habitats report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileof natural habitats and of wild fauna and...

41
THE N2K GROUP European Economic Interest Group COMPOSITE EUROPEAN COMMISSION REPORT ON DEROGATIONS IN 2005-2006 ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 16 OF DIRECTIVE 92/43/EEC ON THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE)

Upload: doandung

Post on 15-Aug-2019

217 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

THE N2K GROUP European Economic Interest Group

COMPOSITE EUROPEAN COMMISSION REPORT ON DEROGATIONS IN 2005-2006 ACCORDING TO

ARTICLE 16 OF DIRECTIVE 92/43/EEC ON THE CONSERVATION

OF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE)

Page 2: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

DECEMBER 2008

Prepared by:

THE N2K GROUP European Economic Interest Group

ATECMA ECOSYSTEMS COMUNITA

AMBIENTE DAPHNE ECOSPHERE

Calle Isla de la Toja 2 28400 Villalba,

Madrid Spain

21 Bld General Wahis 1030 Brussels

Belgium

Via della Lungara 1 00165 Rome

Italy

Podunaska 24 82106 Bratislava

Slovakia

3bis rue des Remises 94100 St-Maur-des

Fossés France

for the European Commission, Directorate General Environment, B2 Unit

in the framework of the Service Contract No. 070307/2007/488316/SER/B2

Page 3: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

1

CONTENTS Introduction......................................................................................................... 2 1 Methodology ................................................................................................ 3 2 Overview of derogations across the EU .................................................... 6 3 Member State reports ............................................................................... 11

3.1 Austria ................................................................................................. 11 3.2 Belgium............................................................................................... 11 3.3 Cyprus ................................................................................................. 12 3.4 Czech Republic ................................................................................... 12 3.5 Denmark.............................................................................................. 14 3.6 Estonia................................................................................................. 15 3.7 Finland ................................................................................................ 16 3.8 France.................................................................................................. 19 3.9 Germany.............................................................................................. 21 3.10 Greece ................................................................................................. 22 3.11 Hungary............................................................................................... 22 3.12 Ireland ................................................................................................. 23 3.13 Italy ..................................................................................................... 24 3.14 Latvia .................................................................................................. 25 3.15 Lithuania ............................................................................................. 26 3.16 Luxembourg ........................................................................................ 27 3.17 Malta ................................................................................................... 27 3.18 Netherlands ......................................................................................... 28 3.19 Poland.................................................................................................. 29 3.20 Portugal ............................................................................................... 30 3.21 Slovenia............................................................................................... 30 3.22 Slovakia............................................................................................... 31 3.23 Spain.................................................................................................... 32 3.24 Sweden ................................................................................................ 34 3.25 United Kingdom.................................................................................. 36

ANNEX A........................................................................................................... 38 ANNEX B........................................................................................................... 39

Page 4: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

2

Introduction According to Article 16.1 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), the Member States (MS) may derogate from the protection provisions of the Directive (Articles 12, 13, 14 and 15). Derogations may be issued provided that there is no other satisfactory alternative and that they are not detrimental to the maintenance of the species populations at a favourable conservation status in their natural range. Member States shall (ref Art. 16.2) forward to the Commission every two years a report in accordance with the format established by the Committee on the derogations applied under Art. 16.1. This composite report provides an analysis of the Member States biennial reports covering the period 2005-2006 giving an assessment of the conformity of these derogations with the protection measures of the Habitats Directive. The report is based on the national reports submitted to the EC Commission from 25 of the EU Member States. Bulgaria and Romania had not to prepare this derogation report since they acceded to the EU only on January 1st 2007.

Page 5: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

3

1 Methodology 25 national reports on derogations issued 2005 and 2006, according to art.16 of the Habitats Directive, have been assessed. All derogations have been systematically scrutinised looking for high numbers of licenses, species, country specific reasons or methods, allowed activities. The evaluation has been carried out in different steps: a) checking of the completeness of the national reports submitted

A formal check of the reports has been carried out in order to verify the use of the official ‘model of report according to Art. 16.2’ provided to MS by the EC and whether all the needed information was provided.

b) checking of the number of derogations and of licenses issued The control has been carried out to evaluate how often each MS has used prerogative. Also the historical trend of the derogations issued has been taken into consideration. When a national report did not include information on the number of licenses issued per derogation, it was assumed that only 1 license is covered by each derogation (i.e. 1 derogation = 1 license).

c) checking of the reasons for which the derogations have been issued Derogations under art. 16.2 of the Habitats Directive can be granted only for specific reasons, listed in table 1 and, more in detail, in annex A. The consistency with provisions of the Habitats Directive has been verified. Derogations issued for scientific research and educational purposes and to protect wild flora and fauna and natural habitats were a priori considered as compatible with the Directive since they usually do not affect the conservation status of the species population. Only in very few cases, when the derogation included killing of individuals, they were analysed in more detail. Table 1. Main standardised codes for derogation reasons

Code Reasons reported in art. 16.1 of the Habitats Directive

40 (a) in the interest of protecting wild fauna and flora and conserving natural habitats

30 (b) to prevent serious damage, in particular to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water and other types of property

10 (c) in the interests of public health and public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment

50 (d) for the purpose of research and education, of repopulating and re-introducing these species and for the breeding operations necessary for these purposes, including the artificial propagation of plants

60 (e) to allow, under strictly supervised conditions, on a selective basis and to a limited extent, the taking or keeping of certain specimens of the species listed in Annex IV in limited numbers specified by the competent national authorities.

d) checking of the alternative solutions

Derogation may be granted provided that no alternative solutions exist. When the national report did not provide this information, it was assumed that no alternative solutions existed.

Page 6: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

4

e) checking activities and methods permitted Derogations can allow only some specific activities and methods, respectively listed in tables 2 and 3 and, more in detail, in annex B. Derogations allowing impacting activities, such as killing of individuals, destruction of breeding sites or resting places, were analysed in more detail in order to establish the eventual impact on the conservation status of the species concerned. Table 2. Main standardised codes for authorized activities.

Code Main permitted activity

20 Deliberate capture in the wild 30 Deliberate killing in the wild

80 Deliberate disturbance of these species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration

100 Deliberate destruction or taking of eggs from the wild 120 Deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places 50 Keeping (in captivity) 130 Transport 110 Marketing

140 Deliberate picking, collecting, cutting, uprooting or destruction of such plants in their natural range in the wild.

Table 3. Standardised codes for methods.

Codes Method

BTH1 Firearms BTH Traps BTH Nets BTH By hand HSD2 Methods complying with Conservation of Seals Act 1970 (UK) HSD Hand-held Tools HSD Bottle and pitfall traps HSD Hand and noose HSD Live traps (not using blind/mutilated animals and decoys) HSD Seed collection HSD Translocation of eggs by hand HSD Surveying HSD Photography

f) checking the species and the number of individuals affected

All the species affected by derogations have been analysed in order to establish the eventual impact on their conservation status. Where significant areas of concern were identified, risking that the species conservation status might be put into question, for instance exceptionally large number of derogations for one particular species, detailed analysis of the dimension of the population, of its numerical trend and of the area of distribution at national and EU level has been carried out. For this analysis, recognised sources of

1 BTH means that the activity can be used for derogations under the Birds and Habitats Directives. 2 HSD means that the activity can only be used under the Habitats Directive.

Page 7: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

5

information (IUCN database, Member State population assessments and action plans, scientific publications) have been used. Derogations on species for which a MS has been already warned have been examined with greater detail. In some cases there is an ambiguity on whether the data provided relate to the number of individuals actually taken, or to the maximum numbers allowed for taking. In these cases, it was assumed that data referred to individuals actually taken.

Page 8: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

6

2 Overview of derogations across the EU A comparison of derogations across the EU has been made in order to draw an overall picture of the derogations granted. However, this overview should be considered very cautiously and be interpreted in close connection with the analysis of the individual MS reports as often special national conditions strongly affect the overall picture and/or information on specific issues is not provided precisely. The Member States’ reports are very variable both in terms of the accessibility of the reports (format, language and readability) and the quality of the data provided. For example, the official standard ‘Model of report according to Art. 16.2’ is not always used, the different standard codes for “reasons”, “activity” and “method” are in some cases not applied but explained in sentences of varying precision and often information on the number of individuals affected is missing. In a number of cases data provided on the species are too generic to allow for a sound assessment of the derogation. For instance, it is not uncommon that a single derogation covers several species and in some cases even a whole taxonomic group vaguely defined as e.g. “reptiles”, or “plants”, or “Coleoptera”. In other cases the species are not indicated using the Latin name but with trivial national names. Finally some derogations concern species that are not covered by the Directive or even alien species. Notwithstanding the points raised above none of the Member States’ derogations are in apparent conflict with the species protection measures of the Habitats Directive. In total 4.718 derogations were issued by Member States authorities within the biennial period. The distribution of the derogations issued by the Member States is shown in Chart 1. As evident their number varies considerably, from no derogations issued at all, as in the case of Cyprus, to several hundreds in others, such as France, Germany and the UK. Chart 1. Number of derogations issued by each MS in 2005 and in 2006.

Number of Derogations

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

AT BE CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL P L P T S E S I S K UK

2005

2006

Derogations issued in Austria, in the Netherlands and in the United Kingdom are relative to the biennial, because it was not possible to breakdown the derogations per year.

Page 9: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

7

The number of derogations granted by MS from 2001 to 2006 varies considerably (Chart 2). Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and the United Kingdom issued almost the same number of derogations, while other countries show very different numbers. Germany and the Netherlands significantly increased the number of derogations: from the initial 50 derogations issued in 2001, to almost 500 in 2006 in the case of Germany and from 0 to more than 300 in the case of the Netheralnds. Also Finland shows an increasing trend, but with lower number of derogations. France, until 2005, and Sweden, up to 2004, show a similar trend, even though the use of derogations decreased in the following years. Italy and Spain show a mirror trend: while the number of derogations in Italy decreases from 2002 to 2005 and then re-increases, the number of derogations in Spain increases during the same years and then decreases. Chart 2. Number of derogations issued by MS during the period 2001-2006.

Derogations trend

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

BE

DE

DK

ES

FI

FR

IT

PT

SE

UK

AT

EL

IE

NL

The MS that acceded to the EU in 2004 have not been considered due to the lack of information relative to the 2001-2003 period. Luxembourg has not been included because it issued only 3 derogations in 2005. The number of derogations issued in Austria, in the Netherlands and in the United Kingdom is an estimate, as it was not possible to breakdown the derogations per year. There is a considerable difference between the number of derogations and the number of licenses issued per derogation and sometimes a single derogation covers several licenses. The main difference between the two indicators is evident in the German, Spanish, French, Hungarian and English reports, where a single derogation includes up to hundreds of licenses.

Page 10: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

8

Chart 3. Number of derogations and licenses granted in the biennial 2005-2006 by MS.

Derogations and Licences

0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

AT BE CZ DEDK EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IT LT LU LVMT NL PL PT SE SI SK UK

Derogations Licences

Cyprus is not indicated because it did not issue derogations in 2005 and in 2006. The reasons for derogations in the biennial 2005 - 2006 across the EU is provided in Chart 4 and detailed in Table 4 with Member State specific information. Chart 4. Percentage of derogations granted for each specific reason in the biennial 2005-2006.

Main reasons

22%

12%

11%

51%

3% 1%

For public health To prevent damagesTo protect wild flora and fauna For researchTo allow the selective taking of species N/A

In some cases more than one reason is included in a single derogation. Here only one reason per derogation has been considered. According to the data provided by the national reports, about 51 % of all derogations are issued “for research and education purposes, of repopulating and re-introducing these species and for the breeding operations necessary for these purposes, including the artificial propagation of plants” (code 50). Most of these derogations concern

Page 11: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

9

inventories, census or genetic analyses or study on population dynamics to increase the knowledge on species listed in the Habitats Directive. A smaller number allowed for the capture of few individuals of different species for education activities inside zoos or museums. Another substantial number of derogations (22%) was issued ‘in the interests of public health and public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment’ (code 10). In the Netherlands about ¾ of the 2005-2006 derogations have been issued for this reason. They were often connected with mitigation and compensation measures carried out as part of development or restoration projects of infrastructures and houses. The derogations (12%) connected with the prevention of serious damage, in particular to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water and other types of property (code 30) were issued for species with significant impact on different sectors, such as Castor fiber on crops and water in Germany, Phoca vitulina on fishery in Denmark and Canis lupus on livestock in Slovenia. 11% of the total amount of derogations was issued in the interest of protecting wild fauna and flora and conserving natural habitats (code 40), particularly used in the United Kingdom. Almost all derogations granted “to allow, under strictly supervised conditions, on a selective basis and to a limited extent, the taking or keeping of certain specimens of the species listed in Annex IV in limited numbers specified by the competent national authorities” (code 60) have been issued to allow for the selective killing of some species, such as in Latvia the Lynx lynx. As shown in Table 4 the use of reason 50 (for research and education) is broadly distributed among the MS whereas the use of reason 60 (to allow the selective taking of certain specimens) is more country specific and especially used by Slovenia to kill Ursus arctos. Most of derogations issued for research and education purposes allow capture of specimens followed by immediate release for species identification, marking/tagging. Non-destructive and/or reversible activities such as capture, disturbance, keeping, and transport are broadly applied among the five main reasons for derogation. Killing of specimens is mainly applied to prevent serious damage, in particular to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water and other types of property and, in some cases, to justify the annual harvesting quota relative to a species. Mammals are the most derogated class followed by amphibians. More than half of the derogations concerning mammals affect different species of bats, while the other concern Lutra lutra, Lynx lynx, Canis lupus, Ursus arctos and Castor fiber. Derogations affecting plants and insects are the minority.

Page 12: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

10

Table 4. Summary of Member States derogations and the distribution of reasons for derogation, 2005 – 2006

Reasons 2005/2006

Country

10

For public health

30

To prevent damages

40 To protect wild flora

and fauna

50

For research

60 To allow the selective

taking of species N/A

Total

AT 2 2 4 45 0 0 53

BE 5 0 2 30 0 0 37

CY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CZ 70 2 22 9 0 3 106

DE 60 200 0 600 0 0 860

DK 0 2 2 23 0 0 27

EE 0 2 0 0 2 0 4

EL 0 0 0 8 0 0 8

ES 0 50 70 250 0 0 370

FI 16 9 0 215 2 8 250

FR 9 20 318 512 3 0 862

HU 86 1 0 21 0 0 108

IE 20 0 0 54 0 0 74

IT 1 2 0 190 0 0 193

LT 0 0 0 12 0 0 12

LU 0 0 0 3 0 0 3

LV 0 0 0 14 2 0 16

MT 0 0 5 18 0 0 23

NL 239 16 43 20 0 0 318

PL 238 138 7 134 1 0 518

PT 0 0 0 33 0 0 33

SE 4 13 0 54 0 1 72

SI 56 12 0 31 121 44 264

SK 38 110 2 88 0 0 238

UK 212 0 43 14 0 0 269

EU 1.056 579 518 2378 131 56 4.718

Page 13: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

11

3 Member State reports A summary of the analysis of the Member States derogation reports is provided below.

3.1 Austria In 2005-2006, the nine Austrian Landers granted a total of 53 derogations. With few exceptions all licenses were issued for “research and education purposes, of repopulating and re-introducing these species and for the breeding operations necessary for these purposes, including the artificial propagation of plants”, allowing mainly capture and releasing of different species. Five derogations include deliberate destruction or taking eggs in the wild of not specified small mammals, bats, reptiles and amphibians. In some cases the number of licences is not indicated; when it is stated, only few licenses (1 - 12) are issued under each derogation. Most of the derogations affect several species. In some cases the species related information is provided at a taxonomic level which is too generic (e.g. Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, or Insects, Plants) to assess if the species or group of species concerned are covered by the Directive. Some derogations concern species not included in the Directive, such as Anguis fragilis and Conocephalus discolor. Not all the sections of the Austrian report follow the EU Commission format, as the different Landers have compiled different derogations forms in different ways. Moreover, different categories are given in words and not by means of standard codes, increasing the risk of misinterpretations. However, the information in the report is quite complete, except for some Landers (i.e. Karnten and Niederosterreich), which do not provide all the information needed. For instance, the number of species affected is often not provided. In conclusion, beyond the points raised above, none of the Austrian derogations seems in apparent conflict with the species protection measures.

3.2 Belgium A total of 37 derogations were issued in the period 2005-2006 (13 in 2005 and 24 in 2006), more than double of those granted in the previous biennial report. The main reason for derogations is for the purpose of research and education (30 derogations). The remaining derogations were granted in the interest of public health and safety and for the protection of flora and fauna. Each derogation concerns only one species, with only few exceptions, which cover all species or all forest bats. Often the derogations cover more than one license. For instance, one derogation of the Flemish Authority grants 11 licenses to allow capture and transport of 14.585 animals belonging to “all species”, which must be released in the wild. Wounded animals, which did not recover, were euthansed (this last number was not reported). To be noted that this derogation has been issued identical for 2005 and for 2006.

Page 14: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

12

The following species were object of derogations: - Castor fiber, 8 derogations allowing disturbance, destructions of dams, transport

and release (only one individual) and capture for education (2 individuals) - Lutra lutra, 3 derogations allowing capture for education (8 individuals) - Cricetus cricetus, 1 derogation allowing capture for education - Various bat and amphibian species, allowing capture and release The derogation report is composed of three different documents: one relative to derogations issued by the Walloon Authority (13), one issued by the Brussels Government (1 derogation) and the third relative to those issued by the Flemish Authority (23). The documents do not follow the EU format. Moreover, the reports do not include the standard codes for reasons, activities and method: this increases the risk of misinterpretations. The following field are missing: - Number of derogated individuals - Number of individuals taken (empty in some cases) - Licensed authority - Region concerned (it seems inside all the Flemish district) - Alternative solutions - Scientific data used - Remarks - Follow up In conclusion the report does not provide all information needed, but according to the information provided, it seems that the derogations granted are not in conflict with the species conservation measures.

3.3 Cyprus The Government of Cyprus has not granted any derogation under the article 16 of the Habitats Directive during the reporting period 2005-2006.

3.4 Czech Republic A total of 106 derogations were granted in 2005-2006 (76 derogations in 2005 and 30 in 2006). A comparison with the previous biennial report is not possible as the current one is the first one for the Czech Republic. Sometimes different reasons (up to three) or several activities (up to six) are covered by the same derogation. Most derogations (70, of which 51 in 2005 and 19 in 2006) were granted “in the interests of public health and public safety, or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest” (reason codes 10-15); 22 derogations (19 in 2005 and 3 in 2006) were granted “in interests of protecting wild fauna and flora and conserving natural habitats” (codes 40 and 42) and only 2 (1 in 2005 and 1 in 2006) to “prevent serious damage, in particular to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water and other type of property” (codes 30 and 35).

Page 15: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

13

The most frequent activities are the “deliberate disturbance of the species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration” (code 80) and the “deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places” (code 120). Since none of the derogations give information on the number of licenses issued it is assumed that only one license is issued per permission. One derogation often covers more than one species (up to 14). While this can be justified when the concerned species are similar, belonging to the same class or order (e.g. amphibians, reptiles, bats, etc.), it is not justifiable when the same derogation covers unrelated species (e.g. plants and animals, vertebrates and invertebrates, reptiles and mammals, or even amphibians, mammals and mollusks). Most license derogations concern a not stated number of individuals of different species of amphibians (68 derogations) and a few species of reptiles (47). Only a small number of derogations involve some mammalian species, mostly allowing for disturbance and deterioration or destruction of breeding sites of the Lutra lutra (11 derogations) and the Castor fiber (6 derogation), or allowing for capture (code 20), disturbance and killing (code 30) of an unknown number of Cricetus cricetus (1 derogation) and Spermophilus citellus (1 derogation). Other concerned species are the following: - Plants: Matteuccia struthiopteris, Dactylorhiza majalis and Arnica montana (the

first 2 species are not listed in any Annex, while the latter is included in the Annex V);

- Fresh water fish: Misgurnus fossilis (Annex II), Cottus gobio (Annex II), C. poecilopus (not listed), Zingel zingel (Annex II and V);

- Bats: Plecotus austriacus, Vespertilio murinus, Rhinolophus hipposideros, Barbastella barbastellus, Myotis brandtii, M. emarginatus, M. myotis, and others generically indicated as “Microchiroptera” (all included in the Annex IV, some also in II);

- Insects: Zerynthia polyxena, Parnassius apollo, *Osmoderma eremita (all included in the Annex IV and the last one also in Annex II);

- Crustaceans: Astacus astacus (Annex V); - Molluscs: Anodonta cygnea (not listed in any Annex). Some derogations (5 in 2005 and 3 in 2006) were granted for killing a few species in the interests of public health and safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest: Bufo viridis (4 derogations), Bombina bombina (1 derogations), Cottus gobio (1 derogation), Cricetus cricetus (1 derogation), Spermophilus citellus (1 derogation). Information about the number of individuals affected is totally missing. The Czech report does not follow the EU Commission format, but a tabular form which does not include some of the foreseen fields (the authorized authority, alternative solutions, scientific data used), while contains the “time conditions” column which is not foreseen in the official format, but which furnishes more additional useful information. Some of the fields (i.e. “number of license granted or authorized persons”) were left empty, and some others are only rarely filled (i.e. the “taking method”, “controls which have been carried out” and “number of individuals taken” columns are filled only one time and in the latter one the sentence “unspecified” is indicated). In some cases in the “year of permission”, “reason” and “permitted activity” columns it is reported “?”. In some instances, code 70 is used as an activity, which is not foreseen in the standardised code for authorized activity. The concerned species is sometimes “unspecified” or it is generically indicated as “critically and highly endangered species”.

Page 16: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

14

In conclusion even though the report is lacking some of the information needed, none of the Czech derogations seem in apparent conflict with the species protection measures of the Habitats Directive.

3.5 Denmark A total of 28 derogations were issued in 2005-2006 (15 in 2005 and 13 in 2006), three times more than those issued during the previous biennial. Most of the derogations, 23, were issued for the purpose of research and education; other reasons are for the protection of wild fauna and to prevent serious damage to fisheries. The latter has been used in two derogations for the killing of 16 individuals of Phoca vitulina (listed in annex II and V): seven in the year 2005 and nine in 2006. Each derogation grants just one licence, with the exception of those relative to Phoca vitulina, which include 18 licenses for each year. Most of the derogations were issued for the deliberate capture or deliberate taking of eggs of different species of amphibians in the wild mainly for breeding and repopulation activities: - Bombina bombina (Annex II and IV), 2.000 eggs, 50 individuals captured and

released after hibernation; . - Bufo calamita (Annex IV), 1.000 individuals, 20.000 eggs/tadpoles, and 20 egg-

strings; - Hyla arboea (Annex IV), 1.000 individuals and 2.000 eggs; - Pelobates fuscus (Annex IV), 1.000 individuals and exchange of tadpoles between

lakes; - Rana arvalis (Annex IV), 2 individuals; - Triturus cristatus (Annex II and IV), 15 individuals. Other derogations with the same allowed activity are relative to three insects and one reptile: - Dytiscus latissimus (Annex II and IV), number unspecified; - Ophiogomphus cecilia (Annex II and IV), 4 larvae; - Maculinea arion (Annex IV), 35 wing fragments from each individual and 5-10

females, offspring to be released at the site; - Lacerta agilis (Annex IV), 27 individuals captured 6 of which released after

exhibition; Three additional derogations have been issued for the deliberate picking, collecting or cutting of plants in their natural range in the wild: - Cypripedium calceolus (Annex I), 5-10 seedlings and root tips of 10 plants, 15 seed

capsules and 20 leaf tips; - Ophrys insectiflora (not listed), only few leaves; - Dactylorhiza incarnata (not listed), 15 seedlings and root tips of 20 plants and 15

seed capsules; - Dactylorhiza maculate spp maculate (not listed), 5-10 specimens; - Dactylorhiza maculate spp fuchsii (not listed), 5-10 specimens; - Epipactis palustris (not listed), 15 seedlings and root tips of 20 plants and 15 seed

capsules; It is not clear why derogations for the above five plant species not included in the Habitats Directive were granted.

Page 17: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

15

The report from Denmark follows the Commission format but some fields are left empty: alternative solutions, scientific data used and remarks. The method is always generically indicated as BTH (meaning that the activity that can be used for derogations under the Birds and Habitats Directives) and sometimes as HSD (meaning that the activity can only be used under the Habitats Directive). As follow up the report always indicates “report to the agency by end of the year", but often the section is empty. Two derogations, relative to Phoca vitulina have not been numbered. In conclusion the report is comprehensible but incomplete. None of the Danish derogations seem to be in apparent conflict with the species protection measures. However, killing of Annex II species (Phoca vitulina) should be authorised only for very important reasons, on the basis of valid scientific data and when no alternative solutions exist. The two derogations concerning this species seem not to respect these assumptions, since the respective fields are empty.

3.6 Estonia Only two derogations were issued in 2005-2006 (one per year), substantially less than those issued during the 7-month period from May to December 2004 (30). Both derogations have been granted for killing bears to prevent serious damage to bee farming and to “allow, under strictly supervised conditions, on a selective basis and to a limited extent, the taking of certain specimens of the species listed in Annex IV in limited numbers specified by the competent national authorities”. Based on the information provided, 23 individuals have been killed in the year 2005 (34 licenses) and 20 in the 2006 (38 licenses). The reports specify that “determinate sustainable harvest rate was based on annual monitoring data and applied research made by Centre of Forest Protection and Silviculture”. According to the Bear online information system for Europe, the number of bears killed is in line with the average of the previous years (2000-2004). The reports state that “date, localization, body measurements, sex, age, generative organs and DNA samples were taken from all individuals shot”. All the carcasses were checked and the damages caused by bears assessed. The Estonian reports follow the EU Commission format and provide all requested information. However, the activity allowed is indicated with the number 34, which is not foreseen in the format’s standardised code, and the taking method is generically indicated as BTH (meaning that the method can be used for derogations under the Birds and Habitats Directives). In conclusion, the reports are easily comprehensible even though the method used is described in a generic way. Considering that the brown bear in Estonia is in good conservation status (Art.17 reporting), with a population size of around 500-600 individuals, the derogations do not seem in conflict with the species protection provisions.

Page 18: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

16

3.7 Finland In Finland 84 derogations were granted in 2005 and 166 in 2006, for a total of 250 derogations. The Finnish derogation report is composed of two parts: one by the Ministry of the Environment, including 223 derogations, is related to the “Protected species under the Nature Conservation Act”, while the other one, by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MMM), including 27 derogations, concerns the “game species and unprotected species under the Hunting Act”. The Nature Conservation Act protects all species of birds and mammals not specifically listed as ‘game species or unprotected species’ in the Hunting Act. Game animals, which are listed in the Annexes of the Habitats Directive, are protected under the Hunting Act, which implements the provisions of the Directive. While in the first section of the report, every derogation covers a single licence and a single species, in the second part of the report every derogation covers more than one licence (up to 89 in 2005 and 90 in 2006) and a single species. Almost all the 223 ‘protected species’ derogations were given “for the purposes of research and education, of repopulating and re-introducing and for the breeding operations necessary for these purposes, including the artificial propagation of plants” (code 50). The only exceptions are: - 5 derogations (1 in 2005 and 4 in 2006) given for allowing the “deterioration or

destruction of breeding sites or resting places” (code 120) of the Pteromys volans (priority species included in the Annexes II and IV), under the reason of “imperative reasons of overriding public interest” (code 14);

- 1 derogation given in 2006 for “deliberate destruction in the wild” (code 145) of the perennial herb Cinna latifolia;

- 2 derogations granted in 2006 “to allow, under strictly supervised conditions, on a selective basis and to a limited extent, the taking of certain specimens of the species listed in Annex IV in limited numbers specified by the competent national authorities” (code 61). These 2 derogations respectively concern 2 plant species, both listed in Annex II and Annex IV: the Saxifraga hirculus and the Drepanocladus vernicosus.

None of the derogations concerning the ‘protected species’ was granted for killing. The more frequently authorized activities for the protected animal species are capture (code 20) and capture for ringing (code 22), while the main activities related to the plants species are their deliberate collecting (code 142) and cutting (code 143). The ‘protected species’ most involved are bats (11 different species), plants (concerning 3 species in 2005 and 36 species in 2006) and insects (concerning 6 diverse species). Other affected species are a few amphibians and molluscs, the Phoca hispida saimensis and the Pteromys volans. The two latter species are both listed as priority ones in Annexes II. In particular, a number of Phoca hispida saimensis were captured and and scared away in order to take photographs and surveys for research purposes. Data related to the number of individuals affected belonging to the species legally protected in Finland, is never indicated. The only exceptions are 2 derogations in 2005, concerning respectively 100 individuals of Margaritifera margaritifera (listed in the

Page 19: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

17

Annexes II and IV) and 10 specimens of Parnassius apollo (included in Annex IV) that were captured. The ‘game species’ concerned by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s report are the wolf (Canis lupus), the brown bear (Ursus arctos), the lynx (Lynx lynx) and the European otter (Lutra lutra). The Finnish wolf population within the reindeer husbandry areas of northern Finland is included in the Annex V. Conversely, the Finnish populations of wolf outside the reindeer management areas, together with the brown bear, the lynx and the otter are listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive, and thus they are all strictly protected ‘game species’ throughout the year under the Hunting Act. For these protected ‘game species’ the MMM set the maximum annual harvesting quota on biological grounds without endangering the population and on the basis of yearly estimates of the species population densities provided by the Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute. All derogations related to the ‘game species’ are granted for killing (code 30). They are: - 158 licences (76 in 2005 and 82 in 2006) were issued for killing with firearms 147

bears (70 in 2005 and 77 in 2006) in the interests of public safety (code 12) and to prevent serious damage to livestock (code 32);

- 84 licences (36 in 2005 and 48 in 2006) were issued for allowing the killing with firearms of 44 wolves (24 in 2005 and 20 in 2006) in the interests of public safety (code 12) and to prevent serious damage to livestock (code 32);

- 195 licences (97 in 2005 and 98 in 2006) were issued for allowing the killing with firearms of 167 lynx (85 in 2005 and 82 in 2006), mostly for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of social nature (code 13) and to prevent serious damage to livestock (code 32);

- 122 licences (62 in 2005 and 60 in 2006) were issued for allowing the killing with traps of Lutra lutra to prevent serious damage to fisheries (code 34). 41 specimens of otter were killed (26 in 2005 and 15 in 2006).

Some derogation for killing game species were granted for the entire year. For all game animals, alternative measures (namely recovering cattle in sheds at evening, using of electrical fences, means for disturbance and/or frightening, compensation for damage) were considered not sufficient or not economically feasible. The large part of the licences issued for wolf hunting concern areas outside the reindeer herding area, and only 30 licences (11 in 2005 and 19 in 2006) were issued for killing 7 wolves (4 in 2005 and 3 in 2006) inside the reindeer herding area, where just occur 6% of the Finnish wolf population. To be noted that in addition to the derogations for killing, one more derogation per year was granted for each ‘game species’ for individuals found dead due to unintentional capture and killing in traffic accidents. A total of 30 individuals of this kind of species were involved in these accidents. The number of animals killed in this way is shared among the different species as follows: - 3 bears (2 in 2005 and one in 2006), which are the 2% of the bears killed in the two-

years period; - 3 wolves (2 in 2005 and 1 in 2006), which represent the 6% of the total of wolves

killed in the 2005-2006 period; - 20 lynx (10 in 2005 and in 2006), which are around 11% of the overall lynx killed in

the same period; - 4 otters (2 in 2005 and other 2 in 2006), which are around 9% of the number of

individuals killed of this species.

Page 20: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

18

The following table shows the data related to these ‘game species’ in comparison with recent years. The information regarding 2001-2004 years is based on database linked to the former Composite Art. 16 Derogation Reports. Derogations for “traffic accident” were also computed in the table.

Species Killed Individuals Total 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Ursus arctos 101 95 71 74 72 78 491

Canis lupus 6 11 14 24 26 21 102 Lynx lynx 58 38 52 67 95 92 402 Lutra lutra 12 25 27 7 28 17 116 177 169 164 172 221 208 1.111

The number of bears and wolves killed in 2005-2006 (150 bears and 47 wolves) is similar to the ones of the past two-years period (145 bears and 38 wolves), but in respect of the 2001-2002 period (196 bears and 17 wolves) the killed bears are lower, while the wolves are quite higher. The higher number of killed wolves in comparison to the 2001-2002, reflects the expansion to new areas and the considerable steady growth of the wolf population. The annual growth in the wolf population in 1996-2004 was an average of 1,17, i.e. 17%3 and the population rose from 110-130 specimens to 205-215 individuals in the period from 2001 to 2005. According to the report, in the same period the number of breeding pairs rose from 11 to 20. The figure of 20 breeding pairs is the minimum viable wolf population requested in Finland in order to ensure the maintenance in the long term of a wolf population as a viable component of its natural habitat. The total of wolves killed by the way of hunting permits in 2005 (24 wolves) corresponds to around 11% of the entire population in the same year. Derogations are granted to prevent damages but without specifying the wolves to be killed are those that caused the damages. However Finland has demonstrated to the Commission through case studies that the hunting on a preventive basis of one harmful individual wolf or several wolves in pack, can limit attacks on domesticated animals. Also the number of killed individuals of bear seems consistent with the growth trend in their populations. The bear population rose from about 300 to 800 animals in the period 1978-2003, with an average annual growth rate of around 4%4. According to the report there were thought to be at least 810-860 bears in Finland at the end of 2005 and the number of breeding pairs was estimated at 95-100. The permitted number of bears killed in 2005 (70 bears) is around 9% of the entire population in the same year. There is a progressive increase in the killed individuals of otter and lynx. This raise is notable in the case of the lynx (the number of animals killed is almost duplicated in comparison to 2001-2002), but minor for the otter. The lynx population has grown steadily and since 1996 it had grown about 40% by 2005. The population size rose from around 870 individuals in 2001 to 1.100-1.200 lynx 3 Management Plan for the Wolf Population in Finland, published in 2005 by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 4 Management Plan for the Bear Population in Finland, published in 2007 by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

Page 21: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

19

in 2005. In this same year the number of breeding pairs was estimated at 1855. The amount of lynx killed by the way of hunting permits in 2005 (85 lynx) corresponds to around 7% of the entire population in the same year. That is in accordance with the 2005 hunting quota for lynx which is of 89 individuals (8% of the total population). According to Kojola (2003) a sustainable hunt is about 10-13% of the population. The otter population has increased considerably during the past few years and at the end of 2005 Finland’s otter population consisted of an estimated 2.500 individuals. The total of the permitted number of otters killed in 2005 (26 otters) amount to around 1% of the whole population in the same year. The Ministry of the Environment report does not follow the Commission’s format and lack information regarding the number of individuals affected, the authorized authority, the region concerned, the alternative solution, the scientific data used, and occasionally the method used for taking. In conclusion, based on the provided information and supplementary information regarding population estimates of specifically Ursus arctos, Canis lupus, Lynx lynx and Lutra lutra, none of the Finnish derogations seem in apparent conflict with the species protection measure of the Habitats Directive or the specific conditions under Art. 16.

3.8 France In France, a total of 861 derogations were granted, 516 in 2005 and 345 in 2006, while 1.985 licenses were issued in 2005 and 550 in 2006, for a total of 2.535. In comparison with the past years, both the number of licences issued and the number of derogations show an increase in the years, with a peak in the year 2005.

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Tot N° Derogations 36 57 185 292 516 345 1.431 N° Licenses 368 281 521 586 1.985 550 4.291

In the 2001-2002 and 2003-2004 periods, the majority of the licences were granted for the purpose of research and education (307 derogations in 2005 and 205 in 2006) and for the protection of wild fauna (178 derogations in 2005 and 99 in 2006), whereas only 2 in 2005 and 1 in 2006 were issued to allow, under strictly supervised conditions, on a selective basis and to a limited extent, the marketing and/or the collecting of two species of plants, the Galanthus nivalis (Annex V) and the Cypripedium calceolus (Annex II and IV). The almost sole activity allowed is the capture, by hand or by nets, often associated with the transport. The only species reported as killed is the wolf (Canis lupus), 3 individuals, of which one in 2005 and 2 in 2006, in order to prevent serious damage to livestock. In both years the species concerned by derogations are numerous (88 species in 2005 and 81 in 2006) but similar. The main difference between the two years is due to a

5 Management Plan for the Lynx Population in Finland, published in 2007 by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

Page 22: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

20

larger number of derogations granted in 2005 concerning several species of bats and amphibians as well as various reptiles species, and fewer involving insects in comparison with 2006. The most derogated species are: - Amphibians: 25 species in 2005 and 18 in 2006, affected by around 180 derogations

in 2005 and 120 in 2006. Bombina variegata, Triturus carnifex and T. cristatus are listed both in Annex II and IV.

- Bats: more than 20 species in 2005 and nearly the half in the 2006, concerned by 174 derogations in 2005 and 69 in 2006. Some of these species, i.e. Barbastella barbastellus, are listed both in Annex II and IV.

- Reptiles: 16 species were involved by approximately 100 derogations in 2005 and 21 species by more than 70 derogations in 2006. As in the past years also the prioritised turtle species Caretta caretta and Chelonia mydas are involved.

- Insects: about 20 derogations in 2005 and almost the double in 2006 concerned some twenty species of insects, among which the two prioritised beetles Rosalia alpina and Osmoderma eremita.

- Plants: 9 derogations in 2005 and 8 in 2006 respectively concerned 6 and 5 species of plants, among which the rare endemic French species Angelica heterocarpa (also prioritised in the Annex II), and the orchids Cypripedium calceolus and Liparis loeselii (included in the Annex II).

Some of other interested species are: - Cricetus cricetus: 16 derogations (9 in 2005 and 7 in 2006) were granted to allow

the transfer by capture and/or transport of more than 125 individuals per year in order to prevent serious damage to crops and for scientific purposes.

- Castor fiber: only in 2005 two derogations were issued to capture a not stated number of specimens for research and education purposes.

- Capra ibex: 3 derogations (2 in 2005 and 1 in 2006) were granted to permit the capture and ringing of an undetermined number of individuals, motivated as above.

Each derogation concerns a single species, it is granted under a single reason and in general only one or a few licenses (up to 12) are issued per derogation. The derogation report does not follow the EU Commission format, but a tabular form which does not include some of the requested fields (the “region concerned”, the “authorized authority”, “alternative solutions”, “scientific data used” and the “follow-up” sections are missing), while some of the present fields (i.e. “number of license granted or authorized persons”, “authorized method”, etc.) were sometimes left empty. Information regarding the number of individuals affected is only seldom provided. Moreover, reasons and activities are given in words and not by means of standard codes and this increases the risk of misinterpretations. The validity of some derogation is extended over more than one calendar year (up to 4 years). In some cases only the date for the beginning or the end of the licence validity is specified, and thus it is not possible to deduce the extent of the licence period. In many other cases only the number of months covered by the licence is indicated. Since in these latter cases the dates of beginning and end of implementation of the licence is omitted, it is not possible identify whether those periods overlap with the breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration ones.

Page 23: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

21

In conclusion even though the report does not provide all the requested information, none of the French derogations seem in apparent conflict with the species protection measures of the Habitats Directive.

3.9 Germany A total of 860 derogations have been issued in the biennial 2005-2006: 390 derogations were issued in 2005 and 470 in 2006, which are less than the ones issued during the previous biennial period (1.281). The main reason for derogations is for the purpose of research and education. Another main reason used, in particular for Castor fiber is to prevent serious damage, in particular to crops, fisheries, water, etc. The rest were issued in the interest of public health and safety, etc. and in the interest of protecting wild fauna and flora. Licences: 668 licences were issued in 2005 and 1.140 in 2006. Most of the derogations include single licenses, with a few exception, such as in the case of one 2006 derogation directed at Castor fiber includes 221 licenses relative to the capture of 227 individuals. The duration of the licenses is often more than one year, in some cases five or six years. A considerable number of the licenses cannot be linked to any of the Annexes of the Directive due to an insufficient taxonomic specification (e.g. amphibians, reptiles, insects, mammals), generic statements as flora and fauna or lacking Latin names. Other derogations do not include the name of the animal or plant object of the derogation. Some others are directed at species not listed in the Habitats Directive (i.e. Vespa cabro) or to Aves as in the case of the Freiburg region. Most of the derogations concerning species covered by the Directive relate to Annex IV species. 201 derogations concern Castor fiber (91 in 2005 and 110 in 2006), including a total of 662 licenses. The number of derogations is in line with the previous years and compatible with the registered expansion of beaver population and related to the increase of conflicts with water supplies, agriculture and forestry. Most of the licenses were issued to prevent serious damages, in particular to crops and to water, for imperative reasons of overriding public interest and for the purpose of research and education. The activities allowed are capture in the wild, disturbance and destruction of breeding sites. The report does not follow the EU standard model. The document includes almost all the obligatory fields but most of the time they have not been filled in. The fact that derogations have not been numbered and that a considerable number of them is hand written does not facilitate the assessment. Moreover, different regions compile different derogations forms in different way. This seems to indicate an absence of coordination among the competent authorities, and at times a lack of awareness of the object of derogations. In conclusion, based on the scarce information provided, none of the German derogations seems to be in apparent conflict with the species protection measures of the Habitats Directive.

Page 24: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

22

3.10 Greece The document consists of one page report with a list of 8 derogations granted for the purpose of research (6 in 2005 and 2 in 2006). This is a step onward in comparison with the previous biennial, when no report was submitted to the Commission. The Greek report does not follow the EU Commission format and provides only few of the requested information, such as derogations number and year, species concerned, reason and name of the authorizing authority and of the license beneficiary. Based on the information provided, derogations in 2005 and 2006, all granted by the Forestry Service, concern the following species: - Pinna nobilis (annex IV) - Monachus monachus (annex II and IV) - Laudakia stellio, cited in the Habitats Directive as Stellio stellio (annex IV) - Sea turtles (all present in Greek waters) - Bats (unspecified species) - Fresh water fish (unspecified species) - Plants (unspecified species) According to the report, no individuals were killed. In conclusion, the report is incomplete, but it seems that none of the Greek derogations seems in apparent conflict with the species protection measures.

3.11 Hungary A total of 108 derogations were issued in 2005-2006 (44 in 2005 and 64 in 2006). Most of the derogations (86), were issued in the interests of public health and public safety, while the second reason most used is for the purpose of research and education (21 derogations). Among the latter, derogations for the purposes of repopulating Gladiolus palustris (1 in 2006), for the purposes of re-introducing Castor fiber (2 in each year) and for the purposes of breeding operations necessary for collection and cultivation of reproductive specimen of Dianthus diutinus (1 in each year) have been granted. The reason to prevent serious damages to fisheries has been used only one time in 2005. Main activities allowed are destruction of resting places of the bat Nyctalus noctula. All derogations relative to this species (79) were issued in the interests of public health and the permits include provisions for compensating the deterioration of suitable bat habitats: for each 10 slit-shelters destroyed, at least 1 piece of artificial shelter with the capacity for 100 bat individuals should be installed. After completion of works a written report about the works' implementation should have been provided to permitting authority. Some specimens of Orthoptera and Lepidoptera species, such as Euphydryas aurinia, E. maturna, Isophya costata, I. stysi, Maculinea arion, M. teleius, Odontopodisma rubripes, Parnassius mnemosyne and Pholidoptera transylvanica have been killed and collected for studies of morphometrics, genetics and morphology of genitals and/or for

Page 25: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

23

museum purposes. Only specimens at the end of the breeding cycle (specimens after copulation and laying of eggs) have been collected. 813 licenses have been granted. Licences for both years concern mostly Annex IV species, followed by Annex II and Annex V ones. In some cases derogation includes more than one species. Hungarian report follows the EU Commission format. However, the following inconsistencies are present: - Information about the number of individuals affected is missing in most cases, in

particular as regards bats. - In some cases of bat derogations, the report doesn’t indicate the species but only the

order. - Authorised Authority is not indicated. None of the Hungarian derogations seem to be in apparent conflict with the species protection measures.

3.12 Ireland In Ireland 40 derogation licences were issued in 2005 and 34 in 2006, about the double of those issued during the previous years. In 2005, with few exceptions, the most frequent reason used is for the purpose of research and education; while in 2006 the most frequent reason used is for the construction of roads or other infrastructures. Activities allowed are deliberate disturbance of species during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration, deliberate capture in the wild or deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places. Based on the provided information none of the individuals affected by derogations has been killed. In the cover letter mitigation measures are mentioned (in particular in relation to activities that create disturbance), but the kind of measures taken is not specified, with the exception of the otter, in which case it is specified that mitigation measures include the construction of safe underpasses to prevent attempts to cross roads. Licences granted in both years concern Annex IV species and none relate to Annex V. In 2005 the species affected are almost exclusively bats, with the exception of some individuals of Lutra lutra, cetaceans and two individuals of Bufo calamita. Some of the bat species derogated are listed also in Annex II. The Irish report doesn’t follow the EU Commission format, but an outline that does not include the following information: - Region concerned - Period - Alternative solutions - N° of individuals taken - Scientific data used - Follow-up Competent Authority and Authorised Authority are indicated only in the cover letter, where some alternative solutions and follow-up measures are mentioned but without specifying which kind of measures has been used.

Page 26: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

24

Derogation number has been confused with license number and the species are sometimes mentioned with the common name. In many cases of bat derogation, the report doesn’t indicate the species but generically the order or the genus. In conclusion, the report is incomplete but none of the derogations seem to be in apparent conflict with the species protection measures.

3.13 Italy According to the derogation report from Italy a total of 193 derogations have been granted, 116 in 2005 and 77 in 2006; which represent a relevant reduction (up to 1/3) compared with the previous report. In most of the cases the derogations granted concern the capture of wild fauna (187 times over a total of 193) for the purposes of research and education or the moving of mammals (three Hystrix cristata individuals) to prevent serious damage to crops. The only individuals reported as killed, for the purpose of research and education, are Lepidoptera of the Parnassius genus: 9 individuals of the Apollo species and 39 of the Mnemosyne species. A total of 2.364 individuals, belonging to 50 different species, were derogated. The derogated species are: a) 1.244 individuals belonging to the Chiroptera order. b) 603 individuals belonging to the amphibian class, among which:

- 306 individuals Speleomantes genus (S. italicus, S. ambrosii, S. strinatii): all Italian endemic species classified in the IUCN red list as near threatened. The derogations granted in the Liguria and Umbria regions indicate only a presumed time and the method and authorised activity (capture, capture for keeping in captivity for research purposes) are hypothetical;

- 147 Salamandrina terdigitata; - 101 of the Rana genus (R. lessonae camerino, R. italica Dubois, R. latastei

Boulenger); - 35 Bombina variegata; - 9 Triturus carnifex; - 5 Salamandra lanzai Nascetti.

c) 163 Phyllodactilus europeus Genè all in the Liguria region, for marking with acrylic colours.

d) 200 Lepidoptera of the Parnassius genus (of which 48 were killed). e) 134 individuals belonging to the reptiles class, among which:

- 121 Podarcis muralis; - 12 Coluber viridiflavus ; - 1 Elaphe quatuorlineata.

f) 10 Ursus arctos marsicanus* (in the Abruzzo region) and 1 Ursus arctos* (in the Trentino Alto Adige province) for radio collaring.

g) 3 Hystrix cristata in the Marche region, to avoid damage to the riverbanks. h) 2 Canis lupus* one in Tuscany and one in the Emilia Romagna region, captured for

medication and then released. i) 2 Rupicapra pyrenaica ornata* in the Abruzzo region, (captured on the base of the

Triennial plan 2006-2008. In the remarks section it is stated that 2 individuals died following capture).

j) 2 Muscardinus avellanarius.

Page 27: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

25

Only in 4 cases the derogations refer in a generic manner to the Microchiroptera order and in these cases the number of declared individuals is 0. In general only one or a few licences were issued per derogation (from 1 to 3); only 27 derogations concern between 4 and 6 licences. The report does not follow the format suggested by the Commission, but a similar format which does not include some of the foreseen fields: no mention of authorized authority, of alternative solutions, of the scientific data used, of the supervisory measures used and of the results obtained. Moreover some information is only partially furnished: when referring to reason for derogation, the nature of risk is not mentioned; when taking method and/or means used are indicated, the reasons for their use are not specified. In some instances it is written that the period is only hypothetical, while in other instances the lack of detailed information is justified with the fact that the activity mentioned is part of multi-annual plans or projects. The Friuli Venezia Giulia region has not provided indications relative to the taking method. Two new codes, not foreseen by the Commission, have been added: code 66, as a motivation and code 60, as activity indicating release. There is however a progress from past reports, where the number of individuals affected was seldom provided, while in this report this information is always provided, even if sometimes it is zero. In conclusion, the report is incomplete but none of the derogations seems to be in apparent conflict with the species protection measures.

3.14 Latvia The report from Latvia indicates seven derogations for the year 2005 and nine for 2006. Most of the derogations have been granted for the capture of different species for the purpose of research and education and just two for the killing of 112 individuals (74 in the year 2005 and 38 in 2006) of Lynx lynx to allow, “under strictly supervised conditions, on a selective basis and to a limited extent, the taking of certain specimens of the species listed in Annex IV in limited numbers specified by the competent national authorities”. According to expert estimate, the current national population is approximately 500 individuals. The population has increased since early 90s and a stable status has been recorded for the last five-year period. The lynx population size is controlled in Latvia through hunting according to the “Action plan for the conservation of the Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) in Latvia”. Based on the Action plan, the annual hunting quotas should below 10% of the population estimate (50 individuals in 2005 an in 2006). According to the derogations report, the annual harvesting quota has not been respected in 2005 when 24 additional individuals have been killed. A total of 126 licences have been granted one for each individual. Three derogations were granted for the capture of specimens of different species for the Riga National Zoo: one Coronella austriaca individual, five Hyla arborea and two Lacerta agilis.

Page 28: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

26

Based on the information provided, the other derogations concern the capture of: - Dytiscus latissimus, 1 individual; - Leucorrhinia albifrons, 5 individuals; - Leucorrhinia pectoralis, 11 individuals; - Graphoderus bilineatus, 33 individuals; - Ophiogomphus cecilia, 2 individuals; - Unio crassus, 3 individuals. The Latvian report follows the EU Commission format and provides all requested information (the field “alternative solutions” has been filled out, but the answer is simply “no”). The method of numbering the derogations creates some confusion (as the number is repeated when the species are the same for both years) and the names of the species are sometimes wrong. The taking method is always generically indicated as BTH (meaning that the activity can be used for derogations under the Birds and the Habitats Directives). In conclusion, the report is complete and none of the Latvian derogations seem in apparent conflict with the species protection measures. However, the effect of killing more than 10% of the Lynx lynx population in 2005 should be investigated.

3.15 Lithuania The report from Lithuania indicates six derogations for the year 2005 and six for 2006. All derogations have been granted for the capture with nets of fish species for the purpose of research and education or for the purpose of breeding operations necessary for the keeping in captivity. Based on the information provided, derogations in 2005 and 2006 concern the following species: - Abramis vimba - Alosa fallax - Coregonus lavaretus holsatus - Pelecus cultratus - Salmo salar Individuals belonging to the species Aspius aspius were captured only in 2005, whereas individuals belonging to the species Coregonus peled were captured only in 2006. 28 licenses were granted in 2005 and 16 in 2006. The Lithuanian report follows the EU Commission format and provides all requested information (the fields “remarks” and “alternative solutions” have been filled out, but the answer is simply “no”). As follow up, the report always states that a final report on results is foreseen and that a notification of place and time is “obligatory”. In many cases quantitative data on the individuals taken are provided in kilos and not in number of individuals. Only in the case of Salmo salar, the number of individuals concerned is reported. To be noted that in both derogations concerning Salmo salar it is stated that only some of the individuals who were taken were then returned to the “water body after they had been marked” (65 on a total of 141 in 2005, and 99 on a total of 107 in 2006).

Page 29: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

27

In conclusion, none of the Lithuanian derogations seem to be in apparent conflict with the species protection measures.

3.16 Luxembourg Only three derogations were issued in the biennial 2005-2006. All derogations have been granted for capture for the purpose of research and education. Based on the information provided, one of the derogation reported, that foresees the capture with traps of Muscardinus avellanarius, has not had any consequences: the number of individuals taken is zero. Another derogation allows the capture with nets and following release of an unknown number of Chiroptera individuals. The last derogation foresees the capture with nets, marking and release of 544 Oxygastra curtisii (122 in the year 2005 and 422 in 2006) and of 91 Lycaena helle, and the capture of an unknown number of terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates but no further information are provided, as “the study is not finished”. 16 licenses were granted in the biennial. The report follows the EU Commission format and provides almost all requested information (alternative solutions, remarks and follow up are never mentioned). In conclusion, none of the derogations seem to be in apparent conflict with the species protection measures.

3.17 Malta A total of 23 derogations were issued in 2005-2006 (13 derogations in 2005 and 10 in 2006), a lower number than the 2004 period, when 36 derogations were granted. Most of the derogations were granted to research institutes or animal protections organizations (i.e. University of Malta, International Animal Rescue, etc), for the purpose of research and education (reason codes 50-51) or for the protection of wild fauna (reason code 42). Disturbance (code 80), keeping in captivity (code 50), caring for wounded animals (code 51) and captive breeding (code 90) are the most frequent activities related to animals species, while deliberate picking (code 141), collecting (code 142) and cutting (code 143) in the wild are those connected to plants. Only 4 derogations, granted for the purpose of research, were issued for killing: - 2 derogations (one in 2005 and another in 2006) for collecting a total of 35

specimens of Lampedusa imitatrix, a door snail species listed in Annex IV and as priority in Annex II;

- 2 derogations (one per year) for collecting 3 specimens of Gibbula nivosa, a small sea snail listed in Annexes II and IV, in 2005 and 113 specimens in 2006.

Page 30: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

28

All derogations cover only one licence and only one species, with only few exception, mostly when it is related to research and teaching purposes. Contrary to the past report, information on the number of individuals affected is always provided. The animal species are cetacean (Annex IV), chiropterans (i.e. Myotis punicus), insects (i.e. Pseudoseriscius cameroni, listed in Annexes II and IV), lizards (i.e. Podarcis filfolensis, Annex IV), turtles (i.e. Caretta caretta, listed in Annex IV and in Annex II as priority species), etc. As in the previous report, the derogations concerning cetaceans are issued in order to care for stranded animals, and those relating to turtles for rehabilitation and eventual release of injured/weak/accidentally captured specimens. The plant species are Orobanche densiflora f. melitensis (listed in Annex II and IV) in 2005, different species of Orchids, Helichrysum melitense and Palaeocyanus crassifolius (both listed in Annex II as priority species and IV) in 2006. In the “Covering Note” to the report it is stated that the conservation status of the species concerned is not being affected by the activities related to research and teaching or to conservation of wild fauna species. The report from Malta follows the Commission’s format and furnishes all the requested information, even though sometimes not all fields are filled. In conclusion the report is easy to interpret, complete and consistent. Based on the provided and assessed information, none of the Maltese derogations is in apparent conflict with the species protection measures of the Habitats Directive.

3.18 Netherlands The Ministry for Agriculture, Nature and Food quality issued 318 derogations in the biennial 2005/2006. It is not possible to provide an exact number of derogations because it seems (from the derogation number) that some of the derogations have been issued during the previous years, but they are still valid in 2005 and/or 2006. About ¾ of the derogations have been issued for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of social nature and of economic nature. This type of derogations is often connected with mitigations and compensation measures carried out as part of development or restoration projects of infrastructures and houses. Derogations issued in the interest of public safety and in the interests of protecting wild fauna and flora and conserving natural habitats follow. 20 derogations were granted for research purpose and of these 3 for repopulating Microtus oeconomus arenicola (*) and not specified bats, and 3 for re-introducing Bombina variegata and Triturus cristatus. The most allowed activity is the deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places, followed by the capture and transport. In most cases, the three activities appear together, indicating that the individuals were captured before the destruction of the breeding/resting sites and transported to other locations. According to the report, no individuals were killed. Often more than one species per derogation are reported. Moreover, several derogations allow licenses for more than one year.

Page 31: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

29

90% of the derogations affect bats and amphibians; of these the most derogated species are Pipistrellus pipistrellus and Bufo calamita. Only one plant, Luronium natans, three mammals (other than bats), Microtus oeconomus arenicola, Lutra lutra and Phoca vitulina, one mollusc, Anisus vorticulus, one beetle, Graphoderus bilineatus, two reptilians, Lacerta agilis and Podarcis muralis, and two dragonflies, Sympecma annulata and Aeshna viridis, have been affected. The Dutch report follows a format similar to the one of the EU Commission, with two fields deleted: authorized authority, alternative solutions and scientific data used. Moreover, some of the fields are empty; in particular: - Number of individuals taken, with only four exceptions - Permitted method (in several cases) Latin names are only included in an Annex whereas Dutch common names are applied in the report proper. None of the Dutch derogations seems in apparent conflict with the species protection measures.

3.19 Poland 518 derogations were issued in the biennial 2005-2006 (146 derogations in 2005 and about 374 in 2006) numbering of 2006 derogations goes until 67 and then restarts from 21. Finally, two derogations (number 117 and 118) refer to birds. Moreover, derogations issued in 2005 are put together with those issued in 2004 using the same numbering. Derogations were issued mainly for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of economic nature (238), almost all relating to Helix pomatia, and for the purpose of research and education (134). Other main reason was to prevent serious damage, in particular to crops, fisheries, water, etc. (138) most of which relate to Castor fiber. The rest were issued in the interest of public health and safety. Activities allowed are capturing in the wild, selling, killing, disturbance of species, deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places and transport. 191 derogations (all granted in 2006) seem aimed at the regulation of the commercialisation of a considerable amount of tons of Helix pomatia, an annex V mollusc. Another 171 derogations concern Castor fiber (77 in 2005 and 94 in 2006), which is considered in Poland an Annex V species. The number of derogations seems compatible with the registered expansion of beaver population and the increase of conflicts with water supplies, agriculture and forestry. The activities allowed were capture and killing of Castor fiber in the wild, disturbance and destruction of breeding sites. Some derogations include more than one species, others do not indicate the species but generically the class or the order, making it impossible to determine the relevant annex of the Habitats Directive concerned. However it seems that most of the derogations concern species in Annex II (in particular Castor fiber) and Annex V (in particular Helix pomatia). Number of licenses is never indicated, however it seems that one licence per derogation has been granted.

Page 32: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

30

Based on the information provided, 20 individuals of Cobitis taenia (Annex II), out of 400 captured, have been killed in 2006 for research purposes. The Polish report doesn’t follow the EU Commission format, but an outline (table) that does not include all the information required. Missing information are: - number of licenses granted - scientific data used In conclusion, the report is easily comprehensible and none of the Polish derogations seem in contrast with species conservation.

3.20 Portugal 31 derogations have been issued in the year 2005 and only two in the 2006, all granted for the purpose of research and education. Based on the information provided in the field “scientific data used”, the derogations have been issued to collect information for 13 different research projects. 64 licenses were granted in the year 2005 and 5 in 2006. This represents a significant reduction in comparison with the 389 derogations issued in 2003-2004. The most derogated species are bats (a total of 27 licences for the capture of 359 individuals) and reptiles (18 licences for the capture of 360 individuals, of which 307 Lacerta monticola). Moreover, the derogations allowed the capture of 225 specimens of Anaecypris hispanica, 17 of Genetta genetta, 6 Felis silvestris and 3 Mustela putorius. Two licences have not had any consequences: one concerning Capra pyrenaica and one Euphydryas aurinia. According to the information provided in the remarks all individuals were released after the capture (after the analyses or after the placement of radio controlling devices) with the exception of 21 Anaecypris hispanica, which died. Some derogations do not indicate the species but generically the genus or the order. In most cases derogations concern the capture of animal species and, only in four cases, the deliberate collecting in the wild of three plant species: Armeria pseudoarmeria, Armeria welwitschii and Narcissus sp.. The report follows the EU Commission format and provides all requested information (the fields “follow up” and “alternative solutions” have been filled out, but the answer is simply “no”). In conclusion, the report is easily comprehensible and complete; none of the Portuguese derogations seem in apparent conflict with the species protection measures.

3.21 Slovenia According to the derogation report, it seems that a total of 273 derogations have been granted, 126 in 2005 and 147 in 2006. The data are however not certain because not all the derogations have an identification number.

Page 33: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

31

Most derogations are relative to the brown bear (Ursus arctos). They were issued to allow killing 217 bears (91 in 2005 and 126 in 2006) “in the interests of public safety” and “to allow, under strictly supervised conditions, on a selective basis and to a limited extent, the taking of certain specimens of the species listed in Annex IV in limited numbers specified by the competent national authorities”. No alternative solutions are reported. The other dead bears reported as being killed (44) have been “run down by a car or train” (no reason-code applied). It is not clear why bears, which apparently have been killed accidentally, should be given derogation. Considering that the annual harvesting quota corresponds to 100 individuals, it seems that the Slovenian Government has allowed killing 26 additional bears in 2006. The derogations relative to killing a total of 12 Canis lupus were issued to prevent serious damage to livestock. They include 4 licenses each year, the same number as the previous years. The reasons for the other derogations are for the purposes of research and education. The objects of these derogations are different species of amphibians, insect and bats. Some of them refer only in a generic manner to order. Only two derogations interest plants: Campanula zoysii and Rhododendron luteum. In most cases derogations concern few individuals (from 1 to 5). Except for a few cases, one license is issued per derogation. The report follows the format suggested by the Commission. The Slovenian reporting is detailed and thorough containing information on e.g. gender, weight and age of affected individuals whenever relevant. In conclusion, none of the Slovenian derogations seem in apparent conflict with the species protection measures of the Habitats Directive.

3.22 Slovakia The Slovak Republic issued 123 derogations in 2005 and 115 in 2006. The report includes also 32 issued in 2004, still valid in the present biennial, for a total of 270 derogations. 110 derogations have been issued to prevent serious damage, in particular to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water and other types of property and another 88 derogations for the purposes of research and education. The remaining derogations were issued in the interest of public health and safety, etc. and of protecting wild flora and fauna. The number of licenses issued is missing, while the authorized persons/institutions/ societies are always indicated. It is supposed only one license is issued per derogation. The number of individuals affected is only rarely stated and in a considerable part of the derogations species related information is provided at a taxonomic level too generic (e.g. Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, or Reptiles and Amphibians), or using generic terms, such as “small terrestrial mammals”, to assess if the species or group of species concerned are covered by the Directive. Some derogations concern species not included in the Directive, such as Dryomys nitedula, Eudontomyzon danfordi, Sabanejewia balcanica.

Page 34: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

32

Of the licences directly related to the directive, almost all relate to Annex II and IV species of mammals (i.e. Ursus arctos, Castor fiber, Spermophilus citellus) and of plants (i.e. Onosma tornensis, Ferula sadleriana, Ligularia sibirica, Pulsatilla grandis). Three licenses relate to the Annex V species Rupicapra rupicapra tatrica of which a not stated number has been exposed to disturbance, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing etc. 148 derogations have been issued to allow killing of Ursus arctos and one to kill Eptesicus serotinus. The other derogations allow for capture and/or disturbance of animals and picking and/or collecting of plants. Killing of Ursus arctos using firearms was permitted to prevent serious damage and in the interests of public health and public safety during the period from June 1 to December 15. No alternative solutions to killing are stated. 51 (34 in 2005 and 17 in 2006) individuals were killed and data on weight, age, sex, length of body, tail, head, ears, front and back paw; width of front and back paw, content and weight of stomach, sample of tissue for DNA analyses have been taken. The zoologist of the State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic has controlled all conditions of the derogations directly at the hunting place. Considering that 1) the brown bear is a all year protected game species, 2) that it is legally hunted in Slovakia on specific permission of the Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of Agriculture, 3) that the number of individuals killed each year is in line with the previous periods, that the activity has been carried out in controlled conditions and 4) that the national population is estimated in about 700 individuals, it seems that the derogations allowed are compatible with the species conservation. Killing of 3 individuals of Eptesicus serotinus in every colony in every region of the Slovak Republic has been allowed to collect information about occurrence of bat rabies at national level. Slovak report follows the EU Commission format. However, the following inconsistencies are present: - Information about the number of individuals affected is missing in most cases. - The species is indicated with generic terms. - Alternative solutions and scientific data used are never indicated. - Remark section is empty in many cases. In conclusion, notwithstanding the points above, based on information provided, none of the Slovak derogations seems in apparent conflict with the species protection measures of the Habitats Directive.

3.23 Spain A total of 370 derogations were issued in the biennial: 192 in the year 2005 and 178 in 2006. The number is substantially less than that of the previous biennial, when 1.422 have been issued. The most part of derogations were granted for the purpose of research and education. The most allowed activity concerning plants is the “deliberate picking, collecting, cutting, uprooting or destruction of such plants in their natural range in the wild”; while for animals the main activity is the capture in the wild. However, in 2006 the derogations granted for killing or hunting were increased in comparison with the

Page 35: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

33

previous years. Based on the information provided, a number sometimes undefined of specimens of different species, such as *Canis lupus (annex II and IV/V), Rana perezi, Genetta genetta (listed in annex V), has been killed for the protection of wild fauna. In addition to species listed in the Habitats directive, invasive alien species, such as Mustela vison and other unspecified introduced vertebrates, species not included in the directive, such as Felis catus, Rattus rattus, Capra hircus, Emys scripta, Acridotheres tristis, and an unspecified number of undetermined species (indicated as “introduced vertebrates”) are included. Part of the derogations have been issued for plants not included in the directive. The two derogations, one for each year, for the capture and killing of 13 specimens of *Canis lupus have been granted to prevent serious damage to livestock in Avila, Salamanca and Segovia located at the south of the Duero river, where hunting of the wolf is not allowed by the agreements on the application in Spain of the Habitats Directive. To be noted that the permitted activity was only the capture, but in the field method it is stated “capture and killing” (“captura y sacrificio”). Some derogations have been issued for marketing of different plants (two of which, Solanum lidii and Pericallis hadrosoma, identified as priority species) for repopulating and reintroducing. 13 derogations (4 in 2005 and 9 in 2006) have been issued for keeping in captivity different saurian, anuran and chelonian species (*Caretta caretta, Testudo hermanni, Testudo graeca, *Alytes muletensis, Podarcis litifordi, Gallotia galloti) and for a unspecified number of undetermined species (indicated as “protected species” or “fauna”) for the purpose of research and education. It is appreciable that a considerable number of licenses have been issued to guarantee the long term conservation of plants, many of which priority ones, through a germplasm bank. According to the information provided only seeds and part of plants have been collected. In the year 2005, 1.235 licences have been issued. In 2006, derogations include 1.731 licenses, but of these 1.251 are granted in a single derogation for the capture of different specimens for several protections measures. Some derogations foresee a number of 30 species or even higher. The report follows the Commission format but the information is only partially furnished: the alternative solutions and the scientific data used are rarely mentioned, the species are sometimes generically indicated with the genus or the order (or even as “fauna” or “flora”), the number of individuals affected is misses in most cases and remarks and follow up are not always filled. To be noted, anyway, that the completeness of information varies year by year and Region by Region (for instance, the derogations from the Comunidad Autonoma del Paìs Vasco are almost always complete). Some code is used with not univocal meanings as every time is associated with different descriptions. In other cases a code is used with meaning different from the Commission codification: code 40 is indicated as “population control” (instead of protection of wild fauna and flora); moreover, the report uses a code not foreseen in the official codification: code 70 for “desiccation” of mammalian specimens.

Page 36: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

34

In conclusion the report does not provide all information needed but none of the Spanish derogations seem in apparent conflict with the species protection measures of the Habitats Directive.

3.24 Sweden 35 derogations were granted in 2005 and 37 in 2006. When a derogation indicates both 2005 and 2006 in the ‘Year’ field, it has been considered twice, one per year. The number of derogations is rather higher in comparison with the previous years (5 derogations were granted in 2001, 15 in 2002, 11 in 2003 and 19 in 2004). Unlike the 2001-2002 and 2003-2004 periods, when the majority of the licences were given to prevent serious damage, to crops, livestock, forests, etc. (code 30), and a considerable number in the interest of public health and safety, etc. (code 10) and only a few were issued for the purpose of research, repopulation, etc. (code 50), in the period 2005-2006 the great part of derogations were granted for research and teaching purposes (26 derogation in 2005 and 29 in 2006), while only a small number were granted to prevent serious damage (6 times in 2005 and 8 in 2006) and in the interests of public health and safety (3 derogations in 2005 and 2 in 2006). Usually one derogation covers only one species, with only few exceptions (i.e. bats, reptiles, amphibians, etc), for a total of 3.652 individuals of different species affected in 2005 and 3.845 in 2006. The greater part of the derogations issued for the purposes of research are related to capture of a few different species of amphibians (mainly of eggs and tadpoles). All the derogations granted under the reasons 10 and/or 30 have allowed the killing. In particular, the derogations granted under the reason of preventing serious damage (code 30) are related to killing of 68 individuals of Lynx lynx (14 in 2005 and 54 in 2006), 3 of Canis lupus (1 in 2005 and 2 in 2006) and 3 of Gulo gulo (1 in 2005 and 2 in 2006), while those granted for the dual motives of preventing serious damage (code 30) and in the interests of public health and safety (code 10) concern the killing of 247 individuals of Ursus arctos (115 specimens in 2005 and 132 in 2006). The Swedish police are allowed to decide on killing of animals for the reason of public health and security (code 10). This has been used one time for the lynx. For the reason of self-defense and protection of livestock killing are allowed on one's own initiative. This has been used twice for bears and four times for wolves. The Swedish Parliament has established specific targets relating to the size of the predator populations (expressed as the number of reproductions, i.e. number of females producing young each year), in order to ensure the long-term survival of Sweden's large carnivores (brown bear, wolverine, lynx and wolf). The minimum viable population (MVP) was estimated for both the brown bear and lynx population. Ursus arctos: the MVP for the brown bear is 100 reproductions, which represents

approximately 1.000 individuals. There are currently around 2.550 brown bears in Sweden (2004), located in 67% or more of the country and an annual net increase rise of population of 4.7%. According to the Swedish report, the number of brown bears (Annex II and IV) shot (115 in 2005 and 132 in 2006) is higher than the preceding two-year periods,

Page 37: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

35

when 57 (2001), 62 (2002), 75 (2003) and 98 (2004) animals were shot. These figures show an increase in the number of animals killed, that reflects the increase of the population. Sweden has adopted in 2000 the “Action program for the conservation of bear (Ursus arctos)”, revised in 2003. The hunting activity carried out in Sweden has not had a negative impact for the preservation of the species, as the harvesting is controlled and the harvest rate allows for a steady population growth, since the number of licenses issued is based on annual population estimates made by the Scandinavian Bear Research Project.

Lynx lynx: the MVP is estimated at 300 reproductions, which represents around 1.500

individuals. There were 261 reproductions in 2006. The Swedish lynx population is today stable or slightly expanding and tolerates the careful harvesting. The 14 (2005) and 54 (2006) lynx specimens (Annexes II and IV) shot is a lower figure compared to preceding two-year periods when 117 (2001), 90 (2002), 69 (2003) and 27 (2004) animals were killed. Hunting is allowed only if it does not threaten the long-term survival of the population, and if the harvest is in accordance with the goals formulated in the action plan prepared in 2000 and revised in 2003 (“Action programme for the conservation of lynx (Lynx lynx)”). The taking method was shooting or trapping in tunnel traps and subsequent shooting. The method is selective as trapping prior to killing was conducted as a mean to avoid killing females with young. The Swedish lynx population in the reindeer husbandry areas is subject to lethal control actions that are effectively limiting its population size in order to keep predation on semi-domestic reindeer within acceptable limits. The southern Swedish population is not currently harvested in order to foster expansion into southern Sweden.

As numbers of the priority species wolf and wolverine (both listed in the Annexes II and IV) are low and their long-term survival in Sweden is not assured, Parliament has set interim objectives for these animals. The interim objectives are: Canis lupus: 20 reproductions, which correspond to approximately 200 animals. In

2006 the preliminary figure was of 15 reproductions in Sweden. There were around 150 animals in total.

Gulo gulo: 90 reproductions, representing 575 animals. There were 55 reproductions in 2006, which represents around a couple of hundred of individuals.

There is very limited scope for controlled hunting of these species. There is some limited use of lethal control following acute predation events. As in the previous reports, in addition to the reported derogations, a number of licenses concerning capture and marking for inventories and immediate release of amphibians and bats have been issued. Current scientific research projects on species like wolf, bear, wolverine, lynx and arctic fox include at times the capture, marking and release of individual specimens. As stated in the cover letter, all the activities which do not include the killing or permanent capture of the specimens are not included in the Swedish report. Further, the University of Uppsala has been allowed to collect parts of plants or whole plants of all species within orchids. The derogation is restricted to Gland, an island in the southeast of Sweden, and valid until 2016. A total of 190 licenses were issued in 2005 and 249 in 2006, in line with the previous years. The number of licenses issued per derogation is generally one or two. Only three times one derogation covers more than one or two licenses, up to a maximum of 143.

Page 38: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

36

The Swedish report follows the standard format provided by the Commission, but the reason for derogation and the authorised activity are given in words and not by mean of standard codes, and different categories, such as the reason for derogation, the authorised activity and methods are frequently exchanged, increasing the risk of misinterpretations. Moreover the derogation number and the alternative solutions are never reported. Also the remark and follow up sections are often left empty. Information as the nature of risk, the circumstances of when and where derogations were granted, the supervisory measures used and results obtained are also never reported. Therefore the report is quite incomplete, even though the remark section does at times furnish useful information. In conclusion, based on the provided and assessed information and supplementary information regarding population estimates of specifically Lynx lynx, Ursus arctos, Canis lupus and Gulo gulo, none of the Swedish derogations seems in apparent conflict with the species protection measures of the Habitats Directive.

3.25 United Kingdom 269 derogations were issued in the biennial 2005-2006. Derogations issued in 2005 are put together with those issued in 2006 without specifying the year of issuing. Presumably, on the basis of the period of license issued, about 133 derogations have been issued in 2005 and about 99, in 2006. For the remaining 37 derogations (12 containing 0 licenses and 25 with various not specified periods of licenses) is not possible to make estimates. Derogations were issued for three main reasons: in the interests of protecting wild fauna and flora and conserving natural habitats, in the interests of public health and public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment, and for the purpose of research and education, of repopulating and re-introducing these species and for the breeding operations necessary for these purposes, including the artificial propagation of plants. The most frequent reason used is for overriding public interest. Activities allowed are deliberate disturbance of species, deliberate capture in the wild, deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places, transport, destruction of habitat. Several derogations include more than one species, others do not indicate the species but generically the class or the order, in particular those regarding bats. Based on the information provided, 186 bats have been killed (euthanised under Animal Health Act): 135 Pipistrellus pipistrellus, 5 P. pygmeus, 2 P. nathusii, 3 Eptessicus serotinus, 21 Plecotus auritus, 5 Myotis nattereri, 1 M. brandtii, 5 M. daubentonii, 4 M. mystacinus, 1 M. bechsteinii, 3 Nyctalus noctula and 1 N. leislerii. Twelve derogations include the number bats killed, but no licenses were issued for killing them. 81 Lepus timidus (on a total of 90 individuals allowed to be killed in 2 licenses) have been killed for prevention of spread disease. 3.342 licences were issued in 2005-2006. Most of them concern bats.

Page 39: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

37

The UK report doesn’t follow the EU Commission format, but an outline (table) that does not include all the information required. For instance the codes for the motives for derogation have not been used in the table; while in the note to the report wrong codes are used. Missing information are: - Derogation number - Year - Region concerned - Alternative solutions - Scientific data used - Follow-up - Authorised Authority and Competent Authority: only reporting body is indicated

but it is not clear whether it is Authorised Authority or Competent Authority In conclusion, the report is easily comprehensible but incomplete and none of the derogations seems in apparent conflict with the indications of the Habitats Directive.

Page 40: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

38

ANNEX A Detailed table relative to the standardised codes for derogation motive (reason).

Code Reason

10 in the interests of public health and safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment (Art.16.1 c)

11 in the interests of public health 12 in the interests of public safety

13 for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of social nature

14 for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of economic nature

15 for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment

20 in the interests of air safety

30 to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fishery and water and other types of property (Art.16.1 b)

31 to prevent serious damage to crops 32 to prevent serious damage to livestock 33 to prevent serious damage to forests 34 to prevent serious damage to fishery 35 to prevent serious damage to water 36 to prevent serious damage to agricultural stock-breeding 37 to prevent serious damage to other types of property 40 for the protection of flora and fauna and conserving (Art.16.1 a) 41 for the protection of wild flora 42 for the protection of wild fauna 43 conservation/protection of the natural habitats

50 for the purposes of research and teaching, of restocking, of re-introduction and for the breeding necessary for these purposes, including the artificial propagation of plants (Art.16.1 d)

51 for the purposes of research and teaching 52 for the purposes of repopulation 53 for the purposes of re-introduction

54 for the purposes of breeding necessary for activities 51, 52, 53, including the artificial propagation of plants

60 to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping or other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers (Art.16.1 d)

61 to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the capture of certain birds in small numbers

62 to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, the keeping of certain birds in small numbers

63 to permit, under strictly supervised conditions and on a selective basis, other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers

Page 41: Habitats Report 2005-2006 final - circabc.europa.eu fileOF NATURAL HABITATS AND OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (THE HABITATS DIRECTIVE) Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive

Report on derogations in 2005-2006, Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) Article 16

39

ANNEX B Detailed table relative to the standardised codes for authorized activity.

Code Activity 20 Capture 21 Capture for decoy use 22 Capture (ringing) 23 Capture /hunting with nets 24 Capture/hunting with snares 25 Capture/hunting with lime 26 Capture for keeping in captivity 30 Killing 31 Poisoned baits 50 Keeping (in captivity) 51 Keeping and caring for wounded birds

80 Deliberate disturbance of these species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration (Art.12.1 b)

81 Deliberate disturbance during the period breeding 82 Deliberate disturbance during the period rearing 83 Deliberate disturbance during the period hibernation 84 Deliberate disturbance during the migration period 100 Deliberate destruction or taking of eggs (Art.12.1 c) 101 Deliberate destruction of eggs from the wild 102 Deliberate taking of eggs from the wild 110 Marketing 111 Sale 112 Exchange 113 Offering for sale 114 Offering for exchange 120 Deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places (Art.12.1 d) 121 Deterioration of breeding sites 122 Deterioration of resting places 123 Destruction of breeding sites 124 Destruction of resting places 130 Transport

140 Deliberate picking, collecting, cutting, uprooting or destruction of such plants (Art.13.1 a)

141 Deliberate picking in the wild 142 Deliberate collecting in the wild 143 Deliberate cutting in the wild 144 Deliberate uprooting in the wild 145 Deliberate destruction in the wild