's raptor and owl species. Key species and key issues The key species addressed by monitoring for raptors in Portugal are primarily endangered species (Black Vulture, Egyptian Vulture, Spanish Imperial Eagle, Bonelli's Eagle, Lesser Kestrel), and secondly the rarer cliff-nesting species (besides Egyptian Vulture and Bonelli's Eagle, these include Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus, Golden Eagle A. chrysaetos, Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus and Eagle Owl). Additionally, owls in general have been the aim of an increasing monitoring effort in Portugal during the last five years. Threats addressed by monitoring are the potential impact of man-made structures (wind farms, power lines, dams, roads) in mortality, habitat loss and breeding impairment. Commonly, this monitoring has been carried out by technicians working for small private companies dedicated to EIA. In turn, the impacts of agriculture, forestry and hunting on nesting habitat degradation and breeding disturbance have been key issues addressed by monitoring within scientific studies or conservation projects (e.g. LIFE Nature projects) that target a few species, namely the Bonelli's Eagle. International networking could be beneficial to the countrywide long-term monitoring of priority species, especially of those tree-nesting species with wide and sparse distributions (e.g. Spanish Imperial Eagle, tree-nesting Bonelli's Eagle), that despite being very important for conservation purposes is logistically difficult and expensive. Carrying out regular and coordinated Iberian censuses of these and other endangered species such as Egyptian and Black Vultures would also be an important measure. International collaboration would be most relevant in exchanging information and expertise with Spain, concerning all species. Additionally, international networking might help raising funds and get manpower support. Strengths and weaknesses The main strength of monitoring in Portugal is the young biologists working for private companies or NGOs, who are fairly well trained (although in small numbers) for raptor monitoring. However, those working in private companies are mostly constrained to environmental assessment work and have few opportunities to participate in research or conservation monitoring. However, the number of available skilled observers could rise with some training effort. The main weakness is the lack of funding for wide range and especially long-term monitoring, and the lack of strategic planning and coordination. The lack of well-established monitoring methodologies is also noteworthy. Strong and coherent coordination and leadership could be relevant in establishing a comprehensive raptor monitoring scheme in Portugal. Some major gaps in monitoring can be identified, among them the follow-up of the recovery of Spanish Imperial Eagle that although carried out since 2003 still does not cover the whole potential habitat and is ill-coordinated despite its conservation relevance and urgency. The population monitoring of the common raptor and owl species, as well as of less common and less known forest species (e.g. Short-toed Eagle Circaetus gallicus, Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus, Booted Eagle, Long-eared Owl Asio otus, Scops Owl Otus scops) is another major gap throughout the country. However, even the better monitored species can suffer the consequences of the current economic crisis in the country. Almost the entire western half of northern and central Portugal, a highly populated area, is almost unknown regarding the raptor community. Yet, some on-going regional studies have recently revealed fairly high densities of some species, including of previously under-detected ones such as Goshawk Accipiter gentilis. The most ill-studied wide range threats are those linked with the increasing large scale forest degradation throughout the country; in the north and the centre, the extensive tree cover deterioration caused by frequent and recurrent wildfires; in the south, the high mortality rates observed throughout the extensive areas of oak parkland and forest (especially of Cork Oak Quercus suber) putatively driven by climatic change coupled with unsound understorey management, and the increasing mortality caused by an introduced Pinewood Nematode Bursaphelenchus xylophilus on Maritime Pine Pinus pinaster stands. Other threats presumably such as electrocution, collision with power lines, loss of habitat by wind farms, persecution, and poisoning seem of moderate global impact at present but are, nevertheless, worth of reference. Furthermore, a general drawback is upstream of the threats, the great lack of scientific background knowledge of the population dynamics, ecological requirements and resource availability for most raptors and owls in the country. Among the weaknesses and challenges for which Portugal might benefit from international sharing of best practice we can point out raptor conservation measures within forestry and game management. Priorities, capacity-building Fund raising, uniform methodology, strategic planning and national coordination are priority issues to strengthen monitoring for raptors in the country. Enhanced initiative, expertise and fund-raising ability could also help improving monitoring capacity in Portugal. The main capacity building needs identified in raptor monitoring in Portugal are the training of technicians and nature wardens of environmental agencies and protected areas and field assistants on monitoring methods and techniques, as well as a well-established model for coordination of monitoring efforts, i.e. governmental vs. academic vs. nongovernmental. Acknowledgements: I am indebted to Alexandre Leitao, Alice Gama, Andreia Dias, Barbara Fraguas, Carlos Pacheco, Jorge Vicente, Nuno Onofre, Pedro Rocha, Rita Ferreira and Rui Louren^o for their most useful contribution. Acknowledgements are also due to Rui Louren^o, Luka Božič (editor) and an anonymous referee for their critical revision of the manuscript. Supporting bibliography Aguiar, A., Lopes, A.L., Pimenta, M. & Lms, A. (2010): Owls (Strigiformes) in Parque Nacional Peneda-Geres (PNPG), Portugal. — Nova Acta Cientffica Compostelana (Bioloxfa) 19: 83—92. Beest, van F., Bremer, van den L., Boer, de W.F., Heitkönig, I.M.A. & Monteiro, A.E. (2008): Population dynamics and spatial distribution of griffon vultures (Gyps fulvus) in Portugal. — Bird Conservation International 18 (2): 102—117. Beja, P. & Palma, L. (2008): Limitations of methods to test density-dependent fecundity hypothesis. — Journal of Animal Ecology 77 (2): 335—340. Canario, F., Leitäo, A.H. & Tome, R. (2012): Predation Attempts by Short-eared and Long-eared Owls on Migrating Songbirds Attracted to Artificial Lights. — Journal of Raptor Research 46 (2): 232—234. Capelo, M., Onofre, N., Rego, F., Monzon, A., Faria, P. & Cortez, P. (2008): [Modelling the Presence of Birds of Prey in Maritime Pine Stands in Central and North of Portugal.] — Silva Lusitana 16 (1): 45—62. (in Portuguese, English summary) Cardia, P., Fraguas, B., Pais, M., Guillemaud, T., Palma, L., Cancela, M.L., Ferrand, N. & Wink, M. (2000): Preliminary genetic analysis of some Western Palearctic populations of Bonelli's Eagle, Hieraaetus fasciatus. pp. 845-851 In: Chancellor, R.D. & Meyburg, B.-U. (eds.): Raptors at Risk. Proceedings of the 5th World Conference on Birds of Prey and Owls, 4-11 August 1998, Midrand, Johannesburg, South Africa - World Working Group on Birds of Prey and Owls, London. Catry, I., Alcazar, R., Franco, A.M.A. & Sutherland, W.J. (2009): Identifying the effectiveness and constraints of conservation interventions: A case study of the endangered lesser kestrel. - Biological Conservation 142 (11): 2782-2791. Catry, I., Dias, M.P., Catry, T., Afanasyev, V., Fox, J., Franco, A.M.A. & Sutherland, W.J. (2011): Individual variation in migratory movements and winter behaviour of Iberian Lesser Kestrels Falco naumanni revealed by geolocators. - Ibis 153 (1): 154-164. Catry, I., Franco, A.M.A. & Sutherland, W.J. (2011): Adapting conservation efforts to face climate change: Modifying nest-site provisioning for lesser kestrels. -Biological Conservation 144 (3): 1111-1119. Catry, I., Franco, A.M.A. & Sutherland, W.J. (2012): Landscape and weather determinants of prey availability: implications for the Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni. - Ibis 154 (1): 111-123. Catry, I., Amano, T., Franco, A.M.A. & Sutherland, W.J. (2012): Influence of spatial and temporal dynamics of agricultural practices on the lesser kestrel. - Journal of Applied Ecology 49 (1): 99-108. Catry, I., Franco, A.M.A., Rocha, P., Alcazar, R., Reis, S., Cordeiro, A., Ventim, R., Teodosio, J. & Moreira, F. (2013): Foraging habitat quality constrains effectiveness of artificial nest-site provisioning in reversing population declines in a colonial cavity nester. -PLoS ONE 8 (3): e58320. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0058320 CTA-PEAR (2009): [Emergency Plan for three rupicolous birds of the National Park Douro Internacional. Final report.] - ALDEIA. (available online at www.aldeia.org) (in Portuguese) Equipa Atlas (2008): [Atlas of breeding birds in Portugal (1999-2005).] - Instituto da Conservafäo da Natureza e da Biodiversidade, Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves, Parque Natural da Madeira & Secretaria Regional do Ambiente e do Mar. - Assfrio & Alvim, Lisboa. (in Portuguese, English summary) Figueira, R., Tavares, P.C., Palma, L., Beja, P. & Sergio, C. (2009): Application of indicator kriging to the complementary use of bioindicators at three trophic levels. - Environmental Pollution 157 (1): 2689-2696. Figueiredo, D. (coord.) 2005: [Monitoring of natural heritage of Pedrogäo reservoir.] Unpublished report. -University of Evora. (available online at www.edia.pt) (in Portuguese) Franco, A.M.A., Palmeirim, J.M. & Sutherland, W.J. (2007): A method for comparing effectiveness of research techniques in conservation and applied ecology. - Biological Conservation 134 (1): 96-105. Grilo, C., Sousa, J., Ascensäo, F., Matos, H., Leitäo, I., Pinheiro, P., Costa, M., Bernardo, J., Reto, D., Louren^o, R., Santos-Reis, M. & Revilla, E. (2012): Individual spatial responses towards roads: implications for mortality risk. - PLoS ONE 7 (9): e43811. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0043811 GTAN-SPEA (2012): [Programme Report NOCTUA Portugal (2009/10-2011/12).] Unpublished report. -Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves, Lisboa. (available online at spea.pt) (in Portuguese) HERNANDEZ-MArfAs, A., REAL, J., MoLEON, M., PALMA, L., Sanchez-Zapata, J.A., Pradel, R., Carrete, M., Gil-Sanchez, J.M., Beja, P., Balbon^n, J., VincentMartin, N., Ravayrol, A., BeNtez, J.R., Arroyo, B., Fernandez, C., Ferreiro, E. & Garqa, J. (2013): From local monitoring to a broad-scale viability assessment: a case study for the Bonelli's Eagle in western Europe. -Ecological Monographs 83 (2): 239-261. Louren^o, R. (2006): The food habits of Eurasian eagle-owls in Southern Portugal. - Journal of Raptor Research 40 (4): 297-300. Louren^o, R.F., Basto, M.P., Cangarato, R., Coelho, S., Alvaro, M.C., Oliveira, V. & Pais, M.C. (2002): The owl (Order Strigiformes) assemblage in the Northeastern Algarve. - Airo 12: 25-33. Louren^o, R., Abelho, B., Cangarato, R., Pedroso, R., Santos, E., Pais, M.C. & Figueiredo, D. (2006): [Results of using car transects for census of diurnal raptors in southern Portugal.] 5th SPEA Ornithological Congress, 23 - 26 March 2006, Oeiras, Portugal. (in Portuguese) Martins, S., Freitas, R., Palma, L. & Beja, P. (2011): Diet of breeding ospreys in the Cape Verde archipelago, Northwestern Africa. - Journal of Raptor Research 45 (3): 244-251. Meirinho, A., Leal, A., Marques, A.T., Fagundes, A.I., Sampaio, H., Costa, J. & Leitäo, D. (2013): [The state of the common birds in Portugal 2011: Common Birds Census project report.] Unpublished report. -Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves, Lisboa. (in Portuguese) (available online at spea.pt) Mira, S., Arnaud-Haond, S., Palma, L., Cancela, M.L. & Beja, P. (in press): Large-scale population genetic structure in Bonelli's Eagle Aquila fasciata. - Ibis 155 (3): 485-498. Moleon, M., Sanchez-Zapata, J.A., Real, J., Garqa-Charton, J.A., Gil-Sanchez, J.M., Palma, L., Bautista, J. & Bayle, P. (2009): Large scale spatio-temporal shifts in the diet of a predator mediated by an emerging infectious disease of its main prey. - Journal of Biogeography 36 (8): 1502-1515. Moleon, M., Sebastian-Gonzalez, E., Sanchez-Zapata, J.A., Real, J., Mathias, M.P., Gil-Sanchez, J.M., Bautista, J., Palma, L., Bayle, P., Guimaräes, Jr. P.R. & Beja, P. (2012): Changes in intrapopulation resource use patterns of an endangered raptor in response to a disease-mediated crash in prey abundance. - Journal of Animal Ecology 81 (6): 1154-1160. Monteiro, A., Pacheco, C. & Santos, N. (2009): [Population trends, distribution, and conservation concerns of vultures in Portugal.] pp. 200-213 In: Donazar, J.A., Margalida, A. & Campion, D. (eds.): Vultures, feeding stations and sanitary legislation: a conflict and its consequences from the perspective of conservation biology. Munibe, Suppl. 29. - Aranzadi, Donostia - San Sebastian. (in Spanish) Onofre, N., Capelo, M., Faria, P., Teixeira, F., Cortez, P., Blanco, H., Conde^o, V., Cruz, C., Pinheiro, A., Rosa, G., Claro, J., Venade, D., Almeida, J., Pais, M., Safara, J., Cangarato, R., Pe^a, C. & Pereira, D. (1999): [Abundance estimates of diurnal raptors in agricultural and forest habitats in Portugal.] pp. 177-179 In: Beja, P., Catry, P. & Moreira, F. (eds.): Actas do II Congresso de Ornitologia da Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves. - SPEA, Faro. (in Portuguese) Palma, L. (1985): The present situation of birds of prey in Portugal. pp. 3-14 In: Newton, I. & Chancellor, R.D. (eds.): Conservation Studies on Raptors. ICBP Technical Publication No. 5. - ICBP, Cambridge. Palma, L. & Beja, P. (1994): Autumm migration of raptors through Sagres (SW Portugal). pp. 179-185 In: Meyburg, B.-U., & Chancellor, R.D. (eds.): Raptor Conservation Today: proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Birds of Prey and Owls, 10-17 May 1992, Berlin, Germany. - WWWGBP, Berlin & Pica Press, London. Palma, L., Pais, M.C. & Fraguas, B. (1996): Status and distribution of Bonelli's Eagle (Hieraaetus fasciatus) in Portugal. Unpublished. 2ndInternational Conference on Raptors, 2-5 October 1996, Urbino, Italia. Palma, L., Onofre, N. & Pombal, E. (1999): Revised distribution and status of diurnal birds of prey in Portugal. - Avocetta 23 (2): 3-18. Palma, L., Mira, S., Cardia, P. & Beja, P. (2001): Sexing Bonelli's eagle nestlings: morphometrics versus molecular techniques. - Journal of Raptor Research 35 (3): 187193. Palma, L., Ferreira, J., Cangarato, R., Pinto, P.V. (2004): Current status of the Osprey in the Cape Verde Islands. -Journal of Raptor Research 38 (2): 141-147. Palma, L., Beja, P., Onofre, N., Pais, M.C., Louren^o, R., Coelho, S. & janeiro, C. (2004): [PMO 5.3. Monitoring of raptors in the area of Alqueva backwater.] - CEAI, Centro de Estudos de Avifauna Iberica, Evora. (available online at www.edia.pt) (in Portuguese) Palma, L., Beja, P., Tavares, P.C. & Monteiro, L.R. (2005): Spatial variation of mercury levels in nesting Bonelli's eagles from Southwest Portugal: effects of diet composition and prey contamination. - Environmental Pollution 134 (3): 549-557. Palma, L., Beja, P., Pais, M. & Cancela da Fonseca, L. (2006): Why do raptors take domestic prey? The case of Bonelli's eagles and pigeons. - Journal of Applied Ecology 43 (6): 1075-1086. Palma, L., Dias, A., Cangarato, R., Ferreira, R. & Carrapato, C. (2009): [Distribution and population status of Aquila fasciata south of the Tagus and Extremadura.] 6th SPEA Ornithological Congress & 4th Iberian Ornithological Congress, 5-8 December 2009, Elvas, Portugal. (in Portuguese) Palma, L., Dias, A., Cangarato, R., Carrapato, C., Ferreira, R., Pais, M.C. & Beja, P. (2009): An Exception to the Rule: The Fast Growing Tree-nesting Bonelli's Eagle (Aquila fasciata) Population of Southern Portugal. Annual conference of Raptor Research Foundation, 29 September-4 October 2009, Pitlochry, Scotland. Pires, N.M. (2008): The use of radar as a tool for studying bird migration and its role in environmental impact assessment - a pilot study in Portugal. MSc thesis. -Faculty of Sciences, University of Lisbon. Silva, C.C., Louren^o, R., Godinho, S., Gomes, E., Sabino-Marques, H., Medinas, D., Neves, V., Silva, C., Rabama, J.E. & Mira, A. (2012): Major roads have a negative impact on the Tawny Owl Strix aluco and the Little Owl Athene noctua populations. - Acta Ornithologica 47 (1): 47-54. Sousa, J., Reto, D., Filipe, J., Leitäo, I., Grilo, C., Ascensäo, F., Louren^o, R., Marques, A., Ferreira, D. & Santos-Reis, M. (2010): How Do Major Roads Affect Barn Owls? Distribution, Space Use, Food Source and Mortality. pp. 407-417 In: Wagner, P.J., Nelson, D. & Murray, E. (eds.): Adapting to change: proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, 13-17 September 2009, Duluth, Minnesota. - Center for Transportation and the Environment & North Carolina State University, Raleigh. (available at http://www.icoet.net/ ICOET_2009/09proceedings.asp) Tome R, Costa H, Leitäo D (1998): [The autumn migration of soaring birds in the Sagres region - results of the 1994.] - SPEA, Lisboa. (in Portuguese) Tome, R., Catry, P., Bloise, C. & Korpimäki, E. (2008): Breeding density and success, and diet composition of little owls Athene noctua in steppe-like habitats in Portugal. - Ornis Fennica 85: 22-32. Arrived / Prispelo: 27. 3. 2013 Accepted / Sprejeto: 1. 7. 2013 An overview of the most significant recent (1990—2012) raptor monitoring studies in European Russia Pregled najpomembnejših nedavnih (1990-2012) dejavnosti v okviru monitoringa ptic roparic v evropskem delu Rusije Vladimir Galushin Department of Zoology and Ecology, Moscow Pedagogical State University, Kibalchicha 6, RU— 129164 Moscow, Russia, e—mail: v-galushin@yandex.ru The avifauna of European Russia includes 47 breeding raptor species: 13 species of owls and 34 species of birds of prey (BirdLife International 2004). Population status and trends of the latter at the end of 20th century are shown in Appendix 1. Raptor studies in European Russia Raptor research, including long-term monitoring of their regional populations, does not evenly cover the entire European Russia. In the last two decades, regular studies covering all raptor species have been implemented in the following areas: Darwin Nature Reserve and its vicinities (1), north of Moscow (2), the Upper Don River (3) and the Northern Caucasus (4). Some irregular surveys and research covering only certain species have been carried out in the Murman (5) and Yamal (6) peninsulas, the Urals (7), Kaliningrad (8) and Smolensk (9) regions, the Middle Oka River (10), Kaluzhskie Zaseki Nature Reserve (11), the Volga River (12, 13, 15), the Central Chernozem (Black Soil) region (14), the Lower Don River (16), the North-Western Caucasus (17) and the Orenburg region (18). Within Darwin Nature Reserve (120 km2) near Rybinsk Reservoir at the Upper Volga (1) it was ascertained that 65 years after the reserve was established the number of rare raptors like the Osprey Pandion haliaetus and White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla increased gradually (up to 38—40 and 27—30 pairs, respectively), while populations of common species like the Buzzard Buteo buteo, Black Kite Mivus migrans, Kestrel Falco tinnunculus and harriers decreased owing to the total afforestation of their open hunting places (Kuznetsov & Babushkin 2006, Babushkin 2010). A model study and monitoring of the Kestrel, Long-eared Owl Asio otus and Short-eared Owl A. flammeus are being implemented within the area of 48 km2 some 100 km north of Moscow (2) annually from 1996 onwards. A number of owls sharply fluctuated from 0 to 41 (LeO) or even 0 to 63 (SeO) breeding pairs quite synchronously with the population dynamics of their major prey, specifically Common Voles Microtus arvalis (Volkov et al. 2009, Galushin & Sharikov 2011). The findings clearly indicate that myophagous predators are capable of wide annual movements in search of breeding places with high density of their favourite prey not only through open tundra and steppe as shown before (Galushin 1974), but within forest-agricultural landscape as well (Kostin et al. 1990, Kostin 2012). Long-term monitoring of raptors breeding within 50 km2 (including 3.2 km2 of forest fragments) of the Plushchan area along the west bank of the Upper Don River (3) has been carried out from 1992 onwards (Galushin et al. 2000, Zakharova 2003, Solovkov et al. 2009). The numbers of Goshawks Accipiter gentilis have increased (from 1 to 3 pairs); Buzzards (5—9 pairs), Sparrowhawks A. nisus (1—2 pairs) and Montagu's Harriers Circus pygargus (2—4 pairs) have been relatively stable, Black Kites have decreased in numbers (from 4 to 1 pair), one pair of Booted Eagle Aquila pennata and Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus nested irregularly, while the Hobby F. subbuteo and Figure 1: Map of recent raptor monitoring sites in European Russia (numbers correspond to those given beside the site names in the text) Slika 1: Zemljevid novej{ih lokacij za monitoring ptic roparic v evropskem delu Rusije ({tevilke lokacij so enake {tevilkam ob imenih lokacij v besedilu) Kestrel disappeared after 1999 resulting in predation by martens on their nest providers, i.e. Hooded Crows Corvus cornix and Magpies Pica pica. The Northern-Caucasus Plains (4) (180,000 km2) are inhabited by 28 raptor species, i.e. 21 Falconiformes and 7 Strigiformes. Eight of them have decreasing populations: Honey Buzzard, Black Kite, Long-legged Buzzard B. rufinus, Steppe Eagle A. nipalensis, Imperial Eagle A. heliaca, Peregrine Falcon F. peregrinus, Eagle Owl Bubo bubo and Short-eared Owl. Evident increasing populations are indicated for the following four species: Tawny Owl Strix aluco, Barn Owl Tyto alba, Goshawk and Sparrowhawk. Other 16 species have either stable or slightly increasing populations (Ilyukh & Khokhlov 2010). Major results of raptor research and monitoring are published in books (Karyakin 1998 & 2008, Rakhimov & Pavlov 1999, Ilyukh & Khokhlov 2010, Korepov & Borodin 2013) and in over 200 papers in conference proceedings and other paper collections, as well as in scientific journals Ornithologia (Moscow, Chief Editor V.M. Gavrilov), Zoological Journal (Moscow, Chief Editor Ju.I. Chernov), Strepet (Rostov on Don, Chief Editor V.P. Belik), published in Russian with English summaries, and bilingual (Russian and English) Raptors Conservation (Nizhniy Novgorod, Chief Editor I.V. Karyakin). They have also been discussed at the 4th (Penza, 2003), 5th (Ivanovo, 2008), and 6th (Krivoy Rog, Ukraine, 2012) conferences organized by the Working Group on Birds of Prey and Owls of North Eurasia and at other ornithological workshops and meetings. Questions raised by EURAPMON The data collected by raptor monitoring are practically used for their protection mostly by the federal and regional conservation organisations and societies first of all for the preparation and revision of Red Data Books at various levels, which comprise an important basis for the national and regional conservation legislation. Raptor specialists in Russia are in permanent contacts with our colleagues from EURAPMON as well as from Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Latvia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Finland, Poland, Germany, UK, Spain, Israel, Bulgaria, Serbia and many other countries. Co-ordination of the raptor research, monitoring and conservation is the major activity carried out by the Working Group on Birds of Prey and Owls of Northern Eurasia, which has been led from the very beginning of 1983 by Vladimir Galushin. The membership of this working group consists of about 100 persons, with over 20 specialists coordinating local activities for raptor research and monitoring in various regions. As already mentioned, raptor monitoring in Russia does not cover the entire country in its European part evenly, but is fragmented through separate regions. Local monitoring efforts usually concern all raptor species. At times, however, regional administrations mainly support monitoring of particular rare species for the preparation or revision of local Red Data Books. In such cases, major threats and conservation measures are the key issues. The most endangered raptors in Russia are large falcons, specifically the Saker Falcon F. cherrug and Gyrfalcon F. rusticulus, mostly due to illegal taking and falconry trade. Any international help in their study and, most of all, protection could be very valuable indeed. The major problem of raptor monitoring in Russia is a huge size of the country - European part of it is almost equal to Western and Central Europe combined. So, it is impossible to cover it by the existing professional ornithologists, while our birdwatchers are still few and less experienced at the same time. Therefore, participation of professionals and volunteers from other countries would be highly beneficial. Acknowledgements: We are thankful to well-known ornithologists like Pertti Saurola (Finland), Bernd-U. Meyburg (Germany), Janusz Sielicki (Poland), Maxim Gavrilyuk, Jury Milobog and Vitaly Vetrov (Ukraine), Vladimir Ivanovski and Valery Dombrovski (Belarus), Alexander Abuladze (Georgia), Evgeny Shergalin (Estonia, UK) and many others for the valuable exchange of experience. We hope this kind of joint efforts will continue to the benefit of raptors and raptorology. The author is also grateful to the referee and Luka Božič (editor) for useful corrections and amendments to the text. Povzetek Monitoring 47 gnezdečih ptic roparic (13 sov in 34 ujed) poteka na kakih 20 lokacijah v evropskem delu Rusije. Najpomembnejši in najrednejši monitoring opravljajo v (1) Darwinovem naravnem rezervatu (120 km2) v bližini zadrževalnika Ribinsk na Gornji Volgi, (2) v severnem delu moskovske oblasti, (3) ob Gornjem Donu z majhnimi gozdnimi zaplatami med kultiviranimi polji, in (4) v Severnem Kavkazu (180.000 km2), ki ga poseljuje 28 ptic roparic (21 vrst ujed in 7 vrst sov). Najpomembnejši rezultati, doseženi z raziskavami in monitoringom ptic roparic so bili v zadnjih 15 letih objavljeni v petih posebnih knjigah, v več kot 200 znanstvenih člankih, predstavljenih na treh različnih konferencah, posvečenih pticam roparicam (2003, 2008 in 2012), in na mnogih drugih srečanjih. Raziskave, monitoring in varstvo ptic roparic koordinira Delovna skupina za ujede in sove severne Evrazije, ki je bila ustanovljena leta 1983. References Babushkin, M.V. (2010): [Raptors of forest-lake areas at the Upper Volga river.] PhD thesis. - Moscow Pedagogical State University, Moscow. (in Russian) BirdLife International (2004): Birds in Europe: population estimates, trends and conservation status. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 12. - BirdLife International, Cambridge. Galushin, V.M. (1974): Synchronous fluctuations in populations of some raptors and their prey. - Ibis 116 (2): 127-134. Galushin, V.M. (2002): Small Falcons in European Russia: recent population status and trends. pp. 201 In: Yosef, R., Miller, M.L. & Pepler, D. (eds.): Raptors in the New Millenium. Proceedings of the World Conference on Birds of Prey & Owls "RAPTORS 2000", 2-8 April 2000, Eilat, Israel. - Israel International Birding & Research Center in Eilat, Israel. Galushin, V.M. (2005): [Adaptive strategies of raptors.] DS thesis. - Moscow Pedagogical State University, Moscow. (in Russian) Galushin, VM. (2007): [Adaptive strategies and communications of birds of prey.] pp. 326-338 In: Matrosov V.L. (ed.): Scientific proceedings of Moscow Pedagogical State University. Physics, Mathematics and Natural Sciences. (in Russian) Galushin, V.M. & Sharikov, A.V. (2011): Review of recent surveys of the Long-eared Owl populations in European Russia. pp. 25 In: Abstract Book of International Conference on the Survey, Monitoring and Conservation of the Long-eared Owl Asio otus, 1-5 November 2011, Kikinda, Serbia. Galushin, V.M., Zakharova-Kubareva, N.Ju. & Romanov, M.S. (2000): [Nesting and behaviour of raptors in forest microfragments at the Upper Don river.] pp. 13-28 In: Sarychev, V.S. (ed.): Nature of the Upper Don river. Vol. 2. - Lipetsk. (in Russian) Ilyukh, M.P. & Khokhlov, A.N. (2010): [Raptors of transformed ecosystems in Northern Caucasus.] -North-Caucasus Technical University Press, Stavropol. (in Russian) Karyakin, I.V. (1998): [Raptors of the Ural region: Falconiformes and Strigiformes.] - Centre for field studies of Ural animals, Perm. (in Russian) Karyakin, I.V. & Pazhenkov, A.S. (2008): [Raptors of the Samara region.] - Samara Ministry of natural resources and nature conservation, Samara. (in Russian) Korepov M.V., Borodin, O.V. (2013): [Imperial Eagle as a flag species of the Ulyanovsk region.] - Ulyanovsk. (in Russian) Kostin A.B. (2012): [Territorial distribution, population dynamics and ecology of the Buzzard in the southern part of the Kaluga region.] pp. 61-73 In: Gavrilyuk, M.N. (ed.): Birds of Prey in the Dynamic Environment of the 3rd Millenium: Status and Prospects. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Birds of Prey and Owls of North Eurasia, 27-30 September 2012, Krivoy Rog, Ukraine. - Pub. Chernjavskyj D.A., Kryvyi Rih. (in Russian) Kostin, A.B., Kostina I.L. & Vlasov, A.A. (1990): [Relationship between the Buzzard distribution, reproduction and local abundance of small mammals in the Central-Chernozem nature reserve.] pp. 260-261 In: Collection of papers: Nature reserves in the USSR - their present state and future. Part. III. - Zoological studies, Novgorod. (in Russian) Kuznetsov, A.V. & Babushkin, M.V. (2006): The White-tailed Sea Eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) and the Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) in the Vologda lake district and southeastern Onega area. pp. 80-90 In: Koskimies, P. & Lapshin, N.V. (eds.): Status of Raptor Populations in Eastern Fennoscandia. Proceedings of the Workshop, 8-10 November 2005, Kostomuksha, Karelia, Russia. - Karelian Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Science & Finnish-Russian Working Group on Nature Conservation, Petrozavodsk, Russia. Rakhimov, I.I. & Pavlov, Ju.I. (1999): [Raptors of Tatarstan.] - Tatpoligraph editorial house, Kazan. (in Russian) Red Data Book of Russian Federation (2001): [Animals.] Danilov-Danilian, V.I. (ed.) - Astrel Publishing House, Moscow. (in Russian) Solovkov, D.A., Galushin, V.M., Romanov, M.S., & Zakharova-Kubareva, N.Ju. (2009): [Rare raptors along the Plushchan river and its vicinities.] pp.101-103 In: Aleksandrov, V.N. & Sarychev, V.S. (eds.): Rare species of the Lipetsk region. - Lipetsk. (in Russian) Volkov, S.V., Sharikiv, A.V., Basova, V.B. & Grinchenko, O.S. (2009): [Influence of small mammals abundance upon yearly habitat selection and population dynamics of the Long-eared Owl (Asio otus) and Short-eared Owl (A. flammeus).] - Zoological Journal 88: 1248-1257. (in Russian, English summary) Zakharova, N.Ju. (2003): [Dynamics of raptor populations in the Plushchan forest at the Upper Don river.] pp. 192-193 In: Galushin V.M. (ed.): Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Raptors of Northern Eurasia, 1-3 February, 2003, Penza, Russia. - Rostov State Pedagogical University, Rostov, Russia. (in Russian) Arrived / Prispelo: 27. 3. 2013 Accepted / Sprejeto: 1. 7. 2013 APPENDIX 1 / DODATEK 1 Birds of prey populations and their trends in European Russia in the 1975-2000 period (Galushin 2002, 2005 & 2007, BirdLife iNTERNATiONAL 2004): (-) small decline, (- -) moderate decline), (---) large decline, (F) fluctuating, (S) stable, (+) small increase, (+ +) moderate increase, (+ + +) large increase, (?) - trend unknown Populacije ujed in njihovi trendi v evropskem delu Rusije v obdobju 1975-2000 (Galushin 2002, 2005 & 2007, BirdLife International 2004): (-) majhen upad, (- -) zmeren upad), (---) velik upad, (F) nihajoč, (S) stabilen, (+) majhen porast, (+ +) zmeren porast, (+ + +) velik porast, (?) - trend neznan * Combination of various signs for individual species indicates variations of its status and trends in different regions in the vast territory of European Russia Population trend/ No. of breeding pairs at the end Species / Vrsta Populacijski trend of 20th century / Št. gnezdečih parov 1975-2000* ob koncu 20. stoletja A. Population decreasing A1. Rare species included into Red Data Book of Russian Federation (2001) or proposed to be included in its next edition Pallid Harrier Circus macrourus F, - 300-1,100 Greater Spotted Eagle Aquila clanga - - 600-800 Steppe Eagle Aquila nipalensis - - 5,000-20,000 Red-footed Falcon Falco vespertinus S, - 20,000-30,000 Saker Falcon Falco cherrug - - - 10-20 A2. Common species Black Kite Milvus migrans - - 30,000-50,000 Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus - 200-400 Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus S, F 20,000-40,000 Kestrel Falco tinnunculus F, - 40,000-60,000 B. Populations relatively stable B3. Rare species Red Kite Milvus milvus S, + 5-10 Lammergeier Gypaetus barbatus S, - 50-100 Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus S, - 70-120 Black Vulture Aegypius monachus S, - 30-70 Long-legged Buzzard Buteo rufinus S, - 1,000-2,000 Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos S 500-1,000 Booted Eagle Aquila pennata S, + 600-1,500 Osprey Pandion haliaetus S, + 2,000-4,000 Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus F, - 100-200 B4. Common species Honey Buzzard Pernis apivorus S, F 60,000-80,000 Sparrowhawk Accipiter nisus S, + 160,000-180,000 Buzzard Buteo buteo S, + 200,000-500,000 Rough-legged Buzzard Buteo lagopus S, F 30,000-60,000 Merlin Falco columbarius S 20,000-30,000 Hobby Falco subbuteo S, - 30,000-60,000 C. Population increasing C5. Rare species White-tailed Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla + + 1,000-2,000 Short-toed Eagle Circaetus gallicus S, + 500-1,000 Levant Sparrowhawk Accipiter brevipes S, +, - 2,000-3,000 Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila pomarina S, + 300-500 Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca S, + 800-1,200 Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni S, + 400-600 Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus S, + 1,000-1,200 C6. Common species Marsh Harrier Circus aeruginosus + 40,000-60,000 Montagu's Harrier Circus pygargus F, + 25,000-35,000 Goshawk Accipiter gentilis + + 90,000-110,000 Total / Skupaj 781,465-1,335,820 Overview of raptor monitoring in Spain Pregled monitoringa ptic roparic v Španiji Jose Antonio Sanchez Zapata Department of Applied Biology, Universidad Miguel Hernandez, Ctra Beniel km 3.2, ES—03312 Orihuela, Alicante, Spain, e—mail: toni@umh.es Raptor study and conservation has received an important public attention in Spain since the beginning of the 1970s. The rich communities of raptors and owls and the TV programmes directed by Felix Rodriguez de la Fuente might be in part responsible of such an unusual interest in raptors and owls that in a few years changed their official status of pests that should be eliminated to that of species of high conservation concern. Since, direct persecution is no longer a major factor driving raptor declines and socioeconomic changes have promoted a shift in the ways of impacting wildlife (MartInez-Abrain et al. 2009). Actually raptors are key species in biodiversity conservation in Spain and many of Natura 2000 network sites are devoted to raptor preservation. Here we present a short review of the main players involved in monitoring and conservation, the key species and issues and the strengths and weaknesses related with raptors in Spain. Main players Raptor monitoring in Spain involves many different players, including research and management and conservation institutions. Since the 1970s, a large number of ecologists, naturalists and ornithologists have been devoted to raptor study and conservation. There are at least 20 research groups that focus on raptor ecology and conservation, including species-habitat relationships, population dynamics, PVAs, trophic ecology, migration, ecotoxicology ... These research groups include CSIC (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas), particularly Donana Biological Station (Estacion Biologica Donana) and several universities (Barcelona, Madrid, Murcia, Miguel Hernandez, Alicante, Granada among others). There are also national strategies of population monitoring coordinated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment, SEO/BirdLife and the Autonomous Governments. These programmes also include national strategies for biodiversity conservation focussed on particular endangered species or technical groups coordinated by the Ministry. Besides, different NGOs and Foundations also play an important role in raptor monitoring and conservation, including specific programmes for endangered species (e.g. Lammergeier and Black Vulture, Grupo Ornitologico Balear, Fundacion Gypaetus), particular habitats (e.g. Wetlands, Fundacion Global Nature, Asociacion de Naturalistas del Sureste) and migration (e.g. Straits of Gibraltar; Fundacion Migres, Colectivo Ornitologico Cigüena Negra). Interactions with other countries include, in particular, neighbouring France and Portugal, but there are also different research interactions with other countries in Europe and worldwide although without a regular coordination schedule. National coverage As stated above, the national co-ordination is usually conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment and SEO/BirdLife with the collaboration of the Autonomous Governments, local NGOs and research groups. This includes nationwide population censuses conducted regularly for the most endangered species (http://www.seo.org/2012/07/02/ monografias-seuimiento-de-aves). These national censuses are often based upon a combination of volunteer and professional work. There are also regular programmes for owls (NOCTUA) and common birds monitoring (SACRE) at the national level that relies almost exclusively on volunteers coordinated by SEO/BirdLife (see for example; http://www.seo. org/2012/05/07/resultados-de-los-programas-de-seguimiento-de-avifauna). Key species and key issues The key species addressed by monitoring include: (1) Avian scavengers; Spain holds the largest populations of Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvus (94%), Black Vulture Aegypius monachus (98%), Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterus (97%) and Lammergeier Gypaetus barbatus (63%) of Europe (Margalida et al. 2010). (2) Mediterranean raptors; Spain is also the main European stronghold for many Mediterranean raptors, particularly the Spanish Imperial Eagle Aquila adalberti, Bonelli's Eagle A. fasciata, Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni and Little Owl Athene noctua among others (Lopez-Lopez et al. 2011, Hernandez-Matias et al. 2013). The key issues include the following: (1) Most of the species listed above depend on extensive agricultural and cattle grazing landscapes. Changes mediated by European regulations (i.e. common agricultural practices or animal by-product regulations) might directly influence their populations through changes in habitat quality and shortage of food resources (Tella et al. 1998, Donäzar et al. 2009). (2) Some old problems such as illegal poisoning and persecution and electrocution keep being an important issue affecting population trends and viability for different species (Carrete et al. 2007, Lopez-Lopez et al. 2011, Perez-Gar^a et al. 2011). (3) New problems such as wind farm impacts, public recreational use, or lead poisoning are arising and might be major drivers of population decline for some species (Garoa-Fernändez et al. 2005, Carrete et al. 2009 & 2011). Strengths and weaknesses In my opinion, the main strength is the interest of the general public on raptor conservation and the large research effort. Spain leads in the surface of Important Bird Areas (IBAs) selected for raptor conservation and also leads in raptor research in Europe (1st) and 2nd in the world ranking, just after USA (Thomson Reuters 2013). There are no large gaps, except for low monitoring effort on common species and some interregional differences in data quality. The main problem derives from the little communication between researchers and managers that affect implementation of monitoring and conservation "know-how" (Knight et al. 2008). In this sense, Spain might clearly benefit from international sharing of good/best practice. Priorities, capacity-building Under the economic crisis scenario, biodiversity will be put at risk if research and conservation programmes are paralyzed (Margalida 2012). As a result, the priority should be to maintain cost-effective monitoring and conservation programmes. This would need a review of current knowledge on raptor ecology and conservation to evaluate research priorities, cost-effective and cost-benefit analysis of raptor monitoring and conservation programmes and coordination proposals and the analysis of the research-implementation gaps. Povzetek Španija se lahko pohvali z bogato združbo ujed in sov, hkrati pa je tudi poglavitno evropsko oporišče za obligatne mrhovinarje, kot so beloglavi jastreb Gyps fulvus, rjavi jastreb Aegypius monachus, brkati ser Gypaetus barbatus in egiptovski jastreb Neophron percnopterus, za velike teritorialne orle, kot so španski kraljevi orel Aquila adalberti, planinski orel A. chrysaetos in kragulji orel Aquila fasciata, in za male ujede in sove, kot sta južna postovka Falco naumanni in čuk Athene noctua, ki so vsi tesno povezani z agroekosistemi z nizko intenzivnostjo kmetovanja. Hkrati v Španiji obstajajo mnoge javne in zasebne inštitucije in posamezniki, ki so vsaj do neke mere posvečajo preučevanju in varovanju ujed in sov po vsej državi. Monitoring in varovanje teh ptic sta že po tradiciji koordinirana na nacionalni ravni, kar omogoča posodabljanje ocen populacij najbolj ogroženih vrst. Kljub kakovostnim raziskavam in zanimanju javnosti za varstvo ptic roparic pa so monitoring in znanstveni programi močno prizadeti zaradi močno zmanjšanih proračunskih sredstev, kar utegne imeti pomembne dolgoročne posledice. References Carrete, M., Grande, J.M., Tella, J.L., Sänchez-Zapata, J.A., Donäzar, J.A., Diaz-Delgado, R. & Romo, A. (2007): Habitat, human pressure, and social behaviour: Partialling out factors affecting large-scale territory extinction in an endangered vulture. — Biological Conservation 136 (1): 143—154. Carrete, M., Sänchez-Zapata, J.A., Benitez, J.R., Lobon, M. & Donäzar, J.A. (2009): Large scale risk-assessment of wind-farms on population viability of a globally endangered long-lived raptor. — Biological Conservation 142 (12): 2954—2961. Carrete, M., Sänchez-Zapata, J.A., Benitez, J.R., Lobon, M., Montoya, F. & Donäzar, J.A. (2012): Mortality at wind-farms is positively correlated to large-scale distribution and aggregation in griffon vultures. — Biological Conservation 145 (1): 102—108. Donäzar, J.A., Margalida, A., Carrete, M. & Sänchez-Zapata, J.A. (2009): Too sanitary for vultures. — Science 326 (5953): 664. Garcia-Fernändez, A.J., Martinez-Lopez, E., Romero, D., Maria-Mojica, P., Godino, A. & Jimenez, P. (2005): High levels of blood lead in Griffon Vultures (Gyps fulvus) from Cazorla Natural Park (southern Spain). — Environmental Toxicology 20 (4): 459—463. Hernändez-Matias, A., Real, J., Moleon, M., Palma, L., Sänchez-Zapata, J.A., Pradel, R., Carrete, M., Gil-Sänchez, J.M., Beja, P., Balbontin, J., VincentMartin, N., Ravayrol, A., Benitez, J.R., Arroyo, B., Fernändez, C., Ferreiro, E. & Garcia, J. (2013): From local monitoring to a broad-scale viability assessment: a case study for the endangered Bonelli's eagle Aquila fasciata in Western Europe. - Ecological Monographs 83 (2): 239-261. Knight, T., Cowling, R.M., Rouget, M., Balmford, A., Lombard, A.T. & Campbell, B.M. (2008): Knowing But Not Doing: Selecting Priority Conservation Areas and the Research-Implementation Gap. - Conservation Biology 22 (3): 610-617. Lopez-Lopez, P., Ferrer, M., Madero, A., Casado, E., & McGrady, M. (2011): Solving Man-Induced Large-Scale Conservation Problems: The Spanish Imperial Eagle and Power Lines. - PloS ONE 6 (3): e17196. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017196 Margalida, A. (2012): Baits, budget cuts: a deadly mix. -Science 338 (6104): 192. Margalida, A., Donazar, J.A., Carrete, M. & Sanchez-Zapata, J.A. (2010): Sanitary versus environmental policies: fitting together two pieces of the puzzle of European vulture conservation. - Journal of Applied Ecology 47 (4): 931-935. Margalida, A., Carrete, M., Sanchez-Zapata, J.A., Donazar., J.A. (2012): Good news for European vultures. - Science 335 (6066): 284. MART^NEZ-ABRA^N, A., Crespo, J., Jimenez, J., Gomez, J.A. & Oro, D. (2009): Is the historical war against wildlife over in Southern Europe? - Animal Conservation 12 (3): 204-208. Perez-Gar^, J.M., Botella, F., Sanchez-Zapata, J.A. & Moleon, M. (2011): Conserving outside protected areas: edge effects and avian electrocutions in the periphery of Special Protected Areas. - Bird Conservation International 21 (3): 296-302. Tella, J.L., Forero, M.G., Hiraldo, F. & Donazar, J.A. (1998): Conflicts between Lesser kestrel conservation and European Agricultural Policies as identified by habitat use analysis. - Conservation Biology 12 (3): 593-604. Thomson Reuters (2013): Isi Web of Sciences. - [http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/es/productos/wok/], 5/2/2013. Arrived / Prispelo: 27. 3. 2013 Accepted / Sprejeto: 1. 7. 2013 Nove knjige New books Hardey, J., Crick, H., Wernham, C., Riley, H., Etheridge, B. & Thompson, D. (2009): Raptors, a Field Guide for Surveys and Monitoring. Second Edition. - The Stationery Office, Scottish Natural Heritage, Edinburgh. pp. 370. ISBN 978-011 4973452 RAPTORS A FIELD GUIDE FOR SURVEYS AND MONITORING Because of their elusive life, low densities and low detectability by commonly used ornithological methods, raptors are usually excluded from general bird surveys and monitoring schemes. There is even no common methodological approach that would be generally applicable to the study of all raptor species, since they greatly differ by their way of life, diurnal activity and behaviour. This is reflected in numerous research methods for surveying raptors as well as in the fact that raptors appeared to be quite understudied or not studied at all in many countries simply due only to the lack of suitable methodological protocols. It is therefore not surprising that many National Coordinators for raptor monitoring in the scope of EURAPMON claimed research techniques as the main benefit, which can be delivered by international networking. The first and crucial step towards development of common and standardized raptor monitoring protocols was made by British, mainly Scottish raptor experts by preparing a field guide for surveys and monitoring of raptor populations. Although the field guide is dealing only with species occurring in Britain and Ireland, many of considered raptors are actually widely distributed in Europe, what makes the field guide of a broader pan-European or even global interest. This manual for raptor monitoring has quite extensive introductory part (Part 1), which should be relevant to all raptor monitoring schemes across the globe. In the introductory part, the authors give an overview of raptor monitoring in the UK as an example, solve important distinctions between terms of survey, surveillance and monitoring, which are still not fully understood within the ornithological community, give an overview of topics dealing within comprehensive raptor monitoring scheme (e.g. population estimates, breeding and non-breeding birds), identify key breeding parameters important for raptor monitoring, deal with problems of identification at different levels (including sex, age, prey remains, pellets, etc.) and breeding behaviour aspects including vocalizations, give an overview of different additional techniques important in raptor studies (e.g. individual marking techniques, nomograms, nestboxes) and offer some useful good practice guidelines for the fieldwork with raptors. The core part of the book is dealing with methodological guidelines and protocols for 22 raptor species regularly occurring in Great Britain and Ireland, including 15 birds of prey, six owls and the Raven Corvus corax, and only briefly five irregularly occurring raptors (4 birds of prey and 1 owl). Each species account is structured with the species introduction, description of species ecology (e.g. habitat, home range, nests, breeding biology), and an overview of survey techniques in the breeding and non-breeding seasons. Part 3 is devoted to the feathers and the last Part 4 to the development of raptor chicks. In both parts, extensive photographic materials are provided, which can help fieldworkers as a useful identification guide. For people studying raptors, this book is indispensable as it was written by Ian Newton in the foreword, and since this is a fundamental step towards raptor monitoring methods standardization across Europe, the book PDF is fully available at EURAPMON website (http://www.eurapmon. net/sites/default/files/raptors_2nd_ed_001_intro_ sections.pdf) thanks to the authors and publisher. We can only wish that this field guide, which is highly valuable for raptor researchers, will be upgraded in the near future with all European raptors and will serve as a key reference for setting raptor monitoring schemes in Europe in a standardized, comprehensive and pan-European way. AlVrezec Slovak Raptor Journal. - Published by: Raptor Protection of Slovakia (RPS). ISSN: 337-3463 focused journal The Journal of Raptor Research. However, the raptor research community is also strong in Europe and is becoming more and more united, but not yet covered with a common scientific journal. One of the possibilities is the Slovak Raptor Journal, a new European raptor focused journal covering birds of prey and owls launched in 2007 by the Raptor Protection of Slovakia society. The journal is published annually, with all papers published in English with Slovak abstracts. All papers are also available through De Gruyter Online (Versita) at http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/srj. The journal is aimed to be international and is fully opened to all topics related to birds of prey and owls. Papers in all six currently published issues are focused mainly on raptor studies in Slovakia and in eastern Europe, although some published studies are also dedicated to raptor studies in Siberia as well as to some large-scale review studies such as an overview of colour ringing and satellite telemetry tracking of the Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila pomarina, Greater Spotted Eagle A. clanga and hybrids. Some issues have been more focused on certain raptor species compiling several papers on, for example, the Lesser Spotted Eagle or Imperial Eagle A. heliaca biology and ecology. There were several attempts to unite the specific and very diverse raptor research community in Europe and to launch European scientific journal for raptor research, which would cover all different aspects of raptor studies in Europe, including monitoring issues. The Slovak Raptor Journal is currently the most perspective journal to reach this goal. Al Vrezec As top predators and usually as species of special conservation concern, raptors are frequent research objects to which a special raptor research community is devoted. Raptor researchers are commonly organized in specific raptor research societies, leading also to special raptor related journals. The Raptor Research Foundation from North America, for example, is publishing the most renowned raptor Kazalo letnika 33 (2012), št. 152-155: str. 1-336 Index of Volume 33 (2012), No. 152-155: pp. 1-336 Kazalo avtorjev / Index of authors Uvodnik / Editorial Duke, G., Kovacs, A., Vrezec, A. & Movalli, P.: Special issue on a preliminary inventory of monitoring for raptors in Europe [Posebna številka o preliminarnem pregledu monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Evropi], 141-144. Kmecl, P.: Spomini na jezero [Memories of the Lake], 1-3. Kovacs, A. ^ Duke, G., 141-144. Movalli, P. ^ Duke, G., 141-144. Vrezec, A. ^ Duke, G., 141-144. Originalni članki / Original articles Arkumarev, V. ^ Spasov, S., 181-189. Bagyura, J. ^ Kovacs, A., 233-237. Bertoncelj, I. ^ Vrezec, A., 145-157. Bordjan, D.: Vodne ptice in ujede Cerkniškega polja (južna Slovenija) v letih 2007 in 2008, s pregledom zanimivejših opazovanj do konca leta 2010 [Waterbirds and raptors of Cerknica polje (southern Slovenia) in 2007 and 2008, with an overview of interesting observations till the end of 2010], 25-104. Burfield, I. ^ Vrezec, A., 145-157. Dobrev, D. ^ Spasov, S., 181-189. Dobrev, V. ^ Spasov, S., 181-189. Dobson, A., Holling, M., Jones, K. & Wernham, C.: A preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Great Britain [Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Veliki Britaniji], 225-231. Dombrovski , V.: A preliminary overview ofmonitoring for raptors in Belarus [Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Belorusiji], 167-172. Dravecky, M. & Guziova, Z.: A preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in the Slovak Republic [Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Slovaški republiki], 261-269. Duke, G. ^ Vrezec, A., 145-157. Dumbovic Mazal, V. & Mikulic, K.: Preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Croatia [Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic na Hrvaškem], 191-201. Gamauf, A.: A preliminary overview of raptor monitoring in Austria [Predhodni pregled monitoringa ptic roparic v Avstriji], 159-166. Guziova, Z. ^ Dravecky, M., 261-269. Halmos, G. ^ Kovacs, A., 233-237. Hanžel, J. ^ Šumrada, T., 5-24. Hatibovic, E. ^ Kotrošan, D., 173-179. Helander, B. ^ Hellström, P., 277-282. Hellström, P. & Helander, B.: A preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Sweden [Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic na Švedskem], 277-282. Holling, M. ^ Dobson, A., 225-231. Horvath, M. ^ Kovacs, A., 233-237. Jones, K. ^ Dobson, A., 225-231. Kotrošan, D. & Hatibovic, E.: Raptors in Bosnia and Herzegovina - their status and perspectives for monitoring development [Ptice roparice v Bosni in Hercegovini - njihov status in perspektive za razvoj monitoringa], 173-179. Kovacs, A., Bagyura, J., Horvath, M. & Halmos, G.: An overview of monitoring for raptors in Hungary [Pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic na Madžarskem], 233-237. KovAcs, A. ^ Vrezec, A., 145-157. Mee, A.: An overview of monitoring for raptors in Ireland [Pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic na Irskem], 239-245. Mikulic, K. ^ Dumbovic Mazal, V., 191-201. Mizera, T. ^ Sielicki, J., 255-260. Movalli, P. ^ Vrezec, A., 145-157. Nygard, T.: Monitoring of raptors in Norway [Monitoring ptic roparic na Norveškem], 247-254. Saurola, P.: An overview of monitoring for raptors in Finland [Pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic na Finskem], 203-215. Saurola, P. ^ Vrezec, A., 145-157. Sielicki, J. & Mizera, T.: A preliminary national overview of monitoring for raptors in Poland [Predhodni nacionalni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic na Poljskem], 255-260. Spasov, S., Arkumarev, V., Dobrev, D. & Dobrev, V.: An overview of monitoring for raptors in Bulgaria [Pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Bolgariji], 181-189. Šumrada, T. & Hanžel, J.: The Kestrel Falco tinnunculus in Slovenia - a review of its distribution, population density, movements, breeding biology, diet and interactions with other species [Postovka Falco tinnunculus v Sloveniji - pregled njene razširjenosti, populacijske gostote, disperzije, gnezditvene biologije, prehrane in interakcij z drugimi vrstami], 5-24. Urcun, J.-P.: A preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in France [Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Franciji], 217-223. Vrezec, A.: A preliminary overview of raptor monitoring in Slovenia - an overview of methodologies, current monitoring status and future perspectives [Predhodni pregled monitoringa ptic roparic v Sloveniji - pregled metodologij, trenutnega stanja monitoringa in perspektive], 271-276. Vrezec, A., Duke, G., KovAcs, A., Saurola, P., Wernham, C., Burfield, I., Movalli, P. & Bertoncelj, I.: Overview of raptor monitoring activities in Europe [Pregled monitoringa ptic roparic v Evropi], 145-157. Wernham, C. ^ Vrezec, A., 145-157. Wernham, C. ^ Dobson, A., 225-231. Kratki prispevki / Short Communications Abuladze, A.: A preliminary overview of raptor monitoring in Georgia [Predhodni pregled monitoringa ptic roparic v Gruziji], 289-292. Andreotti, A. ^ Aradis, A., 297-300. Aradis, A. & Andreotti, A.: A preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Italy [Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Italiji], 297-300. Bakaloudis, D.E.: A preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Greece [Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Grčiji], 293-295. Barišic, S. ^ Kralj, J., 105-107. Bonavia, E.: A preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Malta [Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic na Malti], 305-307. Božič, L.: Rezultati januarskega štetja vodnih ptic leta 2012 v Sloveniji [Results of the January 2012 waterbird census in Slovenia], 109-119. Čikovic, D. ^ Kralj, J., 105-107. Galushin, V.: An overview of the most significant recent (1990-2012) raptor monitoring studies in European Russia [Pregled najpomembnejših nedavnih (1990-2012) dejavnosti v okviru monitoringa ptic roparic v evropskem delu Rusije], 315-319. Kralj, J., Barišic, S., Čikovic, D. & Tutiš, V.: Range expansion of the Olive-tree Warbler Hippolais olivetorum along the Croatian coast [Širjenje areala oljčnega vrtnika Hippolais olivetorum vzdolž hrvaške obale], 105-107. Nellis, R.: A preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Estonia [Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Estoniji], 285-287. Palma, L.: A preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Portugal [Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic na Portugalskem], 309—313. Paquet, J.-Y. ^ Vermeersch, G., 283—284. Reihmanis, J.: A preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Latvia [Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Latviji], 301—304. Sanchez Zapata, J.A.: Overview ofraptor monitoring in Spain [Pregled monitoringa ptic roparic v Španiji], 309—313. Vermeersch, G. & Paquet, J.-Y.: A preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Belgium [Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Belgiji], 283—284. Tutiš, V. ^ Kralj, J., 105—107. Iz ornitološke beležnice / From the ornithological notebook Basle, T.: Plevica Plegadis falcinellus, 125. Bordjan, D.: Beločela gos Anser albifrons, 121, Koconoga kanja Buteo lagopus, 127, Veliki škurh Numenius arquata, 128, Duplar Columba oeans, 128— 129. Bordjan, D. & Kozina, A.: Sredozemski sokol Falco eleonorae, 127. Bordjan, D. ^ Gamser, M., 123, 123—124, 124. Denac, M.: Gaga Somateria mollisima, 121—122, Črna štorklja Ciconia nigra, 124—125, Bela štorklja Ciconia ciconia, 125. DENAC, M. ^ GAMSER, M., 123, 123—124, 124. Gamser, M., Bordjan, D., Denac, M., Novak, J. & Kozina, A.: Sredozemski viharnik Puffinus yelkouan, 123, Strmoglavec Morus bassanus, 123—124, Čapljica Ixobrychus minutus, 124. Gerdgikov, G.: Collared Dove Streptopelia decaocto, 133. Grozdanov, A.P. & Slavchev, M.: Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo, 132. Grozdanov, A.P. & Marinov, M.: Bluethroat Luscinia svecica, 134. Grozdanov, A.P. ^ Stoynov, E., 133. Hanžel, J.: Labod grbec Cygnus olor, 121. Jančar, A.: Dular Charadrius morinellus, 127—128. Jovičevic, M.: Red-footed Falcon Falco vespertinus, 131. Jovičevic, M. & Saveljic, D.: White Stork Ciconia ciconia, 131, Alpine Swift Apus melba, 131, Bee-eater Merops apiaster, 131—132. Kmecl, P.: Veliki žagar Mergus merganser, 122. Kozina, A.: Srednji žagar Mergus serrator, 122, Stepski lunj Circus macrourus, 126, Rjasta kanja Buteo rufinus, 126, Mali škurh Numenius phaeopus, 128, Citronasta pastirica Motacilla citreola, 129—130, Vrtni strnad Emberiza hortulana, 130—131. Kozina, A. ^ Bordjan, D., 127. KOZINA, A. ^ GAMSER, M., 123, 123—124, 124. Kozinc, B. & Mulej, A.: Veliki žagar Mergus merganser, 122—123. Mitev, D.: Lesser Sand Plover Charadrius mongolus, 132—133. Mulej, A. ^ Kozinc, B., 122—123. NOVAK, J. ^ GAMSER, M., 123, 123—124, 124. Peshev, H. ^ Stoynov, E., 133. Saveljic, D. ^ Jovičevic, M., 131, 131—132. Slavchev, M. ^ Grozdanov, A.P., 132. Stoynov, E., Peshev, H. & Grozdanov, A.P.: Pallid swift Apus pallidus, 133. Šere, D.: Sršenar Pernis apivorus, 125—126, Škrlatec Carpodacus erythrinus, 130. Vrezec, A.: Veliki skovik Otus scops, 129, Krokar Corvus corax, 129. Nove knjige / New books Hardey, J., Crick, H., Wernham, C., Riley, H., Etheridge, B. & Thompson, D. (2009): Raptors, a Field Guide for Surveys and Monitoring. Second Edition. — The Stationery Office, Scottish Natural Heritage, Edinburgh, 325—326 (Vrezec, A.). Lukač, G. (2011): Atlas ptica Nacionalnog parka Paklenica. — Javna ustanova Nacionalni park Paklenica, Starigrad - Paklenica, 136—137 (Denac, D.). Slovak Raptor Journal. — Published by: Raptor Protection of Slovakia (RPS), 326 (Vrezec, A.). Najave in obvestila / Announcements Kmecl, P.: Nagrada Zlati legat 2010 [The Golden Bee-eater Award 2010], 138—139. Kazalo znanstvenih imen ptic / Index of scientific names of birds A Accipiter badius 289 Accipiter brevipes 145, 173, 261, 289, 293, 315 Accipitergentilis 5, 25, 145, 159, 173, 191, 203, 217, 225, 233, 239, 247, 255, 261, 277, 285, 289, 297, 301, 309, 315 Accipiter nisus 5, 25, 145, 159, 173, 191, 203, 217, 225, 239, 247, 255, 261, 277, 283, 289, 293, 301, 315 Acrocephalus schoenobaenus 130 Actitis hypoleucos 25, 109 Aegolius funereus 145, 167, 173, 181, 191, 203, 217, 247, 255, 261, 271, 277, 283, 297, 301 Aegypius monachus 145, 173, 181, 217, 261, 289, 293, 297, 309, 315, 321 Aix galericulata 109 Alcedo atthis 25, 109 Alectoris rufa 225 Anas acuta 25, 109 Anas clypeata 25, 109 Anas crecca 25, 109 Anas penelope 25, 109 Anasplatyrhynchos 25, 109, 122 Anas querquedula 25 Anas strepera 25, 109 Anser albifrons 25, 109, 121 Anser anser 25, 109, 122 Anser cygnoides 109 Anser fabalis 25, 109 Apus melba 131 Apus pallidus 133 Aquila adalberti 145, 309, 321 Aquila chrysaetos 5, 25, 145, 159, 167, 173, 191, 203, 217, 225, 233, 239, 247, 255, 261, 271, 277, 285, 289, 297, 301, 309, 315, 321 Aquila clanga 25, 145, 167, 173, 191, 203, 255, 261, 285, 289, 315, 326 Aquila fasciata 145, 173, 217, 289, 297, 309, 321 Aquila heliaca 25, 145, 159, 173, 181, 233, 261, 289, 315, 326 Aquila nipalensis 145, 173, 261, 289, 315 Aquila pennata 145, 159, 173, 181, 191, 217, 255, 261, 289, 309, 315 Aquila pomarina 145, 167, 173, 181, 191, 217, 233, 255, 261, 271, 285, 289, 301, 315, 326 Ardea alba 25, 109 Ardea cinerea 25, 109 Ardea purpurea 25 Ardeola ralloides 25 Arenaria interpres 25 Asio flammeus 25, 145, 173, 203, 217, 225, 239, 255, 261, 277, 301 Asio otus 5, 145, 173, 191, 203, 217, 225, 233, 239, 255, 261, 271, 277, 283, 301, 309 Athene noctua 145, 173, 217, 225, 261, 271, 283, 309, 321 Aythya ferina 25, 109 Aythya ferina x A. nyroca 109 Aythya fuligula 25, 109 Aythya marila 25, 109 Aythya nyroca 1, 25, 109 Botaurus stellaris 25 Branta canadensis 109 Branta leucopsis 25 Bubo bubo 5, 145, 167, 173, 181, 191, 203, 217, 233, 247, 255, 261, 271, 277, 283, 285, 297, 301, 309 Bubo scandiacus 145, 203, 239, 247, 261, 277 Bucephala clangula 25, 109 Buteo buteo 25, 127, 145, 159, 167, 173, 181, 191, 203, 217, 225, 233, 239, 255, 261, 271, 277, 285, 289, 297, 301, 309, 315 Buteo buteo vulpinus 25, 289 Buteo lagopus 25, 127, 145, 173, 191, 203, 233, 261, 277, 285, 289, 315 Buteo rufinus 126, 145, 173, 181, 233, 261, 289, 315 Cairina moschata 109 Calidris alba 25 Calidris alpina 25, 109 Calidris canutus 25 Calidris ferruginea 25 Calidris minuta 25 Calidris temminckii 25 Carpodacus erythrinus 130 Charadrius alexandrinus 109 Charadrius dubius 25 Charadrius hiaticula 25, 109, 132 Charadrius mongolus 132 Charadrius morinellus 25, 127 Chlidonias hybrida 25 Chlidonias leucopterus 25 Chlidonias niger 25 Chroicocephalus ridibundus 25, 109 Ciconia ciconia 25, 109, 125, 131 Ciconia nigra 25, 124, 301 Cinclus cinclus 109 Circaetus gallicus 25, 145, 167, 173, 181, 191, 217, 233, 255, 261, 289, 297, 309, 315 Circus aeruginosus 25, 109, 128, 145, 159, 167, 173, 191, 203, 217, 225, 233, 239, 255, 261, 271, 277, 283, 289, 297, 301, 305, 315 Circus cyaneus 25, 145, 159, 167, 173, 191, 203, 217, 225, 233, 239, 261, 277, 283, 285, 289, 315 Circus macrourus 126, 145, 173, 203, 217, 261, 289, 305, 315 Circus pygargus 25, 145, 159, 167, 173, 191, 203, 217, 225, 233, 255, 261, 277, 283, 289, 297, 305, 315 Clangula hyemalis 25 Columba livia 5 Columba oenas 128 Corvus corax 5, 129, 145, 325 Corvus cornix 5, 315 Corvus monedula 5 Crex crex 1, 25 Cygnus columbianus 25 Cygnus cygnus 25 Cygnus olor 25, 109, 121 Cygnus olor immutabilis 121 Dryocopus martius 203 Egrettagarzetta 25, 109 Elanus caeruleus 145, 217, 261, 309 Emberiza hortulana 130 Falco biarmicus 25, 145, 173, 289, 297 Falco biarmicus feldeggii 297 Falco cherrug 145, 159, 173, 181, 191, 233, 255, 261, 289, 315 Falco columbarius 25, 145, 173, 191, 203, 225, 239, 247, 261, 277, 289, 315 Falco eleonorae 127, 145, 191, 217, 289, 293, 297, 305 Falco naumanni 5, 25, 145, 173, 181, 191, 217, 261, 289, 293, 297, 305, 309, 315, 321 Falcoperegrinus 5, 25, 145, 159, 173, 181, 191, 203, 217, 225, 233, 239, 247, 255, 261, 271, 277, 283, 289, 293, 297, 305, 309, 315 Falco rusticolus 145, 203, 247, 277, 315 Falco subbuteo 5, 25, 145, 159, 173, 191, 203, 217, 225, 247, 255, 261, 277, 283, 289, 293, 305, 315 Falco tinnunculus 5, 25, 145, 159, 167, 173, 181, 191, 203, 217, 225, 239, 247, 255, 261, 271, 277, 289, 297, 305, 309, 315 Falco vespertinus 5, 25, 131, 145, 159, 173, 181, 191, 217, 233, 261, 271, 285, 289, 305, 315 Fulica atra 25, 109 Gallinago gallinago 1, 25, 109 Gallinago media 25 Gallinula chloropus 25, 109 Garrulus glandarius 5 Gavia arctica 25, 109 Gavia stellata 25, 109 Gelochelidon nilotica 25 Glareola pratincola 25 Glaucidium passerinum 145, 167, 173, 181, 203, 217, 247, 255, 261, 277 Grus grus 1, 25 Gypaetus barbatus 145, 159, 173, 181, 217, 289, 293, 297, 315, 321 Gyps fulvus 145, 159, 173, 181, 191, 217, 261, 271, 289, 293, 297, 309, 315, 321 H Haliaeetus albicilla 25, 109, 145, 159, 167, 173, 181, 191, 203, 217, 225, 233, 239, 247, 255, 261, 271, 277, 285, 289, 301, 315 Himantopus himantopus 25 Hippolais olivetorum 105 Hydrocoloeus minutus 25 Hydroprogne caspia 25 I Ixobrychus minutus 25, 124 Lagopus lagopus 225, 247 Lagopus lagopus scotica 225 Lagopus muta 247 Lanius collurio 173, 271 Lanius excubitor 5, 173, 271 Lanius minor 173, 271 Lanius senator 173 Larus cachinnans 109 Larus canus 25, 109 Larus fuscus 25, 109 Larus melanocephalus 25, 109 Larus michahellis 5, 25, 109 Limosa lapponica 25 Limosa limosa 25 Luscinia svecica 134 Lymnocryptes minimus 25 M Melanitta fusca 25, 109 Melanitta nigra 25 Mergellus albellus 25, 109 Mergus merganser 25, 109, 122 Mergus serrator 25, 109, 122 Merops apiaster 131 Milvus migrans 25, 145, 159, 173, 191, 203, 217, 233, 255, 261, 277, 289, 297, 305, 309, 315 Milvus milvus 25, 145, 159, 173, 191, 217, 225, 233, 239, 255, 261, 277, 283, 289, 297, 315 Morus bassanus 123 Motacilla citreola 129 Motacilla flava 129 Neophron percnopterus 145, 173, 181, 217, 261, 289, 293, 297, 309, 315, 321 Netta rufina 25, 109 Numenius arquata 25, 109, 128 Numeniusphaeopus 25, 128 Nycticorax nycticorax 25 Otus scops 129, 145, 173, 191, 217, 261, 271, 309 Pandion haliaetus 25, 145, 167, 173, 191, 203, 217, 225, 239, 247, 255, 261, 271, 277, 285, 289, 301, 305, 309, 315 Passer domesticus 5 Passer montanus 5 Perdix perdix 225 Pernis apivorus 25, 125, 145, 159, 173, 191, 203, 217, 225, 247, 255, 261, 271, 277, 283, 289, 297, 301, 305, 309, 315 Pernisptilorhynchus 289 Phalacrocorax aristotelis 109 Phalacrocorax carbo 25, 109, 132 Phalacrocorax pygmeus 25, 109 Phalaropus lobatus 25 Phasianus colchicus 225 Philomachus pugnax 25 Pica pica 5, 315 Platalea leucorodia 25 Plegadis falcinellus 25, 125 Pluvialis apricaria 25 Pluvialis squatarola 25, 109 Podiceps auritus 25 Podiceps cristatus 25, 109 Podiceps grisegena 25 Podiceps nigricollis 25, 109, 122 Porzana parva 25 Porzana porzana 25 Prunella collaris 5 Puffinus yelkouan 123 Rallus aquaticus 25, 109 Recurvirostra avosetta 25 Rissa tridactyla 25 S Scolopax rusticola 25 Somateria mollissima 25, 121 Sterna hirundo 5, 25 Sterna sandvicensis 25, 109 Streptopelia decaocto 133 Strix aluco 5, 129, 145, 167, 173, 191, 203, 217, 225, 247, 255, 261, 271, 277, 285, 301 Strix nebulosa 145, 167, 203, 277 Strix uralensis 145, 167, 173, 191, 203, 247, 255, 261, 271, 277, 301 Sturnus vulgaris 5 Surnia ulula 145, 173, 203, 261, 277, 285 T Tachybaptus ruficollis 25, 109 Tadorna ferruginea 25 Tadorna tadorna 25, 109 Tringa erythropus 25, 109 Tringa glareola 25 Tringa nebularia 25, 109 Tringa ochropus 25, 109 Tringa stagnatilis 25 Tringa totanus 25, 109 Tyto alba 145, 173, 217, 225, 239, 261, 271, 277, 283, 309 Vanellus vanellus 25, 109 Seznam recenzentov letnika 33 (2012) The list of manuscript reviewers of Volume 33 (2012) Spisek recenzentov, ki so pregledovali prispevke v reviji Acrocephalus za letnik 33, 2012. Njihov delež pri nastajanju revije je bil velik in ključen pri objavljanju kvalitetnih prispevkov. Urednik se zato vsem iskreno zahvaljuje za opravljene recenzije v minulem letu. Imena recenzentov so urejena po abecednem vrstnem redu brez akademskih naslovov, a z oznakami držav: The list of manuscript reviewers for the journal Acrocephalus in Volume 33, 2012. Their contribution was great and essential in preparing high quality papers published in Volume 33. The Editor would like to thank them for their work in the past year. Names of reviewers are presented in alphabetical order without academic titles but with abbreviations of their countries: Peter Adamik (CZ) Antoni Margalida (ES) Nicolantonio Agostini (IT) Tibor Mikuska (HR) Alessandro Andreotti (IT) Grzegorz Neubauer (PL) Ainärs Auninš (LV) Torgeir Nygard (NO) Gilles Biver (LU) Peter Palatitz (HU) Dejan Bordjan (SI) Luis Palma (PT) Ian Burfield (GB) Michele Panuccio (IT) Katarina Denac (SI) Nikolai Petkov (BG) Richard Evans (GB) Remo Probst (AT) Tibor Istvan Fuisz (HU) Jeno J. Purger (HU) Vladimir Galushin (RU) Graham Rebecca (GB) Björn Helander (SE) Jozef Ridzon (SK) Bojidar Ivanov (BG) Peter Sackl (AT) Primož Kmecl (SI) Jose Antonio Sanchez Zapata (ES) Urša Koce (SI) Attila Sandor (RO) Andras Kovacs (HU) Richard Shore (GB) Jelena Kralj (HR) Pertti Saurola (FI) Lovrenc Lipej (SI) Jean-Marc Thiollay (FR) Asko Löhmus (EE) Davorin Tome (SI) Rui Louren^o (PT) Al Vrezec (SI) Gordan Lukač (HR) Chris Wernham (GB) Ubbo Mammen (DE) Stavros Xirouchakis (GR) Vsebina / Contents letnik 33 volume 33 številka 154/155 strani 141-336 number 154/155 pages 141-336 Uvodnik / Editorial 141 Special issue on a preliminary inventory of monitoring for raptors in Europe (G. Duke, A. KovÄcs, A. Vrezec & P. Movalli) Posebna številka o preliminarnem pregledu monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Evropi (G. Duke, A. KovÄcs, A. Vrezec & P. Movalli) Originalni članki / Original articles 145 Overview of raptor monitoring activities in Europe (A. Vrezec, G. Duke, A. KovÄcs, P. Saurola, C. Wernham, I. Bureield, P. Movalli & I. Bertoncelj) Pregled monitoringa ptic roparic v Evropi (A. Vrezec, G. Duke, A. KovÄcs, P. Saurola, C. Wernham, I. Bureield, P. Movalli & I. Bertoncelj) 159 A preliminary overview of raptor monitoring in Austria (A. Gamaue) Predhodni pregled monitoringa ptic roparic v Avstriji (A. Gamaue) 167 A preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Belarus (V. Dombrovski) Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Belorusiji (V. Dombrovski) 173 Raptors in Bosnia and Herzegovina - their status and perspectives for monitoring development (D. Kotrošan & E. Hatibovic) Ptice roparice v Bosni in Hercegovini — njihov status in perspektive za razvoj monitoringa (D. Kotrošan & E. Hatibovic) 181 An overview of monitoring for raptors in Bulgaria (S. Spasov, V. Arkumarev, D. Dobrev & V. Dobrev) Pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Bolgariji (S. Spasov, V. Arkumarev, D. Dobrev & V. Dobrev) 191 A preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Croatia (V. Dumbovic Mazal & K. Mikulic) Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic na Hrvaškem (V. Dumbovic Mazal & K. Mikulic) 203 An overview of monitoring for raptors in Finland (P. Saurola) Pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic na Finskem (P. Saurola) 217 A Preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in France (J.-P. Urcun) Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Franciji (J.-P. Urcun) 225 A Preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Great Britain (A. dobson, M. Holling, K. Jones & C. Wernham) Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Veliki Britaniji (A. dobson, M. Holling, K. Jones & C. Wernham) 233 An overview of monitoring for raptors in Hungary (a. KovÄcs, J. Bagyura, M. Horväth & G. Halmos) Pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic na Madžarskem (A. KovÄcs, J. Bagyura, M. Horväth & G. Halmos) 239 An overview of monitoring for raptors in Ireland (A. Mee) Pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic na Irskem (A. Mee) 247 Monitoring of raptors in Norway (T. Nygärd) Monitoring ptic roparic na Norveškem (T. Nygärd) 255 A preliminary national overview of monitoring for raptors in Poland (J. Sielicki & T. Mizera) Predhodni nacionalni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic na Poljskem (J. Sielicki & T. Mizera) 261 A preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in the Slovak Republic (M. Dravecky & Z. Guziova) Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic na Slovaškem (M. Dravecky & Z. Guziova) continued on inner page / nadaljevanje na notranji strani Vsebina / Contents letnik 33 volume 33 številka 154/155 strani 141-336 number 154/155 pages 141-336 271 A preliminary overview of raptor monitoring in Slovenia - an overview of methodologies, current monitoring status and future perspectives (A. Vrezec) Predhodni pregled monitoringa ptic roparic v Sloveniji — pregled metodologij, trenutnega stanja monitoringa in perspektive (A. Vrezec) 277 A preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Sweden (P. Hellström & B. Helander) Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic na Švedskem (P Hellström & B. Helander) Kratki prispevki / Short communications 283 A preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Belgium (G. Vermeerschi & J.-Y. Paquet) Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Belgiji (G. Vermeerschi & J.-Y. Paquet) 285 A preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Estonia (R. Nellis) Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Estoniji (R. Nellis) 289 A preliminary overview of raptor monitoring in Georgia (A. Abuladze) Predhodni pregled monitoringa ptic roparic v Gruziji (A. Abuladze) 309 A preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Portugal (L. Palma) Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic na Portugalskem (L. Palma) 315 An overview of the most significant recent (1990-2012) raptor monitoring studies in European Russia (V. Galushin) Pregled najpomembnejših nedavnih (1990-2012) dejavnosti v okviru monitoringa ptic roparic v evropskem delu Rusije (V. Galushin) 321 Overview of raptor monitoring in Spain (J. A. Sanchez Zapata) Pregled monitoringa ptic roparic v Španiji (J. A. Sanchez Zapata) 325 Nove knjige / New books 327 Kazalo letnika 33 (2012) / Index ofVolume 33 (2012) 335 Seznam recenzentov / The list of manuscript reviewers 293 A preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Greece (D. E. Bakaloudis) Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Grčiji (D. E. Bakaloudis) 297 A preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Italy (A. Aradis & A. Andreotti) Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Italij i (A. Aradis & A. Andreotti) 301 A preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Latvia (J. Reihmanis) Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic v Latviji (J. Reihmanis) 305 A preliminary overview of monitoring for raptors in Malta (E. Bonavia) Predhodni pregled monitoringa populacij ptic roparic na Malti (E. Bonavia)