White Stork  (Ciconia ciconia)

Regional Status

IUCN Data (Global)

IUCN 2024. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2024-1 (www)

Assessment year: 2021

Assessment Citation

BirdLife International 2021. Ciconia ciconia (Europe assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2021: e.T22697691A166325948. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2021-3.RLTS.T22697691A166325948.en. Accessed on 21 November 2024.

Geographic range:

In Europe, this species breeds in the majority of countries in Europe, notably in Poland, Ukraine, Spain, Belarus, Lithuania and Latvia.

Habitats:

This is a large charismatic species with close associations to human culture, and is a flagship species for conservation. This species is a Palearctic migrant (Elliott et al. 2020) that travels with the assistance of thermal updrafts, the occurrence of which restricts the migratory routes the species can take (Hancock et al. 1992). It breeds from February to April in the Palearctic (Elliott et al. 2020). It nests in loose colonies of up to 30 pairs (Hancock et al. 1992, Elliott et al. 2020) or solitarily (Elliott et al. 2020). The main departure from the European breeding grounds occurs in August (Hancock et al. 1992) with the species travelling in large flocks (Brown et al. 1982, Hancock et al. 1992), generally arriving in Africa by early October (Brown et al. 1982). The species inhabits open areas, shallow marshes, lakesides (Hancock et al. 1992, Elliott et al. 2020), lagoons (Elliott et al. 2020), flood-plains, rice-fields and arable land (Snow and Perrins 1998) especially where there are scattered trees for roosting (Elliott et al. 2020). It generally avoids regions with persistent cold, wet weather or large tracts of tall, dense vegetation such as reedbeds or forests (Hancock et al. 1992, Elliott et al. 2020). During the winter the species shows a preference for drier habitats (Hancock et al. 1992) such as grasslands, steppe and cultivated fields (Elliott et al. 2020), often gathering near lakes, ponds (Hancock et al. 1992), pools, slow-flowing streams, ditches (Elliott et al. 2020) or rivers (Hancock et al. 1992). The species is carnivorous and has a varied and opportunistic diet. It takes small mammals (Elliott et al. 2020) (e.g., voles, water voles, mice, shrews, young rats (Hancock et al. 1992)), large insects (e.g. beetles, grasshoppers, crickets and locusts), adult and juvenile amphibians, snakes, lizards, earthworms, fish (Elliott et al. 2020), eggs and nestlings of ground-nesting birds, molluscs and crustaceans (Hancock et al. 1992). The nest is constructed of sticks (Elliott et al. 2020) and is commonly positioned up to 30 m above the ground (Brown et al. 1982) in trees or on the roofs of buildings, as well as on pylons, telegraph poles, stacks of straw and other anthropogenic sites (including specially erected nesting structures), cliffs and occasionally among rushes on the ground (Elliott et al. 2020). The species nests solitarily or in loose colonies, often using traditional nesting sites (there are records of individual nests being used every year for 100 years) (Hancock et al. 1992, Elliott et al.2020). Nesting sites are usually situated near foraging areas, but may be up to 2–3 km away (Snow and Perrins 1998).

Although the generation length for both EU and Europe regional assessments were calculated using the same methodology, new information arriving after the EU assessments were undertaken gave rise to an update in the generation lengths. This new information was then used for the Europe level assessments giving rise to a difference between the generation lengths used for the EU and Europe regions.

Population:

The European breeding population is estimated at 251,000-282,000 pairs, which equates to 502,000-563,000 mature individuals. The breeding population in the EU28 is estimated at 156,000-168,000 pairs, which equates to 313,000-335,000 mature individuals. For details of national estimates, see the Supplementary Information.

Threats:

The species is threatened by habitat alteration including the drainage of wet meadows (Goriup and Schulz 1990, Elliott et al. 2020), prevention of floods on flood-plains (by dams, embankments, pumping stations and river canalisation schemes) (Goriup and Schulz 1990), conversion of foraging areas (Elliott et al. 2020), development, industrialisation and intensification of agriculture (Hancock et al. 1992) (e.g. mechanised ploughing of rough pastures to sow fertilised crops or swards of more productive grass varieties) (Goriup and Schulz 1990). It is also threatened by a shortage of nesting sites in some areas (Elliott et al. 2020) as, for example, the roofs of new rural buildings do not support nests and nest structures on pylons are frequently destroyed during maintenance work (Goriup and Schulz 1990). The species may also suffer as a result of the excessive use of pesticides (Elliott et al. 2020, Hockey et al. 2005) and through eating poisoned baits put out to catch large carnivores (Elliott et al. 2014). Another serious threat is collision with and electrocution from overhead powerlines (Bairlein 1991, Elliott et al. 2020), especially whilst on migration in Europe (Hancock et al. 1992). The species is hunted for food and sport (Elliott et al. 2020), mainly on migration (Hancock et al. 1992) and in its winter quarters (Goriup and Schulz 1990).

Conservation measures:

Conservation Actions Underway
This species is listed on Annex I of the EU Birds Directive, Annex II of the Bern Convention and Annex II of the Convention on Migratory Species, under which it is covered by the African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA). The eastern and western populations are currently listed in columns C (category 1) and A (category 3b) in the AEWA Action Plan, respectively. The international population of the species is censused and monitored every 10 years (Schulz 1999).

Conservation Actions Proposed
Intensively grazed (>1 cow per hectare) unfertilised grassland was found to attract a higher abundance of this species in Hungary (Baldi et al. 2005), and traditional livestock-farming practices such as creating herb-rich meadows for stock grazing and hay production are thought to be beneficial (Goriup and Schulz 1990). A model used to study the impact of different land use patterns on the species found that sequential (asynchronous) mowing of grasslands may increase the food supply for nestlings, thereby increasing reproductive success (as sequential mowing generates a small number of high-quality foraging patches throughout the breeding season) (Johst et al. 2001). A report by the International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP) suggests that habitat management for the species should include the periodic flooding of meadows, the creation of a mosaic of native grasslands and meadows, and the retention or creation of ditches, ponds and lakes (Goriup and Schulz 1990). The report also advises management strategies in relation to electricity pylons (e.g. burying or marking aerial cables and preventing disturbance to nests during maintenance) to reduce the threats of electrocution and collision (Goriup and Schulz 1990). Due to the species's habit of defecating on its legs to regulate its body temperature in hot climates it is inadvisable to fit individuals with leg-rings for tracking purposes (dry uric acid builds-up on the legs and hardens around leg-rings, tightening them and leading to injuries) (Goriup and Schulz 1990). Other methods of monitoring movements such as satellite telemetry or patagial wing-tags are therefore advised (Goriup and Schulz 1990). Other measures should: Monitor breeding, migrating, wintering numbers, age composition and ecological changes at key sites and habitats; Sustainably manage river valleys and wet grasslands; Abandonment of pastoral grassland, afforestation of farmland and drainage of wet meadows and inland wetlands in key breeding areas should be stopped; Bury power-lines or replace with more visible cables.

Rationale:

European regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)
EU28 regional assessment: Least Concern (LC)

At both European and EU28 scales, this species has an extremely large range (its extent of occurrence (EOO) is much larger than 20,000 km² and its area of occupancy (AOO) is much larger than 2,000 km²), and hence it does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the range size criteria (criteria B and D2). The population size is very large, (much larger than 10,000 mature individuals), and hence it does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criteria (criteria C and D). The population trend appears to be increasing, and hence the species does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size reduction criterion (criterion A). The probability of extinction has not been calculated for this species, therefore criterion E cannot be applied. 

For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern within both Europe and the EU28.

Trend justification:

In both Europe and the EU28, the population size is estimated to be increasing. For details of national estimates, see the Supplementary Information.