Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds

(a) Threat factors causing high mortality of fully grown birds⁵
Hunting
Breeding grounds Importance: Medium
Illegal spring hunting occurs in many areas of the Russian breeding grounds. Illegal round-ups of moulting birds also occur in Russia.
In one of the municipalities where breeding occurs in Norway, spring hunting of ducks is legal. However, both geese (probably including some Lesser White-fronts) and swans are also shot during this period, albeit illegally. Spring hunting therefore poses an additional threat to the Fennoscandian population and should be stopped (T. Aarvak, pers. comm.).
Staging/wintering grounds Importance: Critical
Hunting has a critical impact on the species as whole; it is thought that more than 95% of the global population is affected by over-hunting (UNEP/WCMC, 2003). Within the AEWA area, hunting pressure is extremely high in both the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan. Over-hunting in China is also a key threat to the East Asian population (UNEP/WCMC, 2003). Hunting pressure arises from several sources, including subsistence hunters and sport hunters. The latter category also involves ‘hunting tourism’ whereby hunters (generally from richer western countries) pay to hunt desirable quarry species, often in eastern countries where hunting controls may be poorly enforced. It should be underlined that Lesser White-fronted Goose is officially protected by hunting legislation throughout virtually its entire range. Illegal hunting (whether subsistence or sport) is therefore the key issue. In many cases, it must however be assumed that accidental shooting is also a reason for high mortality, when hunters mix up Lesser Whitefronts with the very similar ‘look alike’ species Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons, an important legal quarry species (when birds are in flight it is even difficult for experienced ornithologists to separate the species). Additionally it should be noted that spring hunting of geese and waterfowl is still a legal and widely practiced in Russia and other ex-Soviet countries. There are high levels of ignorance and/or disregard of the applicable hunting laws more broadly.
High hunting pressure has been observed at many locations in Russia and Kazakhstan. The loss in Kazakhstan of birds fitted with satellite transmitters and rings has supported the anecdotal evidence that hunting pressure is especially high here (UNEP/WCMC, 2004).
Indirect pressure as a result of hunting includes disturbance caused by hunting for other species and may lead to loss of condition, thereby contributing to adult mortality. This type of disturbance has occurred, for example, at traditional autumn staging areas in Finland (UNEP/WCMC, 2004) even though the Lesser White-fronted Goose itself is strictly protected under the Finnish Nature Conservation Act. Heavy hunting pressure is common in the coastal wetlands along the western shore of the Black Sea where Lesser White-fronted Geese winter. In December 2007, an adult Lesser White-front, colour-ringed in Norway, was found shot inside the Lake Kerkini Wildlife Refuge in Greece (www.piskulka.net).
There are indications that Lesser White-fronts are being accidentally shot by goose hunters at Porsangen Fjord in Norway during the birds’ autumn staging period. A. albifrons does not occur in this area (only A. anser, A. erythropus and A. fabalis), and only A. anser is legal quarry. Nevertheless, it appears that two juveniles were killed in autumn 2005.
The reintroduced Swedish/Dutch population is not subject to significant hunting pressure and this has been one of the main arguments used in favour of reintroduction/restocking and flyway modification projects.
Poisoning
Staging/wintering grounds Importance: Local
There is anecdotal evidence from Bulgaria of both Lesser and Greater Whitefronts being killed unintentionally as a secondary impact of rodenticide use on agricultural land, though it is unclear whether the initial poisoining occurred on Bulgarian or Romanian territory. It is known that poisoned baits are used in China specifically to kill geese, including Lesser Whitefronts of the Eastern main subpopulation, but there is no evidence to date of intentional poisoning of geese as a crop protection measure within the EU and/or AEWA Agreement Area. In Germany, in autumn 2004, about 300 geese (mainly Bean Geese Anser fabalis and Greater White-fronted Geese) were poisoned by rodenticides in Thüringen. In the same autumn it was also reported that about 40 Common Cranes Grus grus were found dead, poisoned by rodenticides, in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, in the same area as used by large numbers of wintering geese. The use of such poisons is legal in Germany as long as the poison is concealed, but this is clearly difficult to enforce (J. Mooij pers. comm.)
Human disturbance
Staging/wintering grounds Importance: Medium
This is considered to be a significant factor throughout the staging and wintering range. The deliberate scaring of birds feeding on agricultural land and natural meadows is the most widespread and serious form of human disturbance other than that associated with hunting pressure (UNEP/WCMC, 2004). Such disturbance may lead to loss of condition and increased adult mortality, with birds less able to survive winter or the rigours of long-distance migration. In Hungary, disturbance by birdwatchers and farmers is at times a problem; for example, birdwatchers looking for Lesser White-fronts or other species in the grassland feeding areas scare birds away from protected sites to surrounding arable land, where they are vulnerable to being hunted (S. Lengyel, pers. comm.).
Generic issues that may increase adult mortality
(i.e. those factors that pose a potential risk to geese and other birds in general, but for which no significant adverse impacts relating specifically to Lesser White-fronted Geese are known)

• 
  wind turbines,
  
• 
  high-tension power lines
  
• 
  disease
  

(b) Threat factors causing reduced reproductive success
Human disturbance
Breeding grounds Importance: Local
Tourism development and increasing use of helicopters and all-terrain vehicles threaten some parts of the breeding range of the Fennoscandian population (UNEP/WCMC, 2004). The impacts of off-road vehicles, aircraft, road construction and power-line installation in the core breeding area of the Fennoscandian population are discussed by Øien & Aarvak 2004. It is also important to consider that ornithological/conservation research could be an additional potential source of disturbance on the breeding grounds, unless very strictly controlled.

Predation
Breeding grounds Importance: Local
Studies suggest that the breeding success and juvenile production of Lesser White-fronted Goose is broadly comparable to other goose species and that predation rates cannot explain the rapid population declines recorded. The expansion of Red Fox Vulpes vulpes and Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus may elevate the predation threat for the Fennoscandian population and reintroduced Swedish population, while (as for other geese) predation may be higher in years when small mammal prey is less abundant.
There is anecdotal evidence that disturbance by White-tailed Eagles Haliaeetus albicilla and Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos may be having a significant impact on the small Fennoscandian population of Lesser White-fronted Goose (M. Ekker, T. Aarvak pers. comm.). American Mink Mustela vison have spread throughout Scandinavia and may also contribute to higher predation (T. Lehtiniemi, pers. comm.).
Generic issues that may decrease reproductive success (i.e. those factors that pose a potential threat to geese and other birds in general, but for which no significant adverse impacts relating specifically to Lesser White-fronted Geese are known; all are therefore assumed to be of ‘Low’ importance)

• 
  Poor weather – poor weather conditions during the summer may lead to virtually complete breeding failure among tundra-nesting species. Effects may include late-lying snow delaying access to nest sites; loss of condition among breeding adults; and/or poor survival of goslings and juveniles.
  
• 
  Similarly poor weather on the wintering grounds, with deep snow cover, may result in no foraging areas being available to geese, thereby leading to poor body condition, while unusually dry weather in autumn can mean that grass/cereal crops are in poor condition during the winter, again resulting in poor foraging for geese.
  

(c) Threat factors causing habitat loss/degradation/conversion
Agricultural intensification
Staging/wintering grounds Importance: High
Extensive areas of grassland and wetland in the staging and wintering areas have been converted for agricultural use. In particular, there was large-scale conversion of steppe grassland to cultivation during the second half of the twentieth century in the Central Asian staging/wintering grounds, including for the production of crops such as cotton that do not provide suitable feeding for geese. Within Europe, agricultural intensification resulted in the loss and degradation of staging/wintering areas in Greece.
However the relationship between agricultural intensification and goose use is complex. For example, in recent decades new goose wintering areas have been identified in Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, where irrigated fields are used for the production of wheat and rice. These sites provide suitable goose staging/wintering habitat, but are subject to high hunting pressure (both legal and illegal). Nevertheless, there have been notable increases in goose numbers. For example, during the mid-1980s the total number of wintering geese in Uzbekistan was assessed at only 5,000 individuals, whereas the current estimate (for known sites only) is 200,000 to 300,000 individuals (E. Kreuzberg, pers. comm.). Wheat fields in Kazakhstan also provide important feeding areas (P. Tolvanen, T. Heinicke pers. comm.).

Construction of dams and other river regulation infrastructure, wetland drainage
Staging/wintering grounds Importance: High
The environmental disaster in the Aral Sea basin, owing largely to the misguided diversion of inflow for intensive irrigation, included the destruction of former key staging areas in Uzbekistan (Madsen, 1996; UNEP/WCMC, 2004; E. Kreuzberg pers. comm.). Large areas of the Mesopotamian Marshes were deliberately drained under the former Iraqi regime, while the Tigris and Euphrates rivers (and associated wetlands) in Iraq have suffered from reduced flow due to the construction of dams in upstream countries such as Turkey. Concentration of birds into remaining wetlands is likely to make them more vulnerable to hunting. The current international programme for restoring/reflooding of large areas of the Mesopotamian Marshes is likely to benefit the species considerably. Around key staging areas in Kazakhstan, such as Lake Kulykol, much of the inflow from spring floodwater is diverted to dams that provide water for hay meadows and cattle grazing (S. Yerokhov, pers comm). A comparable situation is found in the formerly extensive coastal and inland wetlands of Azerbaijan that were drained for agriculture. The remaining wetlands cover only a small fraction of the previous area and suffer severe water management problems – e.g. lack of water, pollution by pesticides (T. Heinicke pers. comm.). In Ukraine, damming and regulation of the Dniepr and Dniester rivers has caused reduced flow to the extensive meadows in the Dniester delta and along the Lower Dnepr valley (I. Rusev pers. comm.).
Climate change
Breeding grounds Importance: Unknown
Global warming, predicted to be rapid in polar regions, is likely to have a significant impact on the sub-Arctic tundra ecosystem of the Lesser Whitefront’s breeding grounds (even though high-Arctic habitats and species are generally considered those most at risk). Possible consequences of climate change include direct habitat loss, but also more subtle and indirect adverse impacts such as the breakdown of food chains and the expansion of the range of Red Fox Vulpes vulpes. The most likely effect of the increasing temperature is a change in feeding conditions through altered vegetation. Whether this would be positive or negative is unknown. Changing feeding conditions affects production and mortality directly. Earlier snow melt could lead to decreased clutch predation by predators such as foxes, since they have to search through much larger areas. In years with late snowmelt, the availability of nest sites is low, thereby increasing the predation pressure. Late snow may also be relevant for spring hunting in Russia. In such conditions, the geese have fewer feeding areas available and birds are likely to be more vulnerable to hunters.
Staging and wintering grounds Importance: Unknown
Global warming is also likely to have impacts on the staging and wintering areas. For example, increasingly mild winters might mean that geese remain further north than usual in some years, or have access to higher quality food items, thereby increasing survival and reproductive success. Shifting rainfall patterns could potentially lead to long-term shifts in migration routes and wintering areas (e.g. in arid zones of Central Asia global warming may favour growth of wild cereals in early winter, providing suitable staging sites in remote desert/semi-desert areas, E. Kreuzberg pers. comm. Conversely, in other cases, there might be a shift to crops that do not provide food for geese e.g. cotton, grape vines). However, the fact that the species winters largely in and around semi-arid/arid-zone wetlands, which naturally undergo both significant year-to-year fluctuations and long-term cyclic variations, may make anthropogenic climate change impacts difficult to detect.


Land abandonment
Staging and wintering grounds Importance: Medium
Abandonment of traditional agricultural land-management practices is a strong trend in many countries of central and eastern Europe and Central Asia (e.g. Kazakhstan), and has been a significant factor in parts of Fennoscandia. In some cases, such as the decline in mowing of coastal and sub-alpine meadows at staging sites around the Baltic Sea, this may lead to deterioration and loss of key Lesser White-fronted Geese feeding habitat due to the progressive encroachment of shrubs and trees. However, the situation has improved markedly in the Baltic region over the last ten years and most actual and potential staging meadows are managed by grazing/mowing thanks to EU agri-environmental payments (J. Markkola, pers. comm.). In Kazakhstan, the period from 1955 to 1990 was one of intensive grain production and the littoral and near-littoral areas of all key lakes were regularly cultivated and sown with grain. During the last 10 to 15 years, however, much of this land has been abandoned and the distances to the main goose feeding areas have increased to 10-20 km or more (S. Yerokhov, pers comm). In Sweden, hay cutting in Norbotten county has declined from 200,000 ha in 1927 to about 1,000 ha nowadays. Most of the land formerly managed for hay was located along the river-valley migration routes once used by Lesser White-fronted Geese (M. Björkland, pers comm).
Overgrazing
Breeding grounds Importance: Local
Over-grazing of tundra vegetation by semi-domestic Reindeer Rangifer tarandus may threaten the quality of breeding habitat for the Fennoscandian population, though impacts appear to vary from country to country. For example, data from the Swedish county of Norbotten do not indicate any increase in overall reindeer numbers during the period when the Lesser Whitefront population crash occurred (M. Björkland & S. Gylje, pers comm), while in Finland, reindeer numbers doubled between the 1970s and 1990s and the adverse effects on vegetation can clearly be demonstrated (T. Lehtiniemi/BirdLife Finland, pers. comm.).
Pollution of wetlands/waterbodies
Staging and wintering grounds Importance: Local
Point-source and/or diffuse pollution of wetlands and water bodies may be a locally important cause of habitat degradation, but there are few if any documented cases that relate specifically to Lesser White-fronted Geese.

(d) Potential genetic introgression of White-fronted Goose, Barnacle Goose and/or Greylag Goose DNA into the wild Fennoscandian population from captive-bred, reintroduced birds.
Genetic studies have shown that a proportion of individuals within the captive breeding populations used for the Finnish and Swedish reintroduction/restocking programmes are carrying DNA of other goose species, notably Greater White-fronted Goose⁶ (Ruokonen et al. 2000, Ruokonen 2001, Ruokonen et al. 2007). The percentage of captive-reared birds carrying alien genes in the Swedish captive stock was estimated at 36% (Ruokonen et al. 2007). Combining his breeding notes and genetic data, Tegelström assumed that the proportion of released birds carrying alien genes may be somewhat lower, at around 5-10% (unpublished data). It has been concluded that the occurrence of alien genes arose through hybridisation in captivity because no signs of hybridisation have been found in the wild populations of Lesser or Greater White-fronts (Ruokonen et al. 2004). There is a risk that released birds carrying DNA from other goose species could pair and breed with wild Lesser White-fronts, thereby causing introgresssion of alien genes into the wild Fennoscandian population. Given that the Fennoscandian and Western main populations partially overlap outside the breeding season, contamination of Western main birds could also occur. There is not full consensus among Lesser White-fronted Goose stakeholders concerning the significance of this risk.
The status of the free-flying, reintroduced population has been the subject of particular controversy. Some experts have argued that all these individuals must be caught and taken back into captivity to protect the genetic status of wild birds. The Swedish authorities among others, have countered that the free-flying reintroduced population should be maintained, noting inter alia that it constitutes the only genetic link with the original wild population in Sweden. The latter position appeared to be strengthened by a 2005 decision of the High Administrative Court in The Netherlands, ruling that Special Protection Areas should be established for wintering birds from the reintroduced Swedish population.
Nevertheless, a moratorium was passed outlining that further releases of captive-bred birds are formally suspended until birds from the captive-breeding stock that have been confirmed as carrying alien genes have been removed and until full genetic purity can be assured through utilisation of new birds from wild origin for breeding (though one Lesser Whitefront family was released in Finland in 2004 in spite of the moratorium) , though it is not possible to identify (and therefore to remove) all birds carrying such genetic material. The expert workshop held in Lammi, Finland in 2005, agreed that any future releases should only be based on genetically ‘clean’ stock, preferably derived from the wild due to the technical impossibility of identifying all birds carrying alien DNA.
The Swedish authorities opened discussions with their Russian counterparts with a view to obtaining wild birds to build up a new captive-bred population from which future releases could be made. While movements of wild birds were suspended for a time owing to EU restrictions on bird movements in response to the spread of the H5N1 strain of avian influenza (T. Larsson pers. comm.), the first shipment of eight wild birds from Russia was received in 2006. The second shipment of six birds was received in mid-February 2007. By May 2008, a total of 24 wild birds from Russia had been received.
The IUCN Guidelines for Reintroductions, issued in 1995 by the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC), have no formal legal status but are generally regarded as the most authoritative internationally published guidance on species reintroductions (IUCN 1998). While the need for conformity with the IUCN Guidelines has been cited by both proponents and opponents of Lesser White-fronted Goose reintroduction initiatives, the guidance actually doesn’t extend to the more controversial aspects of the Lesser White-front reintroduction programmes, namely the possible introgression of alien DNA into the wild population and modification of flyways.
Given the lack of detailed internationally accepted guidance, the Action Plan compilers undertook (at the Lammi Workshop) to submit a dossier on the issue for review by the Scientific Council of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) with a request that the Council should provide independent, authoritative advice on the future of restocking/reintroduction programmes for Lesser White-fronted Goose.

Taking into account the views expressed at the Lammi Workshop, as well as at earlier meetings and in relevant publications, and drawing on the first draft of this Action Plan, a dossier was transmitted by BirdLife International to the CMS Secretariat in July 2005. Some stakeholders felt that the dossier was incomplete and/or did not accurately represent the actual situation. In such cases, the stakeholders concerned were encouraged to provide the Scientific Council with additional information. Thirteen such contributions were taken into account by the Scientific Council in preparing its conclusions and recommendations, finalised in November 2005 at the 13th Meeting of the CMS Scientific Council, Nairobi, Kenya, 18 November 2005 (attached as Annex 9a; additional independent comments by Dr Robert C. Lacy appended as Annex 9b).

The following are the Scientific Council’s conclusions (numbered for clarity, but otherwise quoted verbatim):

1. 
   “It is desirable to have a wide genetic diversity among wild Lesser Whitefronts.
   
2. 
   There appears to be no undisputed answer at present to the question of whether the Fennoscandian population (as represented by the birds breeding in Norway) is genetically distinct from the nearest breeding birds to the east, in northern Russia. Given the uncertainty, we take the cautious approach that there might be a potentially valuable genetic distinction, and that we should not deliberately interfere with it (for instance, by boosting the Fennoscandian population with wild birds from elsewhere), unless or until such interference may become inevitable.
   
3. 
   Given the small size of the wild Fennoscandian population, if possible, a captive breeding population of birds from this source should be established and maintained as a priority. We recognise that there are risks involved in taking eggs and/or young birds from the wild population, but that careful use of a known surplus (that is, those birds that would have died or been killed in their first winter) may be a practical conservation option.
   
4. 
   We consider that every effort should be made to conserve the Fennoscandian birds down their traditional migration routes into southeastern Europe and the Caspian/Central Asian region. We recognise that this is a major challenge. We endorse the current LIFE project that aims to safeguard the birds and their habitats along the western route. It is our opinion that all appropriate efforts should also be made to conserve the wild populations of the species in its other flyways.
   
5. 
   We consider that doubts do remain about the genetic make-up of the existing free-flying birds, originally introduced into the wild in Fennoscandia, and which winter in the Netherlands. It does seem to us that not all, but a large part, of the scientific community will never be completely satisfied concerning the level of genetic contamination from the Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons and other species, which many will regard as impossible to eliminate. Despite genuine efforts to improve the genetic purity of existing captive flocks we consider that these flocks are not to be regarded as potential sources for release to the wild.
   
6. 
   Given the possibility that the above-mentioned free-flying birds, or their descendants, may pose a risk to the genetic make-up of the wild Fennoscandian population, the Scientific Council is of the opinion that these birds should be caught or otherwise removed from the wild. We do not say this lightly, nor underestimate the practical and other difficulties involved. We recommend that a feasibility study be undertaken as a matter of urgency.
   
7. 
   We believe that there is nothing against establishing a group in captivity of purebred Lesser Whitefronts from the wild, western Russian stock, and it may well prove valuable to have such a group in the future. However, we do not believe that it is appropriate to release such birds to the wild now or in the immediate future.
   
8. 
   For the present, we do not support the introduction of Lesser Whitefronts into flyways where they do not occur naturally. We have borne in mind the powerful argument concerning the improved safety of birds in these flyways, as well as practical considerations, such as current proposals that could quickly be put into effect. However, we consider that modifying the natural behaviour of Lesser Whitefronts in this respect, as well as unknown ecological effects in the chosen new flyways, and other such considerations, make this technique inappropriate until such time as it may become essential, particularly when major disruption or destruction occurs of key components of the natural flyways. We do not believe that to be the case at present. We give due weight to arguments about the continuing decline of the very small Fennoscandian population, and to the estimates of how long it may continue to be viable, but we are not persuaded that such a fact alone is enough to justify radical action.
   
9. 
   We consider that it would be appropriate to re-examine the issues once more in five years.”
   

The additional independent comments by R. Lacy included a replenishment or ‘dilution’ approach to the introgression of alien genes, whereby pure-bred birds (i.e. without alien genes) could be introduced into the population identified as carrying alien genes (see Annex 9b).

The Scientific Council’s conclusions were not acceptable to all Range States and preliminary negotiations concerning this section of the draft Single Species Action Plan (July 2006 version) failed to reach a consensus. In January 2007 the AEWA Secretariat undertook a series of consultations with representatives of the governments of Finland, Germany, Norway and Sweden, with the aim of securing a consensus compromise on a way forward for this element of the Action Plan (AEWA 2007; Annex 10 to this SSAP). The following are the verbatim conclusions of the negotation mission, as drafted by the AEWA Secretariat and supported by the parties (governments) concerned. They constitute the basis for dealing with issues of captive breeding, reintroduction and supplementing (‘supplementation’) of the Fennoscandian population in the framework of the SSAP.

1. 
   “The parties agree that the main priority for the conservation of the LWfG is the preservation of the wild populations breeding in Fennoscandia and Russia and that the work on the SSAP and any decisions should follow the code of transparency and accountability so that they can be subject to scientific scrutiny at any time. The parties will be considering support for conservation on the ground along their flyways. Particular attention shall be paid to mortality due to hunting and urgent targeted measures should be implemented to reduce the magnitude of this threat, the success of which shall be promptly and regularly reviewed and evaluated. Supplementation with captive-bred birds should be considered if other conservation measures are not as quickly efficient as needed and should populations continue to decline. As with any other captive breeding, reintroduction or supplementation initiatives this project will be subject to consideration by the Committee for LWfG captive breeding, reintroduction and supplementation in Fennoscandia (see conclusion 3 below). The efficiency of conservation measures is to be assessed by the International LWfG Working Group (see conclusion 2 below).
   

2. 
   The parties agree that an International LWfG Working Group should be established, consisting of governmental representatives of all Range States, who would be free to bring in their own experts and use their support. The group will be chaired by the AEWA Secretariat (efficient chairmanship would be possible only if additional support staff (coordinator for the SSAP) and supplementary budget are made available to the Secretariat) and will operate in accordance with ToR developed by the AEWA Secretariat, approved by the Range states and endorsed by the AEWA Technical Committee.
   

3. 
   The parties agree on the establishment of a Committee⁷ for LWfG captive breeding, reintroduction and supplementation in Fennoscandia, consisting of governmental representatives of Sweden, Finland, and Norway, who would be free to bring in their own experts and use their support. The Committee will be chaired by the AEWA Secretariat (efficient chairmanship would be possible only if additional support staff (coordinator for the SSAP) and supplementary budget are made available to the Secretariat) and will operate in accordance with ToR developed by the AEWA Secretariat, approved by the three states and endorsed by the AEWA Technical Committee.
   

4. 
   The parties agree that a captive stock of wild Fennoscandian birds should be established, subject to the conclusions of a feasibility study. The long-term future of all captive breeding programmes will be reviewed by the Committee for LWfG captive breeding, reintroduction and supplementation in Fennoscandia.
   

5. 
   The parties agree that the Swedish captive breeding programme could carry on as long as it is based on wild birds only. The long-term future of all captive breeding programmes will be reviewed by the Committee for LWfG captive breeding, reintroduction and supplementation in Fennoscandia.
   

6. 
   The parties agree that the current free-flying flock, breeding in Sweden and wintering in the Netherlands, will remain in the wild, subject to genetic screening and refinement, i.e. removal of apparent hybrids, which will be undertaken following the conclusion of a feasibility study. Furtheron the dilution with purebred birds is considered a principally viable option. The long-term future of all reintroduction and supplementation programmes will be reviewed by the Committee for LWfG captive breeding, reintroduction and supplementation in Fennoscandia taking full account of, amongst others, the success of conservation actions, including revival of the wild Fennoscandian population, and other pertinent factors. Decisions regarding the Swedish free-flying population should also take into account the conclusions of the independent review and evaluation of available LWfG genetic studies (see conclusion 8 below).
   

7. 
   The parties agree that the implementation of the pilot experimental project of the NGO ‘Aktion Zwerggans’ will be postponed by three years. As with any other captive breeding, supplementation or reintroduction initiatives this project will be subject to consideration by the Committee for LWfG captive breeding, reintroduction and supplementation in Fennoscandia.
   

8. 
   The parties agree that a review and evaluation of the existing genetic LWfG studies by an independent expert(s) with proper scientific expertise and experience (ideally in molecular DNA analysis of birds, conservation genetics and statistical proficiency) should be undertaken⁸. This work will be commissioned by the AEWA Secretariat to an independent expert(s) selected by the Secretariat too. The conclusions of this independent evaluation will be submitted to the Committee for LWfG captive breeding, reintroduction and supplementation in Fennoscandia and the International LWfG Working Group for their consideration.”
   

(e) Knowledge limitations
Current knowledge of Lesser White-fronted Goose is limited in several areas that have crucial relevance for the successful implementation of comprehensive conservation measures. Among the key factors where current information is inadequate are:

• 
  Locations of key staging and wintering sites for the Western main population (identifying new sites but also filling data gaps for known Lesser White-front sites – including IBAs – where recent information is lacking or fragmentary).
  
• 
  Current status of the species in several key countries, including, inter alia Azerbaijan, Belarus, Iran, Iraq, Lithuania, Poland, Russia (Ob valley and Dagestan), Syria, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.
  
• 
  Extent of hunting and poaching at different staging/wintering sites.
  
• 
  Extent and effectiveness of protected area management at nationally and/or internationally designated sites of importance for Lesser White-fronted Goose (this restriction applies to significant parts of the range beyond Europe).
  
• 
  Extent and effectiveness of enforcement of hunting regulations at key sites, whether or not they are formally designated as protected areas.
  
• 
  Extent of threat to the species from poisoning
  
• 
  Location of breeding sites of remaining wild Fennoscandian population.
  
• 
  Location of breeding grounds of a large part of the Western main population.
  
• 
  Degree of exchange between populations.
  
• 
  PVA analyses needed urgently for both the Swedish and Norwegian population.
  
• 
  Impacts of land/habitat management on Lesser White-fronted Goose and identification of desirable management practices.
  

Table 2a. Relative importance of threats to wild subpopulations of Lesser White-fronted Goose.

Threat	Fennoscandian population	Western main population	Eastern main population9
(a) Factors causing increased adult mortality
Hunting	Critical	Critical	Critical
Poisoning	Unknown	Local	High
Human disturbance	Medium	Medium	?
(b) Factors causing reduced reproductive success
Human disturbance	Local?	Local	Local
Predation	Local?	Local	Local
Genetic impoverishment	Low	Unknown	Unknown
(c) Factors causing habitat loss/degradation/conversion
Agricultural intensification	High formerly; now probably Low	High	High
Construction of dams and other river regulation infrastructure, wetland drainage	Medium?	High	High
Climate Change	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Over-grazing	Local	Unknown?	Unknown?
Land abandonment (incl. declining grain production, loss of hay meadows, scrub/forest encroachment)	Locally high	High	Unknown?
Pollution of wetlands/waterbodies	Unknown?	Unknown?	Unknown?
(d) Potential genetic introgression of DNA from other goose species into wild population	Potential risk exists	Potential risk exists	?
(e) Knowledge limitations	Fundamental gaps	Fundamental gaps	Fundamental gaps

Table 2b. Relative importance of threats to reintroduced population of Lesser White-fronted Goose¹⁰.

Threat	Reintroduced population (Sweden/The Netherlands)
(a) Factors causing increased adult mortality
Hunting	Low
Poisoning	Low
Human disturbance	Local
(b) Factors causing reduced reproductive success
Human disturbance	Unknown
Predation	Local
(c) Factors causing habitat loss/degradation/conversion
Agricultural intensification and wetland drainage	Low
Construction of dams and other river regulation infrastructure	Low
Climate Change	High
Over-grazing	Unknown
Land abandonment	Local
Pollution of wetlands/waterbodies	Low
(d) Genetic introgression of DNA from other goose species into reintroduced population and potential for entry into wild population	Theoretical risk exists
(e) Knowledge limitations	Fundamental gaps

Overleaf is a ‘problem tree’ diagrammatic representation of the key threat factors described above.