red list european_reptiles

7/27/2019 RED LIST European_reptiles

1/44

European Red List of

Reptiles Compiled by Neil A. Cox and Helen J. Temple


2/44


3/44

IUCN Species Programme

IUCN Regional Oce or Europe

European Red List ofReptiles

Compiled by Helen J. Temple and Neil A. Cox


4/44ii

Published by IUCN (International Union or Conservation o Nature) in collaboration with the European Union.

Te designation o geographical entities in this book, and the presentation o the material, do not imply the expression oany opinion whatsoever on the part o IUCN or the European Union concerning the legal status o any country, territory, or area,or o its authorities, or concerning the delimitation o its rontiers or boundaries. Te views expressed in this publication do notnecessarily reect those o IUCN or European Union.

Citation: Cox, N.A. and emple, H.J. . European Red List o Reptiles. Luxembourg: Oce or OcialPublications o the European Communities.

Cover design: Alasdair Davies at Handshake ProductionsLayout by: Cambridge PublishersProduced by: Cambridge PublishersPrinted by: LabutePicture credits on cover page: Iberian rock lizard (Iberolacerta monticola) Philippe Clement/naturepl.com

All photographs used in this publication remain the property o the original copyright holder (see individual captions or details).Photographs should not be reproduced or used in other contexts without written permission rom the copyright holder.

Available rom: Oce or Ocial Publications o the European Communities, http://bookshop.europa.euIUCN Publications Services, www.iucn.org/publications

A catalogue o IUCN publications is also available.

A great deal o additional inormation on the European Union is available on the Internet.It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be ound at the end o this publication.

Luxembourg: Oce or Ocial Publications o the European Communities, .

ISBN ----

European Communities, Reproduction o this publication or educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without priorwritten permission rom the copyright holder provided the source is ully acknowledged. Reproduction o thispublication or resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission o the

copyright holder.Printed in the United Kingdom.

Te text o this book is printed on gsm environmentally-riendly paper.

Europe Direct is a service to help you fnd answers

to your questions about the European Union

New reephone number:

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11


5/44iii

Contents

Foreword................................................................................................................................................................................... iv

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................................................... v

Executive summary.................................................................................................................................................................. vii

1. Background.......................................................................................................................................................................... Te European context ..................................................................................................................................................... European reptiles: diversity and endemism ..................................................................................................................... Treatened status o species ............................................................................................................................................ Objectives o the assessment ..........................................................................................................................................

2. Assessment methodology....................................................................................................................................................

. Global and regional assessment ....................................................................................................................................... Geographic scope............................................................................................................................................................ axonomic scope ............................................................................................................................................................ Preliminary assessments .................................................................................................................................................. Review workshop () and evaluation o results ........................................................................................................

3. Results ................................................................................................................................................................................. Treatened status o reptiles ............................................................................................................................................ Status by taxonomic group.............................................................................................................................................. Spatial distribution o species .........................................................................................................................................

.. Species richness ...................................................................................................................................................

.. Distribution o threatened species ....................................................................................................................... Endemic species richness ...................................................................................................................................

. Major threats to reptiles in Europe ................................................................................................................................ Demographic trends ....................................................................................................................................................

4. Discussion .......................................................................................................................................................................... Status and population trends o European reptiles ........................................................................................................ Major threats to European reptiles ................................................................................................................................ Protection o habitats and species in Europe ................................................................................................................. Protection o habitats and species in the EU ................................................................................................................. Conservation management o reptiles in the EU ........................................................................................................... Extinction risk versus conservation status...................................................................................................................... Red List versus priority or conservation action ............................................................................................................

5. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................................................... Application o project outputs ...................................................................................................................................... Future work .................................................................................................................................................................

Reerences ................................................................................................................................................................................

Appendix 1. Red List status o European Reptiles .....................................................................................................................

Appendix 2. Methodology or spatial analyses ..........................................................................................................................

Appendix 3. Example species summary and distribution map ...................................................................................................


6/44iv

Foreword

Europe is a continent rich in naturaland cultural heritage, with a diverse

range o habitat conditions rom dryMediterranean maquis in the southto the Arctic tundra o the ar north.Possibly more than anywhere else inthe world the European landscapeshave been changed by human

activities so that now the continent is covered with a mosaico natural and semi-natural habitats surrounding urbanizedareas. Although bringing higher diversity, this modicationhas obviously also placed great pressures on our wildlie andnatural areas.

In , EU Member States made the commitment to halt theloss o biodiversity within the EU by . Te EU Biodiversity

Action Plan adopted in sets out the main targets andactivities needed to achieve this commitment. Te Mid ermReview o the implementation o the Biodiversity Action Planpublished by the Commission in December demonstratesthat, despite some progress made, it is highly unlikely that the target will be met. Numerous scientic studies show thatbiodiversity in Europe has been declining rapidly or sometime during periods o expansion and intensication o landuse. Te recent extensive reporting process under Article o

the EU Habitats Directive (HD) underlines this act as mostspecies and habitats protected under the HD are still not undera avourable conservation status.

Red Lists are another important tool to scientically assess andcommunicate the status o species. Tey useully complementthe reporting under the Habitats Directive as they address allspecies in a specic taxonomic group, not just those protectedby the EU nature legislation. Tey hence give importantcomplementary inormation about the situation o biodiversity

in Europe. Tis rst assessment o the Red List status oEuropes reptiles has assessed all species o the orders Squamata

(lizards and snakes) and estudines (turtles and tortoises)present in Europe, even though reptiles do not orm a propergroup o species rom an evolutionary perspective (snakes andlizards are probably more closely related to birds than to turtlesand tortoises) and the two orders are quite distinct rom oneanother. Te assessment has ollowed the Red List methodologydeveloped by the International Union or the Conservation oNature (IUCN), which is the most common methodologyused throughout the world.

Tis rst assessment o the Red List status o Europes and theEuropean Unions reptiles shows us that about one th o our

species are threatened. Tis compares with % o birds, %o mammals and % o amphibians, the other groups thathave been comprehensively assessed in Europe. Almost hal thereptilian species in Europe (%) show declining populations.Unortunately, the drivers or these declines are mostly still inplace. Habitat loss, degradation and ragmentation pose themain threat.

What can we as Europeans do about this? First and oremost,we need to ully implement the existing European legislation.Te EU Habitats and Birds Directives are the main pieces o

legislation ensuring the protection o Europes nature. TeNatura network o protected sites and the eforts toconserve and restore biodiversity in the wider countryside arehelping to guarantee its uture conservation and sustainableuse.

I hope that this European Red List or reptiles will add anotherpiece o evidence or the act that eforts aimed at halting theloss o biodiversity and the implementation o related Europeanlegislation need a major boost in the coming years.

Ladislav MikoDirector

Directorate B: Protecting the National EnvironmentDirectorate General or Environment

European Commission


7/44v

Aram AgasyanRastko AjticFerdi AkarsuNatalia AnanjevaSteven AndersonClaes AndrnFranco AndreoneBrandon Anthony

Jan Willem ArntzenOscar Arribas

Aziz AvciWiesiek Babik

Sheri Baha El DinIbrahim Baranrevor BeebeePeter Beerli

Acknowledgements

All o IUCNs Red Listing processes rely on the willingness oscientists to contribute and pool their collective knowledge to

make the most reliable estimates o species status. Without theirenthusiastic commitment to species conservation, this kind oregional overview would not be possible. A list o all participatingscientists can be ound at the end o this section, and the speciccontribution o each scientist is ully acknowledged in each othe detailed individual species assessments (available online athttp://www.iucnredlist.org/europe and http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist).

Coordination o the herpetological component o the EuropeanRed List was carried out by Neil Cox and Helen emple (IUCNSpecies Programme). We received expert advice and assistance

rom Peter Paul van Dijk o the IUCN Species SurvivalCommission (SSC) ortoise and Freshwater urtle SpecialistGroup.

Simon Stuart, Jean-Christophe Vi, Craig Hilton-aylor,Caroline Pollock and Mike Hofmann provided guidance,encouragement, and good advice throughout the project. NancyLear, Ana Nieto, eresa Oliveros Martinez, Hugo Ruiz Lozanoand Sarah Wyatt provided substantial assistance with nancialmanagement o the project. Vineet Katariya, Jim Ragle, and

Janice Chanson provided high-quality support on GIS and

database issues.

We would like to thank our host organisation, Doa Dernei, andmost especially zge Balkiz and zgr Ko, or their extensivehelp with logistical arrangements, or their warm hospitalityand or ensuring that the workshop ran smoothly. Workshopacilitators were Neil Cox, Jan Schipper, Helen emple andSarah Wyatt, assisted by Melanie Bilz and Ana Nieto.

Species accounts and maps were adapted rom data compiledunder the IUCN Global Reptile Assessment. Tese data in part

originate rom two earlier workshops; the IUCN MediterraneanRed Listing Workshop or Freshwater Fishes, Reptiles andAmphibians, held in Mlaga (Spain) - December (see Coxet al. ), and the IUCN Global Reptile Assessment(GRA) workshop or the non-Mediterranean Reptiles othe Western Palearctic, held at the th Societas EuropeaHerpetologica Congress in Bonn, - September .

Te European Reptile and Amphibian Assessments andconsequently this report were requirements o the rameworko a service contract with the European Commission (ServiceContract No. ///MAR/B). Additional

support to IUCN that contributed to the success o the workshopwas provided by the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund(CEPF). We thank ina Schneider and Nina Marshall o CEPFor their much appreciated patience and help. Any opinions,ndings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those o the authors and do not necessarily reect theviews o the European Commission, CEPF, or the InternationalUnion or Conservation o Nature (IUCN).Te European Reptile and Amphibian Assessments were entirelydependent on more than experts rom over countries in

Europe and elsewhere, who generously gave o their time andknowledge. Te enthusiasm and commitment o these peoplehas enabled us to generate a comprehensive and detailed pictureo reptile and amphibian status and trends in Europe. We recordour thanks to the ollowing people who have contributed asassessors or species included within this report and emple &Cox (), asking or orgiveness rom anyone whose name isinadvertently omitted or misspelled:

Pedro BejaWolgang BhmeBartosz Borczyk

Jaime BoschSalvador CarranzaMarc CheylanDan CogalniceanuClaudia Corti

Jelka Crnobrnja IsailovicPierre-Andr CrochetCornelius C. De HaanGad Degani

Giovanni DelnoMathieu Denol

Arvin DiesmosAhmad Mohammed Mousa Disi

David Donaire-Barrosoatjana DujsebayevaPaul EdgarEl Hassan El MoudenEldad ElronSarig GanyMario Garca-Parsrent Garner

Avital GasithPhilippe GeniezFilippo GiachiErnesto Recuero Gil

Richard GrithsPatrick HafnerShi HaitaoGeofrey Hammerson

Idriz HaxhiuBlair HedgesKim HowellSouad Hraoui-BloquetGu HuiqingSixto InchausteguiVladimir IshchenkoDjoko IskandarRobert JehleDuan JeliUlrich JogerRaael Joglar

Yakup KaskaUur KayaMuhammad Shari KhanIstvn Kiss


8/44vi

ibor KovcsLszl KrecskLue Kuangyang

Yusu KumlutaSergius KuzminMartin Kyek

Roberta LecisMiguel LizanaJon LomanPetros LymberakisRaael MarquezIigo Martnez-Solano

Jose Antonio Mateo MirasMasaumi MatsuiMarco Mattoccia

John MeaseyAndreas MeyerClaude Miaud

Leslie MinterHans Konrad NettmannGran NilsonM. Sad NouiraHerman NezPer Nystrm

Maria OgielskaAgnieszka OgrodowczykNikolai OrlovCarmen Diaz PaniaguaTeodore PapenussValentin Prez-Mellado

Juan M. PleguezuelosRichard PodlouckyMikls PukyNasrullah Rastegar-Pouyani

Antonio RomanoRiyad Sadek

Alredo SalvadorGeorgina Santos-BarreraPaulo S-SousaValerio SbordoniRobert SchabetsbergerBenedikt Schmidt

Joan Mayol SerraMurat SevinMozaar Shariahar SlimaniRoberto SindacoMax SparreboomBogoljub SterijovskiMatthias StckDavid arkhnishviliMiguel ejedoRichard insleyVarol ok

Ljiljana omoviBoris uniyevSako uniyevIsmail H. UgurtasNazan zmTomas Uzzell

Peter Paul van DijkSteano VanniAlberto VelosoMilan Vogrin

Judit VrsChou Wenhao

Yehudah WernerAlexander WesterstrmJohn WilkinsonCan Yeniyurt

Expert participants at the Reptiles and Amphibians Red List workshop, September , Antalya, urkey. Photograph Ozgur Koc.


9/44vii

Executive summary

Aim

Te European Red List is a review o the conservation statuso c., European species (mammals, reptiles, amphibians,reshwater shes, butteries, dragonies, and selected groupso beetles, molluscs, and vascular plants) according to IUCNregional Red Listing guidelines. It identies those species thatare threatened with extinction at the regional level in orderthat appropriate conservation action can be taken to improvetheir status. Tis Red List publication summarises results orEuropean reptiles.

Scope

All terrestrial and reshwater reptile species native to Europeor naturalised in Europe beore AD are included.Geographical scope is continent-wide, extending rom Icelandin the west to the Urals in the east, and rom Franz Jose Landin the north to the Canary Islands in the south. Te Caucasusregion is not included. Red List assessments were made at tworegional levels: or geographical Europe, and or the currentMember States o the European Union.

Status assessment

Te status o all species was assessed using the IUCN RedList Criteria (IUCN ), which are the worlds mostwidely accepted system or measuring extinction risk. Allassessments ollowed the Guidelines or Application o IUCNRed List Criteria at Regional Levels (IUCN ). Regionalassessments were carried out at an assessment workshop andthrough correspondence with relevant experts. More than herpetologists rom over countries in Europe and elsewhereactively participated in the assessment and review process orEuropean reptiles and amphibians. Assessments are availableon the European Red List website and data portal:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist and http://www.iucnredlist.org/europe.

Results

Overall, approximately one th o reptiles are consideredthreatened in Europe, with a similar proportion threatened atthe EU level. A urther % o reptiles are considered NearTreatened. By comparison, % o European amphibians,% o European mammals and % o European birds arethreatened (BirdLie International a, emple & erry, emple & Cox ). No other groups have yet beencomprehensively assessed at the European level. More thantwo-ths (%) o reptile species are declining and the samepercentage is stable; only % are increasing.

Te majority o threatened and Near Treatened reptile speciesare endemic to both Europe and the EU, highlighting theresponsibility that European countries have to protect the entireglobal populations o these species. All Critically Endangeredspecies and the vast majority o Endangered and Vulnerablespecies are endemic to both Europe and the EU.

Reptile biodiversity increases rom north to south in Europe,with the highest species richness being ound in the Balkanpeninsula. Te Iberian, Italian and Balkan peninsulas are allimportant areas o species richness, as are the Mediterranean

and Macaronesian islands. Habitat loss, ragmentation anddegradation are the greatest threats to reptiles in Europe. Othermajor threats include pollution, overharvesting, and deliberatepersecution (or snakes especially).

Conclusions

Treatened reptiles in Europe require urgent action

to improve their status. While many species alreadyreceive some conservation attention, others do not.Priorities identied in this study include addressing threatssuch as habitat loss, ragmentation and degradation,overexploitation, and deliberate persecution.

Species can be saved rom extinction and declining

population trends can be reversed. However, this requiresa combination o sound research, coordinated action, andsubstantial continued investment in nature conservation.

Sustained investment in species-, site- and landscape-

level conservation is needed rom all European countriesto ensure that European species are secure in the long term.Tis needs to be combined with the political will to trulyintegrate biodiversity conservation into all policy sectors.


10/44

Orange-tailed SkinkEumeces schneideri(Least Concern). Tis species occurs in a wide range o arid habitat types, includingMediterranean shrubland, semi-desert and rocky areas. Within Europe this species has been recorded rom Cyprus.


11/44

1. Background

1.1 The European context

Europe is one o the seven traditional continents o the Earth,although physically and geologically it is the westernmostpeninsula o Eurasia. Europe is bounded to the north by the ArcticOcean, to the west by the Atlantic Ocean, to the south by theMediterranean Sea, and to the southeast by the Black Sea and theCaucasus Mountains. In the east, Europe is separated rom Asiaby the Ural Mountains and by the Caspian Sea (see Figure ).Europe is the worlds second-smallest continent in terms o area,covering approximately ,, square kilometres (,,square miles) or % o the Earths surace. In terms o humanpopulation, it is the third-largest continent (ater Asia and Arica)with a population o some million about % o the worlds

population. Europe is the most urbanised and, together with Asia,the most densely populated continent in the world.

Te European Union, comprising Member States, is Europeslargest political and economic entity. It is the worlds largesteconomy with an estimated GDP in o . trillion USdollars (Central Intelligence Agency ). Per-capita GDP inmany EU states is among the highest in the world, and rates oresource consumption and waste production are correspondinglyhigh the EU s ecological ootprint has been estimated toexceed the regions biological capacity (the total area o cropland,

pasture, orest, and shing grounds available to produce ood,bre, and timber and absorb waste) by . times (WWF ).

Te EUs Member States stretch rom the Arctic Circle in thenorth to the Mediterranean in the south, and rom the Atlanticcoast in the west to the Pannonnian steppes in the east an areacontaining a great diversity o lanscapes and habitats and a wealtho ora and auna. European biodiversity includes species obirds (IUCN ), species o mammals (emple & erry, ), species o reptiles, species o amphibians, species o reshwater shes (Kottelat & Freyho ), -, species o vascular plants and well over , specieso invertebrates (Fauna Europaea ). Mediterranean Europeis particularly rich in plant and animal species and has beenrecognised as a global biodiversity hotspot (Mittermeier et al., Cuttelod et al. ).

Europe has arguably the most highly ragmented landscape oall continents, and only a tiny raction o its land surace canbe considered as wilderness. For centuries most o Europes landhas been used by humans to produce ood, timber and uel andprovide living space, and currently in western Europe more than% o land is under some orm o direct management (European

Environment Agency ). Consequently European species areto a large extent dependent upon semi-natural habitats created

and maintained by human activity, particularly traditional,non-intensive orms o land management. Tese habitats are

under pressure rom agricultural intensication, urban sprawl,inrastructure development, land abandonment, acidication,eutrophication and desertication. Many species are directlyafected by overexploitation, persecution, and impacts oalien invasive species, and climate change is set to become anincreasingly serious threat in the uture. Europe is a huge, diverseregion and the relative importance o diferent threats varieswidely across its biogeographic regions and countries. Althoughconsiderable eforts have been made to protect and conserveEuropean habitats and species (e.g. see Sections ., ., .),biodiversity decline and the associated loss o vital ecosystemservices (such as water purication, crop pollination, and carbon

sequestration) continues to be a major concern in the region.

1.2 European reptiles: diversity andendemism

Within Europe two orders o reptiles are recognised, Squamata(lizards, worm lizards and snakes) and estudines (tortoisesand turtles). Te great majority o terrestrial European reptilesare members o the Squamata ( species), and this order istypically divided by taxonomists between the suborders o Sauria(lizards; European species), Amphisbaenia (worm lizards;

two species) and Ophidia (snakes; species). Tere are arewer members o non-marine estudines in Europe with onlyeight species o tortoise and reshwater turtle recorded. Almosthal o the reptiles o Europe are endemic to the region, butendemism is especially high in the amphisbaenians, the tortoises,the lizard amily Lacertidae and the vipers. able providesmore detail. Te most diverse reptile amilies in the region arethe Lacertidae (wall lizards and relatives; species) and theColubridae (colubrid snakes; species). Te Lacertidae is themost species rich amily ocused on Europe; all other amiliesreach their greatest diversity and species richness outside oEurope. Important evolutionary radiations in the region includethe lizard genera Podarcis ( species and largely conned toEurope) and Gallotia (eight species, entirely endemic to theCanary Islands). Until relatively recently many European lizardswere included within the widespread genus Lacerta, howeverrecent taxonomic studies have now allocated a number o thesespecies to endemic European genera (includingDalmatolacerta,Dinarolacerta, Hellenolacertaand Iberolacerta) (see Arnold et al. or discussion). Many o the snake genera recorded romEurope are widespread and represented outside the region; thesnake genus Hierophisis notable with three species endemic tothe region. Although there are ew tortoise and reshwater turtle

species in Europe three o the eight species (Emys trinacris, estudohermanniand . marginata) are regionally endemic.

Source: Euro+Med PlantBase, http://www.emplantbase.org/home.html


12/44

Much is let to learn about the reptiles o Europe, even thoughthey are relatively well known by comparison with other speciesgroups. Within the past ew years alone several new specieshave been described, or identied as truly distinct species.Tese include the lizards Podarcis levendis (Lymberakis et al.,

), Podarcis cretensis (Lymberakis et al., ), Iberolacertagalani(Arribas et al., ), Psammodromus jeanneae(Busacketal., ), Psammodromus manuelae (Busacket al., ) andPhoenicolacerta troodica(Arnold et al., ), and the reshwaterturtle Emys trinacris(Fritz et al., ).

2 Tis table includes species that are native or naturalised since beore AD ; species introduced ater this date are not included. Species o marginaloccurrence in Europe and/or the EU are included.

able 1. Diversity and endemism in terrestrial and reshwater reptile orders and amilies in Europe2

Class Order Family Europe EU 27

Number ospecies

Number oendemicspecies

(% endemic)

Number ospecies

Number oendemicspecies

(% endemic)

Reptilia Squamata Agamidae (%) (%)

Amphisbaenidae (%) (%)

Anguidae (.%) (.%)

Boidae (%) (%)

Chamaeleonidae (%) (%)

Colubridae (.%) (.%)

Gekkonidae (.%) (.%)

Lacertidae (.%) (.%)

Scincidae (.%) (.%)

rogonophidae (%) (%)

yphlopidae (%) (%)

Viperidae (.%) (.%)

estudines Emydidae (%) (%)

Geoemydidae (%) (%)

estudinidae (.%) (.%)rionychidae (%) (%)

otal 151 73 (48.3%) 141 60 (42.6%)

Te Spur-thighed ortoise estudo graecais considered to be Vulnerable (VU) at the European and EU level as it has declined by more than % over the last three generations (equivalent to years in this long-lived species). Habitat degradation and loss, and past collection o animals or the pet trade have been major actors causing population depletion. Photograph Roberto Sindaco.


13/44

1.3 Threatened status o species

Te threatened status o plants and animals is one o the mostwidely used indicators or assessing the condition o ecosystemsand their biodiversity. It also provides an important toolunderpinning priority-setting exercises or species conservation.

At the global scale the best source o inormation on theconservation status o plants and animals is the IUCN Red List oTreatened Species(see www.iucnredlist.org; IUCN ). TeRed List provides taxonomic, conservation status, and distributioninormation on taxa that have been evaluated using the IUCNRed List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1 (IUCN ). Tissystem is designed to determine the relative risk o extinction,with the main purpose o cataloguing and highlighting thosetaxa that are acing a higher risk o extinction (i.e., those listed asCritically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable). Te IUCNRed List is intended to be policy-relevant, and it can be used toinorm conservation planning and priority setting processes, but

it is not intended to be policy-prescriptive, and it is not in and oitsel a biodiversity conservation priority-setting system.

1.4 Objectives o the assessment

Te European regional assessment has our main objectives: o contribute to regional conservation planning through

provision o a baseline dataset reporting the status oEuropean reptiles.

o identiy those geographic areas and habitats needing to beconserved to prevent extinctions and to ensure that Europeanreptiles reach and maintain a avourable conservation status.

o identiy the major threats and to propose mitigatingmeasures and conservation actions to address them.

o strengthen the network o experts ocused on reptile

conservation in Europe, so that the assessment inormationcan be kept current, and expertise can be targeted to addressthe highest conservation priorities.

Te assessment provides three main outputs: Tis summary report on the status o European reptiles. A reely available database holding the baseline data or

monitoring the status and distribution o European reptiles. A website and data portal (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/

nature/conservation/species/redlist and http://www.iucnredlist.org/europe) showcasing this data in the ormo species actsheets or all European reptiles, along with

background and other interpretative material.

Te data presented in this report provides a snapshot basedon available knowledge at the time o writing. Te databasewill continue to be updated and made reely and widelyavailable. IUCN will ensure wide dissemination o this data torelevant decision makers, NGOs, and scientists to inorm theimplementation o conservation actions on the ground.

European Glass Lizard Pseudopus apodus(Least Concern). Tis widespread species ranges eastwards rom the Balkan region o Europe to urkey, the Caucasus region, Central Asia andthe Levant. Tere are no major threats to this species at present, although legless lizards are sometimes killed as they are mistaken or snakes. Photograph Roberto Sindaco.


14/44

Figure 1. Regional assessments were made or two areas continental Europe and the EU 27

Sand Lizard Lacerta agilis(Least Concern). Tis species aces a number o threats including habitat loss through urbanization, conversion to intensive agricultural use (especially the loss o

hedgerows and other suitable habitats), coastal and alpine tourism development and the loss o traditional orestry practices. Open habitats, which this species requires, are being overgrownwith vegetation. It is a threatened species in much o the northwest o its range, including the United Kingdom, Scandinavia and northern Germany. Photograph Roberto Sindaco.


15/44

2. Assessment Methodology

2.1 Global and regional assessment

Te present study was an assessment o the global and regionalconservation status o reptile species occurring in geographicalEurope and the EU (excluding the highly migratory andglobally widespread marine turtles). Global assessments oreptile species not endemic to Europe will remain provisional,until the species is assessed across its entire range through theongoing IUCN Global Reptile Assessment. In the case otortoises and reshwater turtles, only populations in Europewere provisionally assessed, with data on populations and statusboth inside and outside the region still being compiled.

2.2 Geographic scope

Te geographical scope is continent-wide, extending romIceland in the west to the Urals in the east (including Europeanparts o the Russian Federation), and rom Franz Jose Land inthe north to the Mediterranean in the south (see Figure ). TeCanary Islands, Madeira and the Azores were also included. Inthe southeast, where denitions o Europe are most contentious,the Caucasus region was not included.

Red List assessments were made globally and at two regional

levels: ) or geographical Europe (limits described above); and) or the area o the Member States o the European Union.

2.3 Taxonomic scope

All terrestrial and reshwater reptile species native to Europeor naturalised in Europe beore AD were included in theassessment. Species introduced to Europe by man ater AD were considered by the assessment, but were classed as Not

Applicable. Similarly, species that are o marginal occurrencein Europe were classed as Not Applicable. Reptile taxonomylargely ollows the IGR Reptile Database compiled by PeterUetz and made available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.reptile-database.org/, although it departs rom this in aew circumstances. For estudines, the taxonomy presented byFritz & Havas () was ollowed. Distinct subpopulationsand subspecies o reptiles within Europe were not individuallyassessed as part o this project.

2.4 Preliminary assessments

For every reptile species native to Europe or naturalised beore A.D, the ollowing data were compiled. Species taxonomic classication Geographic range (including a distribution map)

Red List Category and Criteria Population inormation

Habitat preerences Major threats Conservation measures (in place, and needed) Species utilization Other general inormation Key literature reerences

Tese data were based on initial inormation gathered aspart o the IUCN Global Reptile Assessment (IUCN, CIand NatureServe). Much o this previous material originatedduring an earlier review o the conservation status o reptilesand amphibians in the Mediterranean basin (Coxet al. )

and rom the IUCN Global Reptile Assessment workshop orthe non-Mediterranean Reptiles o the Western Palearctic,held at the th Societas Europea Herpetologica Congress inBonn, th-th September . All species had their globalstatus assessed according to the2001 IUCN Red List Categoriesand Criteria: Version 3.1 (http://www.iucnredlist.org/ino/categories_criteria).

Preliminary species summary reports, distribution maps andglobal assessments were distributed to all the participants beorethe workshop to allow them to review the data presented and

prepare any changes to the data.

Assessments o the tortoises and reshwater turtles were basedon inormation compiled by Peter Paul van Dijk o CIsCenter or Applied Biodiversity Science as part o the earlierMediterranean review. Te provisional global and regionalassessments were not reviewed at the workshop, but wereprovided by the pertinent Red List Authority (the IUCNortoise and Freshwater urtle Specialist Group), and theseevaluations must also be considered provisional at the time thisreport went to press.

2.5 Review workshop (2008) andevaluation o results

Expert herpetologists or Europe were invited to attend a ve-dayregional review workshop, held in conjunction with an IUCNreview o reptile and amphibian species o the Wider Caucasus,at the Grida City Hotel in Antalya, urkey in September .

Focused working groups were organised to eciently reviewidentied geographical sets o species (e.g., Iberian reptiles).

New inormation was added to the species summaries andmaps, and corrections to existing data were made. PreliminaryRed List Assessments or each species were then made at theglobal, European and EU levels.


16/44

Facilitating staf rom the IUCN Red List Unit and the IUCN/SSC-CI/CABS Biodiversity Assessment Unit evaluated theassessments to check they complied with the guidelines orapplication o the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria andincluded the most up-to-date, comprehensive inormation.Following the review workshop, the data were edited, and

outstanding questions were resolved through communications

with the workshop participants. Te post-workshop dratassessments were also made available on an FP site to allow theparticipating scientists to make any nal edits and corrections.

Te resulting nalised IUCN Red List assessments are a producto scientic consensus concerning species status and are backed

by relevant literature and data sources.Reviewing species assessments at the Reptiles and Amphibians workshop. Photograph Ana Nieto

Te European Pond urtle Emys orbicularisis regarded as Near Treatened in Europe and Vulnerable in the EU as a result o signicant long-term population declines. Habitat losscaused by urbanisation, road construction, wetland drainage, and overexploitation o water resources is responsible or the species decline. Te European Pond urtle is sensitive towater pollution and is also vulnerable to competition or ood, basking and nesting sites rom the non-native terrapin rachemys scripta, a species which has become widely establishedin Europe as a result o its popularity as a pet. Photograph Roberto Sindaco.


17/44

3. Results

3.1 Threatened status o reptiles

Te status o reptiles was assessed at two regional levels:geographical Europe, and the EU . At the European regionallevel, .% o reptiles are threatened, with .% CriticallyEndangered, .% Endangered, and .% Vulnerable.

Within the EU the pattern is similar: .% o reptilesare threatened, with a similar breakdown between the threethreatened categories (see able and Figures and ).

Overall, approximately one th o reptiles are consideredthreatened in Europe. A urther .% are considered Near

Treatened. By comparison, .% o European amphibians,.% o European mammals and % o European birds

are threatened (BirdLie International a, emple & erry, emple & Cox ). No other groups have yet beencomprehensively assessed at the European level according toIUCN regional Red List guidelines. Species classed as threatened(Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable) at theEuropean and EU level are listed in able .

A urther reptile species were classed as Not Applicable,either because they were introduced ater AD or are omarginal occurrence in the European region.

Figure 2. Red List status o reptiles in Europe Figure 3. Red List status o reptiles in the EU 27

able 2. Summary o numbers o reptile species within each category o threat

IUCN Red List categories No. species Europe(no. endemic species)

No. speciesEU 27

(no. endemic species)

Extinct (EX)

Extinct in the Wild (EW)

Regionally Extinct (RE)

Treatened

categories

Critically Endangered (CR) () ()

Endangered (EN) () ()

Vulnerable (VU) () ()

Near Treatened (N) () ()

Least Concern (LC) () ()

Data Decient (DD) () ()

otal number o species assessed* () ()

*Excluding species that are considered Not Applicable.


18/44

able 3. Treatened reptile species at the European and EU 27 level1. Most o the species listed below are endemic to Europe;

those species not endemic to Europe are marked with an asterisk (*)

Red List status

Family Genus Species Common Name Europe EU 27

LACERIDAE Gallotia auaritae CR CR

LACERIDAE Gallotia bravoana La Gomera Giant Lizard CR CR LACERIDAE Gallotia intermedia enerie Speckled Lizard CR CR

LACERIDAE Gallotia simonyi El Hierro Giant Lizard CR CR

LACERIDAE Iberolacerta martinezricai Batuecan Rock Lizard CR CR

LACERIDAE Podarcis raonei Aeolian Wall Lizard CR CR

COLUBRIDAE Hierophis cypriensis Cyprus Whip Snake EN EN

LACERIDAE Acanthodactylus schreiberi* Schreibers Fringe-ngered Lizard EN EN

LACERIDAE Algyroides marchi Spanish Algyroides EN EN

LACERIDAE Iberolacerta aranica Aran Rock Lizard EN ENLACERIDAE Iberolacerta aurelioi Aurelios Rock Lizard EN ENLACERIDAE Iberolacerta cyreni Carpetane rock lizard EN EN

LACERIDAE Podarcis carbonelli Carbonell's Wall Lizard EN ENLACERIDAE Podarcis cretensis Cretan Wall Lizard EN EN

LACERIDAE Podarcis lilordi Lilords Wall Lizard EN EN

LACERIDAE Macrovipera schweizeri Milos Viper EN EN

SCINCIDAE Chalcides simonyi Canarian Cylindrical Skink EN EN

GEOEMYDIDAE Mauremys leprosa* Mediterranean urtle VU VU

LACERIDAE Dinarolacerta mosorensis Mosor Rock Lizard VU NE

LACERIDAE Iberolacerta monticola Iberian Rock Lizard VU VU

LACERIDAE Podarcis gaigeae Skyros Wall Lizard VU VU

LACERIDAE Podarcis levendis VU VU

LACERIDAE Podarcis milensis Milos Wall Lizard VU VUESUDINIDAE estudo graeca* Spur-thighed ortoise VU VU

VIPERIDAE Vipera latastei* Latastes Viper VU VU

VIPERIDAE Vipera renardi* Eastern Steppe Viper VU NE

VIPERIDAE Vipera ursinii Orsinis Viper VU VU

EMYDIDAE Emys orbicularis* European Pond urtle N VU

LACERIDAE Eremias arguta* Steppe-runner N VU

Chalcides parallelus(Endangered). Tis species is ound on the Chaarinas Archipelago (Spain), and also occurs along a narrow coastal strip in northeastern Morocco and northwesternAlgeria. Development o coastal areas or tourism and military purposes are major threats to this species. Photograph Roberto Sindaco.

Species listed as NE (Not Evaluated) in the EU do not occur in the region.


19/44

3.2 Status by taxonomic group

European reptiles belong to a number o diferent amilies (seeSection .), among which considerable diferences exist bothin species numbers as well as in threatened status (able ).Te reptile amilies Viperidae (vipers), Lacertidae (wall lizards),Geoemydidae (pond turtles) and estudinidae (tortoises) showparticularly high levels o threat.

3.3 Spatial distribution o species

3.3.1 Species richness

Inormation on the species richness o reptiles within ordersand amilies has already been given in Section . and able. Te geographic distribution o species richness in Europe ispresented in Figure .

For reptiles, there is a clear gradient o increasing species richnessrom north to south, with the greatest richness being ound inthe Balkan peninsula. Te glacial reugia o the Iberian, Italianand Balkan peninsulas are all important centres o diversity, asare a number o Mediterranean islands.

Te top ve EU countries in terms o reptile species richnessare (in descending order): Spain, Greece, Italy, France andBulgaria (see able ).

*Does not include species classed as Not Applicable (NA).

Order Family otal* CR EN VU N LC DD % Treatened

Squamata Agamidae

Amphisbaenidae

Anguidae

Boidae Colubridae .

Gekkonidae

Lacertidae .

Scincidae .

yphlopidae

Viperidae

estudines Emydidae

Geoemydidae

estudinidae .

otal 139 6 11 10 18 92 2 19.4

able 4. Red List Status (European Regional level) o reptiles by taxonomic amily

Country otal number o species

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

United Kingdom

able 5. Number o reptile species in the 27 current

EU member states (excluding species classed as Not

Applicable)


20/44

Figure 4. Species richness o European reptiles

Figure 5. Distribution o threatened reptiles in Europe


21/44

3.3.2 Distribution o threatened species

Te distribution o threatened reptiles in Europe (Figure )reveals somewhat diferent patterns rom depictions o overallspecies diversity. Te greatest concentration o threatenedspecies is ound in the Iberian peninsula, with the Balkans and

Cyprus also highlighted as having a high number o threatenedspecies.

3.3.3 Endemic species richness

Figure shows the distribution o endemic reptile species (e.g.,those that are unique to Europe and are ound nowhere elsein the world). Reptiles show high endemic species richness inthe Iberian peninsula. Te Balkans also show an importantconcentration o endemism. Te Mediterranean islands andMacaronesian islands have many range-restricted endemicreptiles, although these regions do not show up on the endemic

species richness maps because typically each particular islandwill only have one or a ew endemic species.

3.4 Major threats to reptiles in Europe

Te major threats to each species were coded using the IUCN MajorTreats Authority File. A summary o the relative importance othe diferent threatening processes is shown in Figure .

Habitat loss, ragmentation and degradation have by ar thelargest impact on both threatened and non-threatened reptiles,afecting o the threatened species, and species in total.Te number o species impacted by habitat loss and degradationis nearly three times greater than the number impacted by thenext most common threats: harvesting, deliberate persecution,and pollution (which here also includes global climate changecaused by greenhouse gas emissions).

Inormation has not been collected during the assessment processon the relative importance o one threat compared to anotheror a particular species. Development o such inormation in the

uture is a priority or the assessment and will enable a morecomplete analysis o signicant threats to species.

Grass Snake Natrix natrix(Least Concern). Tis species ranges throughout most o Europe, being absent only rom Ireland, northern Scandinavia, southeastern Spain, the BalearicIslands (Spain) and Crete (Greece). Photograph Roberto Sindaco.


22/44

Figure 6. Distribution o endemic reptiles in Europe

Figure 7. Major threats to reptiles in Europe


23/44

Mediterranean Chamaeleon Chamaeleo chamaeleon (Not Applicable). As this species is introduced rather than a native species in almost all parts o its European range, it is classed asNot Applicable on the European Red List. Photograph Roberto Sindaco.

Figure 8. Population trends o European reptiles3.5 Demographic trends

Documenting population trends is a key to assessing speciesstatus, and a special efort was made to determine whichspecies are believed to be declining, stable, or increasing. Morethan two-ths (%) o species are declining and the same

percentage is stable; only % have an increasing populationtrend (Figure ).


24/44

4. Discussion

4.1 Status and population trends oEuropean reptiles

Te status o reptiles was assessed at two regional levels:geographical Europe, and the EU . At the European regionallevel, .% o reptiles are threatened, with .% CriticallyEndangered, .% Endangered, and .% Vulnerable.

Within the EU the pattern is similar: .% o reptilesare threatened, with a similar breakdown between the threethreatened categories (see able and Figures and ).

Birds, mammals and amphibians are the only other taxonomicgroups to have been assessed at both the European and theEU level. In the case o birds, conservation status (sensu the

Habitats Directive; see Section . or a denition) was assessedor all European and EU species, with species dividedinto Favourable and Unavourable categories (BirdLieInternational b). A higher proportion o bird species haveUnavourable conservation status at the EU level than at thepan-European level: almost hal (%) o the EUs specieswere assessed as having Unavourable conservation status,whereas only % o European species had Unavourableconservation status. In the case o mammals and amphibians,assessments were carried out according to IUCN Red Listmethodology. By contrast, mammals and amphibians showed

similar levels o threat at the European and EU scale: % omammal species were threatened in each case (emple & erry); and % o European amphibians versus % o EUamphibians were threatened (emple & Cox ).

Overall, approximately one th o reptiles are consideredthreatened in Europe. By comparison, .% o amphibians,.% o European mammals and % o European birdsare threatened (BirdLie International a; emple & erry, ; emple & Cox ). No other groups have yetbeen comprehensively assessed at the European level accordingto IUCN regional Red List guidelines.

Te majority o threatened and Near Treatened reptile speciesare endemic to both Europe and the EU, highlighting theresponsibility that European countries have to protect the entireglobal populations o these species. All Critically Endangeredspecies and the vast majority o Endangered and Vulnerablespecies are endemic to both Europe and the EU.

Te assessment showed that more than two ths (%) oreptile species are declining and the same percentage is stable;only % have an increasing population trend. Tis means that

a higher proportion o reptiles are declining than is known to

be the case or mammals and birds. Just over a quarter (%)o European mammals have declining populations, although

this may be an underestimate as a urther third (%) havean unknown population trend (emple & erry , ).Similarly, just under a quarter (%) o European birds aredecreasing in number, based on population trends between and (BirdLie International a). Te only groupknown to have a higher proportion o declining species isamphibians, with over hal (%) o species in decline (emple& Cox ).

BirdLie Internationals analysis o population trends inEuropean birds was based on quantitative data rom a wellestablished monitoring network covering the majority o

species and countries in Europe. By contrast, comprehensiveand reliable population trend data are available or only a tinyminority o reptile species. Te population trend analysis inthis report is based in many cases on survey data rom a smalland potentially non-representative part o the species range, oron a subjective assessment o population trend based on knownthreats. Better monitoring o reptile populations in Europe isurgently needed, especially or threatened, Near Treatenedand Data Decient species.

4.2 Major threats to European reptiles

Habitat loss, degradation and ragmentation represent thegreatest threats to European reptiles. Agricultural intensication,urban sprawl and inrastructure development are key drivers ohabitat loss, and aforestation is also a problem plantationsare very low-quality habitat or reptiles. As ectothermic speciesreptiles are oten dependent on habitats with open areas, wherethe sun reaches the ground agricultural abandonment anddecline o traditional cultivation and animal husbandry, whichleads to vegetation succession and the replacement o openhabitats with bushes and trees, is a serious problem or reptilesin many parts o Europe. Again, the ragmentation o existinghabitat and the abandonment o traditional agriculturalpractices and contingent loss o mosaic landscapes are resultingin population declines and even local extinctions in a numbero European reptile species.

Invasive alien species are not a problem or reptiles to thesame degree as they are or some other European species (e.g.amphibians: emple & Cox ), although predation by eralcats and habitat destruction by eral goats is a major threat tosome island species and populations. However, the introduced

Common Raccoon Procyon lotor should be monitored as

3 Te European bird and mammal assessments were carried out prior to the accession o Romania and Bulgaria in , so both o these assessments covered theEU only.


25/44

a potential emerging threat to European reptiles in theCaucasus predation by the raccoon is now considered to be amajor threat and is causing serious declines in reptile species (tothe point where some Caucasus reptiles have been uplisted byone or even two categories to a higher level o threat accordingto IUCN Red List criteria). Changes in native species dynamics

are having a negative impact on some reptile populations inparts o Europe, populations o predators such as the Red FoxVulpes vulpes, the Wild Boar Sus scroaand crows have increasedand are putting additional pressure on threatened reptilespecies.

4.3 Protection o habitats and species inEurope

European countries and EU member states are signatoriesto a number o important conventions aimed at conserving

biodiversity that are particularly relevant to reptiles, includingthe Bern Convention on the Conservation o European

Wildlie and Natural Habitats, the Convention onthe Protection o the Alps and, most importantly, the Convention on Biological Diversity. Te international tradein a small number o European reptile species is regulatedunder the Convention on International rade in EndangeredSpecies (CIES). All European countries and many loweradministrative units (states, provinces, etc.) have some orm oprotective species legislation.

Te Bern Convention is a binding international legal instrumentthat aims to conserve wild ora and auna and their naturalhabitats and to promote European co-operation towards thatobjective. It covers all European countries and some Aricanstates. Considerable work has been undertaken within theConvention or the protection o reptile species. In additionto numerous workshops and seminars, the Convention hasadopted recommendations and developed Action Plans orcertain species (e.g.,Zamensis longissimus, Vipera ursinii, Lacertaagilis; see Edgar & Bird a,b,c).

An important commitment made by European countries andthe EU was to halt the loss o biodiversity within Europe by. Tis means that population declines should be stoppedand ideally reversed. Tis assessment has shown that a largenumber o reptile species show long term declines, with aproportion o threatened species that exceeds levels identiedor European birds and mammals (BirdLie Internationala, emple & erry ). Tis suggests that it is unlikelythat the goal o halting biodiversity loss by will be met.

4.4 Protection o habitats and species inthe EU

EU nature conservation policy is based on two main pieces olegislation - the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive.Te main aim o this nature conservation policy is to ensure the

avourable conservation status (see Box ) o the habitats andspecies ound in the EU. One o the main tools to enhance andmaintain this status is the Natura network o protectedareas. EU nature conservation policy also oresees the integrationo its protection requirements into other EU sectoral policiessuch as agriculture, regional development and transport. TeHabitats Directive, which aims to protect other wildlie speciesand habitats, applies to both terrestrial and marine regions. EachMember State is required to identiy sites o European importanceand is encouraged to put in place a special management plan toprotect them, combining long-term conservation with economicand social activities as part o a sustainable development strategy.

Tese sites, together with those o the Birds Directive, makeup the Natura network - the cornerstone o EU natureconservation policy. Te Natura network has grown overthe last years and now includes more than , protectedareas in all Member States combined, with a total area o around, km2 more than % o total EU territory.

Te Habitats Directive contains a series o Annexes that mostlyidentiy habitats and species o European Community concern.Member States are required to designate Natura sites orthe species listed on Annex II; Annex IV species are subject to a

strict protection system. able shows those species identied asthreatened by the assessment and their inclusion in the protectedspecies Annexes o the Habitats Directive and Appendix II othe Bern Convention (all reptile species that are not listed on

Appendix II o the Bern Convention are automatically listed onAppendix III).

Te majority o threatened species are listed on the HabitatsDirective Annexes II and/or IV but there are a ew exceptions,listed here. Gallotia intermediais endemic to the island o eneriein the Canary Islands (to Spain). It was discovered in and isknown only rom two tiny areas in the extreme west and extremesouth o the island. Iberolacerta aurelioiis endemic to the PyreneesMountains and was again relatively recently described. Podarciscarbonelli is endemic to the Iberian peninsula and was onlyrecognized as a species in AD (it was previously regardedas a subspecies oP. bocagei). Vipera latasteiranges rom northernMorocco to northern Algeria, and extreme northwestern unisiain North Arica, and it is also present on the Iberian Peninsulawhere it has a ragmented population in both Portugal and Spain.Eremias arguta only occurs in Romania within the EuropeanUnion; its range extends eastwards rom there through easternEurope, central Asia and the Caucasus to China and Mongolia.

4 Council Directive //EEC o April on the conservation o wild birds5 Council Directive //EEC on the conservation o natural habitats and o wild ora and auna6 Source: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/index_en.htm, downloaded February .


26/44

Genus Species Red List status HabitatsDirective

BernConvention

Europe EU 27 Annexes AppendicesGallotia auaritae CR CR II*/IV II

Gallotia bravoana CR CR II*/IV II

Gallotia intermedia CR CR

Gallotia simonyi CR CR II*/IV II

Iberolacerta martinezricai CR CR II/IV II

Podarcis raonei CR CR IV

Hierophis cypriensis EN EN II*/IV II

Acanthodactylus schreiberi EN EN II/IV II

Algyroides marchi EN EN IV II

Iberolacerta aranica EN EN II/IV

Iberolacerta aurelioi EN EN

Iberolacerta cyreni EN EN II/IV II

Podarcis carbonelli EN EN

Podarcis cretensis EN EN IV II

Podarcis lilordi EN EN II/IV II

Macrovipera schweizeri EN EN II*/IV II

Chalcides simonyi EN EN II/IV II

Mauremys leprosa VU VU II/IV II

Dinarolacerta mosorensis VU Not present n/a

Iberolacerta monticola VU VU II/IV II

Podarcis gaigeae VU VU IV IIPodarcis levendis VU VU IV II

Podarcis milensis VU VU IV II

estudo graeca VU VU II/IV II

Vipera latastei VU VU II

Vipera renardi VU Not present n/a

Vipera ursinii VU VU II/IV II

Emys orbicularis N VU II/IV II

Eremias arguta N VU

able 6. Te threatened reptile taxa identifed by the assessment and their presence on either Annexes II and IV o the Habitats

Directive or Appendix II o the Bern Convention. All reptiles not listed on Appendix II o the Bern Convention are automatically

listed on Appendix III. An asterisk (*) indicates that the species is a priority species or the Habitats Directive

As part oGallotia simonyi.2 As part oLacerta monticola.3 As part oArchaeolacerta monticola.4 As Coluber cypriensis.5 As Lacerta schreiberi.6 As part oLacerta bonnali.7 As part oPodarcis erhardii8 As part oVipera lebetina.9 As part oMauremys caspica.10 As part oPodarcis taurica.11 Except Vipera ursinii rakosiensis.12 As part oPodarcis siculus/P. waglerianus.


27/44

4.5 Conservation management o reptilesin the EU

LIFE is the EUs nancial instrument supporting environmentaland nature conservation projects throughout the EU as wellas in some candidate, acceding and neighbouring countries.

Since , LIFE has co-nanced over , projects witha total budget o approximately . billion. LIFE supportsthe implementation o the Birds and Habitats Directivesand the establishment o the Natura network. Projectsinvolve a variety o actions including habitat restoration, sitepurchases, communication and awareness-raising, protectedarea inrastructure and conservation planning.

Based on a search o the LIFE project database that lists allpast and current LIFE projects, projects link their actionsto reptile conservation and target specic species. able shows the taxonomic breakdown o these projects. Examples o

actions taken within these projects include habitat restoration,habitat conservation and re-introductions.

able 7. Te number o LIFE projects targeted either towards

specifc species or broader taxonomic groups. Tis review is

based on a search or reptile species on the LIFE database

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/lie/project/Projects/

index.cm which identifed 40 projects. Some projects

target more than one species. Species based projects were

not included in the count or taxonomic group projects.

Most o the 40 projects were ocused at the habitat or site

level rather than on particular species

4.6 Extinction risk versus conservationstatus

Te IUCN Red List Criteria classiy species solely on thebasis o their relative extinction risk (IUCN ). However,

Unavourable conservation status according to the EU HabitatsDirective has a much broader denition. Tis is identiedclearly in Article o the Directive (see Box ). No speciesmeeting the IUCN Red List Criteria or one o the threatened

categories at a regional level can be considered to have aFavourable conservation status in the EU. o be classied asVulnerable (the lowest o the three IUCN threatened categories)a species must undergo a reduction in population size o atleast % over years or generations (or have a very smallor small and declining population or geographic range; see

the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria version .http://www.iucnredlist.org/ino/categories_criteria). Itis dicult to claim that a species experiencing a decline othis magnitude is maintaining its population, that its range isstable, and that it remains a viable component o its habitat.Crucially, however, this does not mean that the opposite istrue: species that are not threatened as dened by IUCN RedList Criteria do not necessarily have a Favourable conservationstatus (BirdLie International a). Guidelines issued by theEuropean Commission on the protection o animal speciesunder the Habitats Directive reinorce this message that theact that a habitat or species is not threatened (i.e. not aced by

any direct extinction risk) does not necessarily mean that it hasa avourable conservation status (Anon. ).

Many reptile species remain widely distributed in Europe,although their populations and ranges have sufered signicantlong-term decline as a result o habitat loss and degradation inconjunction with other threats (see Sections . and .). TeEuropean Red List has highlighted the act that more than twoths o reptiles (%) have declining populations (see Figure). Many o these species have declined at a rate that does notexceed % over the last years or three generations, and

thus does not trigger IUCN Red List Criterion A. Nevertheless,although many o these species would be categorised as LeastConcern, those showing signicant long-term decline couldnot be regarded as having Favourable conservation status.

Species Projects

La Gomera Giant LizardGallotia bravoana El Hierro Giant LizardGallotia simonyi Vipera ursinii

Caretta caretta

Emys orbicularis

axonomic Group

urtles

Habitat

Habitats and sites or reptile species

Box 1. Selected provisions o the EU Habitats

Directive (92/43/EEC)

Article 1(i) denes the conservation status o a

species as the sum o the infuences acting on the

species concerned that may aect the long-term

distribution and abundance o its populations in

the European territory o the Member States. It

states that a species conservation status will be

taken as Favourable when:

Population dynamics data on the species

concerned suggests that it is maintaining itsel

on a long-term basis as a viable component o

its natural habitats; and

The natural range o the species is neither

being reduced nor is likely to be reduced or the

considerable uture; and

There is, and probably will continue to be,a suciently large habitat to maintain its

populations on a long-term basis.


28/44

4.7 Red List versus priority orconservation action

Assessment o extinction risk and setting conservation priorities aretwo related but diferent processes. Assessment o extinction risk,such as the assignment o IUCN Red List Categories, generallyprecedes the setting o conservation priorities. Te purpose othe Red List categorization is to produce a relative estimate othe likelihood o extinction o a taxon or subpopulation. Settingconservation priorities, on the other hand, which normallyincludes the assessment o extinction risk, also takes intoaccount other actors such as ecological, phylogenetic, historical,

or cultural preerences or some taxa over others, as well as theprobability o success o conservation actions, availability ounds or personnel, cost-efectiveness, and legal rameworksor conservation o threatened taxa. In the context o regionalrisk assessments, a number o additional pieces o inormationare valuable or setting conservation priorities. For example, itis important to consider not only conditions within the regionbut also the status o the taxon rom a global perspective andthe proportion o the global population that occurs within theregion. Decisions on how these three variables, as well as otheractors, are used or establishing conservation priorities is amatter or the regional authorities to determine.

Starred AgamaLaudakia stellio (Least Concern). Photograph Roberto Sindaco.


29/44

5. Conclusions

5.1 Application o project outputs

Te reptiles data set, a summary o which is presented here,is part o a wider European assessment that also coversother species groups including mammals (emple & erry), amphibians (emple & Cox ), reshwater shes,butteries, dragonies, and selected beetles, molluscs, andplants. In conjunction with data compiled on European birdsby BirdLie International (BirdLie International a,b), itprovides a key resource or conservationists, policymakers, andenvironmental planners throughout the region. By makingthis data widely and reely available, we aim to stimulate andsupport research, monitoring and conservation action at local,regional, and international levels.

Te outputs rom this project can be applied at the regionalscale to prioritise sites and species to include in regionalresearch and monitoring programmes and or identication ointernationally important sites or biodiversity. All the endemicspecies assessed in this project will be submitted or inclusion inthe next update o the IUCN global Red List (www.iucnredlist.org). Te large amount o data collected during the assessmentprocess (available online at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist and http://www.iucnredlist.org/europe) can be used or urther analyses to give deeper

insights into the conservation needs o European species andthe impacts on their populations o land-use policies andnatural resource use.

5.2 Future work

Trough the process o compiling reptile data or the EuropeanRed List a number o knowledge gaps have been identied.

Across Europe there are signicant geographic, geopoliticaland taxonomic biases in the quality o data available on thedistribution and status o species. Few European countrieshave any kind o organised and systematic monitoring orreptile species, even though monitoring o reptile species oEuropean interest is now a statutory responsibility under EUlegislation. National reptile population monitoring schemeshave been initiated in some EU Member States, or examplein the Netherlands (since ) and the United Kingdom, butin a number o countries o the EU even basic data on speciesdistribution and population status are limited. It is hoped thatby presenting this data set, both regional and internationalresearch will be stimulated to provide new data and to improveon the quality o that already given.

A challenge or the uture is to improve monitoring and thequality o data, so that the inormation and analyses presentedhere and on the European Red List website can be updated

and improved, and conservation action can be given as solida scientic basis as possible. I the reptile assessments are

periodically updated, they will enable the changing status othese species to be tracked through time via the production oa Red List Index (Butchart et al. , , , ). odate, this indicator has been produced or birds at the Europeanregional level and has been adopted as one o the headlinebiodiversity indicators to monitor progress towards haltingbiodiversity loss in Europe by (European Environment

Agency ). By regularly updating the data presented herewe will be able to track the changing ate o European reptilesto and beyond.

Balkan Green Lizard Lacerta trilineata(Least Concern). Photograph Roberto Sindaco.


30/44

Reerences

Anon. . Guidance document on the strict protection oanimal species o Community interest under the HabitatsDirective 92/43/EEC. Available online at: http://ec.europa.

eu/environment/nature_conservation/specic_articles/art/index_en.htm

Arnold, E. N., Arribas, O. and Carranza, S. . Systematicso the Palaearctic and Oriental lizard tribe Lacertini(Squamata: Lacertidae: Lacertinae), with descriptions oeight new genera.Zootaxa: -.

Arribas, O., Carranza, S. and Odierna, G. . Descriptiono a new endemic species o mountain lizard romNorthwestern Spain: Iberolacerta galanisp. nov.(Squamata: Lacertidae).Zootaxa: -.

BirdLie International. a. Birds in Europe: populationestimates, trends, and conservation status. BirdLie

International, Cambridge, UK.BirdLie International. b. Birds in the European Union: astatus assessment. BirdLie International, Wageningen, TeNetherlands.

Busack, S. D., Salvador, A. and Lawson, R. . wo newspecies in the genus Psammodromus(Reptilia: Lacertidae)rom the Iberian Peninsula.Annals o Carnegie Museum(): -.

Butchart, S.H.M, Statterseld, A.J., Bennun, L.A., Shutes,S.M., Akcakaya, H.R., et al. . Measuring global trendsin the status o biodiversity: Red List Indices or birds.PLoS Biology: e.

Butchart, S.H.M., Statterseld, A.J., Baillie, J.E.M., Bennun,

L.A., Stuart, S.N., et al. . Using Red List Indices tomeasure progress towards the target and beyond.Philosophical ransactions o the Royal Society o London B: .

Butchart, S.H.M., Akcakaya, H.R., Kennedy, E., Hilton-aylor, C. . Biodiversity indicators based on trends inconservation status: strengths o the IUCN Red List Index.Conservation Biology: .

Butchart, S.H.M., Akcakaya, H.R., Chanson, J., Baillie,J.E.M., Collen, B., et al. . Improvements to the RedList Index. PLoS ONE(): e. doi:./journal.pone..

Central Intelligence Agency. . Te World Factbook.https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-actbook/

Cox, N., Chanson, J. and Stuart, S.(Compilers) . TeStatus and Distribution o Reptiles and Amphibians o the

Mediterranean Basin. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland andCambridge, UK. vii + pp.

Cuttelod, A., Garca, N., Abdul Malak, D., emple, H. &Katariya, V. . Te Mediterranean: a biodiversityhotspot under threat. In: J.-C. Vi, C. Hilton-aylor andS.N. Stuart (eds). Te 2008 Review o the IUCN Red List oTreatened Species. IUCN Gland, Switzerland.

Edgar, P. & Bird, D.R. a.Action Plan or the Conservationo the Sand Lizard (Lacerta agilis) in Northwest Europe. TeHerpetological Conservation rust, Bournemouth.

Edgar, P. & Bird, D.R. b.Action Plan or the Conservation

o the Aesculapian Snake (Zamenis longissimus) in Europe.Te Herpetological Conservation rust, Bournemouth.

Edgar, P. & Bird, D.R. c.Action Plan or the Conservation

o the Meadow Viper (Vipera ursinii) in Europe. TeHerpetological Conservation rust, Bournemouth.

European Environment Agency. . Halting the loss obiodiversity by : proposal or a rst set o indicatorsto monitor progress in Europe. EEA echnical Report No./.

Fauna Europaea Web Service. . Fauna Europaea version1.1, Available online at http://www.aunaeur.org

Fritz, U. & Havas, P. . Checklist o Chelonians o theWorld. Vertebrate Zoology, Vol. (): -.

Fritz, U., Fattizzo, ., Guicking, D., ripepi, S., Pennisi, M.G.,Lenk, P., Joger, U. & Wink, M. . A new cryptic species

o pond turtle rom southern Italy, the hottest spot in therange o the genus Emys (Reptilia, estudines, Emydidae).Zoologica Scripta: -.

Hulme, P.E., Roy, D.B., Cunha, . & Larsson, .-B. .A pan-European inventory o alien species: rationale,implementation and implications or managing biologicalinvasions. In DAISIE (eds.) Te Handbook o European

Alien Species. Springer, Dordrecht.IUCN. . IUCN Red List Categories. Prepared by the IUCN

Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.IUCN. . IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version

3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland,Switzerland.

IUCN. . Guidelines or application o IUCN Red ListCriteria at Regional Levels: Version 3.0. IUCN SpeciesSurvival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

IUCN .2008 IUCN Red List o Treatened Species. .

Kottelat, M. and Freyho, J. . Handbook o Europeanreshwater shes. Kottelat, Cornol, Switzerland andFreyho, Berlin, Germany.

Lymberakis, P., Poulakakis, N., Kaliontzopoulou, A., Valakos,E. and Mylonas, M. . wo new species oPodarcis(Squamata; Lacertidae) rom Greece. Systematics andBiodiversity(): -.

Mittermeier, R.A., Robles Gil, P., Hofmann, M., Pilgrim, J.,Brooks, ., Mittermeier, C.G., Lamoreux, J. & Fonseca,G.A.B. . Hotspots Revisited: Earths Biologically Richestand Most Endangered errestrial Ecoregions. CEMEX,Conservation International and Agrupacin Sierra Madre,Mexico City.

Snchez-Herriz, M.J., Barbadillo, L.J., Machordom A. andSanchiz B. . A new species o pelodytid rog rom theIberian Peninsula. Herpetologica, , -.

Stck, M., Moritz, C., Hickerson, M., Frynta, D.,Dujsebayeva, ., Eremchenko, V., Macey, J.R., Papenuss,.J. and Wake, D.B. . Evolution o mitochondrialrelationships and biogeography o Palearctic green toads(Buo viridissubgroup) with insights in their genomicplasticity.Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution : -.


31/44

Stck, M., Sicilia, A., Belore, N., Buckley, D., Lo Brutto,S., Lo Valvo, M. and Arculeo, M. . Post-Messinianevolutionary relationships across the Sicilian channel:Mitochondrial and nuclear markers link a new green toadrom Sicily to Arican relatives. BMC Evolutionary Biology: -.

emple, H.J. and Cox, N.A. . European Red List o

Amphibians. Luxembourg: Oce or Ocial Publicationso the European Communities.

emple H.J. and erry A. . Te status and distributiono European mammals. Luxembourg: Oce or OcialPublications o the European Communities.

emple H.J. and erry A. . European Mammals: Status,trends and conservation priorities. Folia Zoologica.

WWF. . Europe : Gross Domestic Product andEcological Footprint. World Wide Fund or Nature

(WWF).


32/44

Appendix 1. Red List status o

European reptiles

Order Family Species IUCN Red List Category

(Europe)

IUCN RedList Criteria

(Europe)

IUCNRed ListCategory(EU 27)

IUCN Red ListCriteria(EU 27)

Endemicto

Europe?

Endemicto

EU 27?

SQUAMAA AGAMIDAE Laudakia stellio LC LC

SQUAMAA AGAMIDAE Phrynocephalus guttatus LC NE

SQUAMAA AGAMIDAE Phrynocephalushelioscopus

LC NE

SQUAMAA AGAMIDAE Phrynocephalus mystaceus LC NE

SQUAMAA AMPHISBAENIDAE Blanus cinereus LC LC Yes Yes

SQUAMAA AMPHISBAENIDAE Blanus strauchi NA NA

SQUAMAA ANGUIDAE Anguis cephalonnica N N Yes Yes

SQUAMAA ANGUIDAE Anguis ragilis LC LC

SQUAMAA ANGUIDAE Pseudopus apodus LC LCSQUAMAA BOIDAE Eryx jaculus LC LC

SQUAMAA BOIDAE Eryx miliaris LC NE

SQUAMAA CHAMAELEONIDAE Chamaeleo aricanus NA NA

SQUAMAA CHAMAELEONIDAE Chamaeleo chamaeleon NA NA

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Coronella austriaca LC LC

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Coronella girondica LC LC

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Dolichophis caspius LC LC

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Dolichophis jugularis LC LC

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Eirenis modestus LC LC

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Elaphe dione LC NE

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Elaphe quatuorlineata N N Yes

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Elaphe sauromates LC LC

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Hemorrhois hippocrepis LC LCSQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Hemorrhois nummier LC LC

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Hemorrhois ravergieri NA NA

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Hierophis cypriensis EN Bab(iii) EN Bab(iii) Yes Yes

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Hierophis gemonensis LC LC Yes

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Hierophis viridifavus LC LC Yes

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Macroprotodon brevis N N

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Macroprotodon cucullatus LC LC

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Malpolon insignitus LC LC

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Malpolon monspessulanus LC LC

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Natrix maura LC LC

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Natrix natrix LC LC

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Natrix tessellata LC LC

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Platyceps collaris LC NA SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Platyceps najadum LC LC

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Rhinechis scalaris LC LC Yes Yes

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE elescopus allax LC LC

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Zamenis hohenackeri NE NE

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Zamenis lineatus DD DD Yes Yes

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Zamenis longissimus LC LC

SQUAMAA COLUBRIDAE Zamenis situla LC LC

SQUAMAA GEKKONIDAE Alsophylax pipiens NA NE

SQUAMAA GEKKONIDAE Cyrtopodion caspius NA NE

SQUAMAA GEKKONIDAE Cyrtopodion kotschyi LC LC

SQUAMAA GEKKONIDAE Euleptes europaea N N

SQUAMAA GEKKONIDAE Hemidactylus turcicus LC LC

SQUAMAA GEKKONIDAE Saurodactylusmauritanicus

NA NA

SQUAMAA GEKKONIDAE arentola angustimentalis LC LC Yes Yes

SQUAMAA GEKKONIDAE arentola boettgeri LC LC Yes Yes


33/44


(Europe)


(Europe)



Endemicto

Europe?

Endemicto

EU 27?

SQUAMAA GEKKONIDAE arentola delalandii LC LC Yes Yes

SQUAMAA GEKKONIDAE arentola gomerensis LC LC Yes Yes

SQUAMAA GEKKONIDAE arentola mauritanica LC LC

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Acanthodactyluserythrurus

LC LC

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Acanthodactylus schreiberi EN Bab(i,ii,iii,iv)

EN Bab(i,ii,iii,iv)

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Algyroides tzingeri LC LC Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Algyroides marchi EN Bab(iii,iv)+ab(iii,iv)

EN Bab(iii,iv)+ab(iii,iv)

Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Algyroides moreoticus N N Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Algyroides nigropunctatus LC LC Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Anatololacerta anatolica NA NA

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Anatololacerta oertzeni LC LC

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Archaeolacerta bedriagae N N Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Dalmatolacertaoxycephala

LC NE Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Darevskia praticola N N

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Dinarolacerta mosorensis VU Bab(iii) NE Bab(iii) Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Eremias arguta N VU Bab(iii)

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Eremias velox LC NE

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Gallotia atlantica LC LC Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Gallotia auaritae CR D CR D Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Gallotia bravoana CR D CR D Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Gallotia caesaris LC LC Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Gallotia galloti LC LC Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Gallotia intermedia CR Bab(v)+ab(v)

CR Bab(v)+ab(v)

Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Gallotia simonyi CR Bab(v)+ab(v)

CR Bab(v)+ab(v)

Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Gallotia stehlini LC LC Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Hellenolacerta graeca N N Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Iberolacerta aranica EN Bab(iii) EN Bab(iii) Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Iberolacerta aurelioi EN EN Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Iberolacerta bonnali N N Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Iberolacerta cyreni EN Bab(iii) EN Bab(iii) Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Iberolacerta galani N N Yes YesSQUAMAA LACERIDAE Iberolacerta horvathi N N Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Iberolacerta martinezricai CR Bab(v);Ca(ii)

CR Bab(v);Ca(ii)

Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Iberolacerta monticola VU Bab(iii) VU Bab(iii) Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Lacerta agilis LC LC

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Lacerta bilineata LC LC Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Lacerta schreiberi N N Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Lacerta strigata LC NE

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Lacerta trilineata LC LC

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Lacerta viridis LC LC

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Ophisops elegans LC LC

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Phoenicolacerta troodica LC LC Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Podarcis bocagei LC LC Yes YesSQUAMAA LACERIDAE Podarcis carbonelli EN Bab

(i,ii,iii,iv,v)EN Bab

(i,ii,iii,iv,v)Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Podarcis cretensis EN Bab(iii) EN Bab(iii) Yes Yes


34/44


(Europe)


(Europe)



Endemicto

Europe?

Endemicto

EU 27?

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Podarcis erhardii LC LC Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Podarcis lolensis LC LC Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Podarcis gaigeae VU D VU D Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Podarcis hispanicus LC LC Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Podarcis levendis VU D VU D Yes YesSQUAMAA LACERIDAE Podarcis lilordi EN Bab(ii)

+ab(iii)EN Bab(ii)

+ab(iii)Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Podarcis melisellensis LC LC Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Podarcis milensis VU D VU D Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Podarcis muralis LC LC

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Podarcis peloponnesiacus LC LC Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Podarcis pityusensis N N Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Podarcis raonei CR Bab(v)+ab(v)

CR Bab(v)+ab(v)

Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Podarcis siculus LC LC

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Podarcis tauricus LC LC

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Podarcis tiliguerta LC LC Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Podarcis vaucheri LC LCSQUAMAA LACERIDAE Podarcis waglerianus LC LC Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Psammodromus blanci NE NA

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Psammodromushispanicus

LC LC Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Psammodromus jeanneae LC LC Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Psammodromus manuelae LC LC Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Scelarcis perspicillata NA NA

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE eira dugesii LC LC Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE imon lepidus N N Yes Yes

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE imon tangitanus NE NA

SQUAMAA LACERIDAE Zootoca vivipara LC LC

SQUAMAA SCINCIDAE Ablepharus budaki LC LC

SQUAMAA SCINCIDAE Ablepharus kitaibelii LC LCSQUAMAA SCINCIDAE Chalcides bedriagai N N Yes Yes

SQUAMAA SCINCIDAE Chalcides chalcides LC LC

SQUAMAA SCINCIDAE Chalcides ocellatus LC LC

SQUAMAA SCINCIDAE Chalcides parallelus NA NA

SQUAMAA SCINCIDAE Chalcides sexlineatus LC LC Yes Yes

SQUAMAA SCINCIDAE Chalcides simonyi EN Bab(iii) EN Bab(iii) Yes Yes

SQUAMAA SCINCIDAE Chalcides striatus LC LC Yes Yes

SQUAMAA SCINCIDAE Chalcides viridanus LC LC Yes Yes

SQUAMAA SCINCIDAE Eumeces schneideri LC LC

SQUAMAA SCINCIDAE Ophiomoruspunctatissimus

LC LC

SQUAMAA SCINCIDAE rachylepis aurata NA NA

SQUAMAA SCINCIDAE rachylepis vittata LC LC

SQUAMAA ROGONOPHIDAE rogonophis wiegmanni NE NA

SQUAMAA YPHLOPIDAE yphlops vermicularis LC LC

SQUAMAA VIPERIDAE Gloydius halys NA NE

SQUAMAA VIPERIDAE Macrovipera lebetina LC LC

SQUAMAA VIPERIDAE Macrovipera schweizeri EN Bab(iii,v) EN Bab(iii,v) Yes Yes

SQUAMAA VIPERIDAE Montivipera xanthina LC LC

SQUAMAA VIPERIDAE Vipera ammodytes LC LC

SQUAMAA VIPERIDAE Vipera aspis LC LC Yes

SQUAMAA VIPERIDAE Vipera berus LC LC Yes

SQUAMAA VIPERIDAE Vipera latastei VU Ac VU Ac

SQUAMAA VIPERIDAE Vipera renardi VU Ac+c NE

SQUAMAA VIPERIDAE Vipera seoanei LC LC Yes Yes

SQUAMAA VIPERIDAE Vipera ursinii VU Bab(iii) VU Bab(iii) Yes

ESUDINES EMYDIDAE Emys orbicularis N VU Abcde

ESUDINES EMYDIDAE Emys trinacris DD DD Yes Yes


35/44


(Europe)


(Europe)

red list european_reptiles

Documents