Table 4. Summary of applicability of major international conservation instruments to Principal Ranges States for Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus20. Note: the EU/European Community is also a party to AEWA, CMS, Bern and CBD (see foot of table).
Principal Range State for Lesser White-fronted Goose
|
Member State bound by EU Directives and policies
|
Beneficiary of EU European Neighbourhood Policy21
|
Party to AEWA
|
Party to CMS
|
Party to Bern
|
Party to CBD
|
Party to Ramsar
|
Azerbaijan
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Bulgaria
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Estonia
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Finland
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Germany
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Greece
|
Yes
|
No
|
Not ratified
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Hungary
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
I. R. of Iran
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Iraq
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Kazakhstan
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Lithuania
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Netherlands
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Norway
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Poland
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Romania
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Russian Fed.
|
No
|
Strategic Partnership
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Sweden
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Syria
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Turkey
|
Candidate
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Turkmenistan
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
No [Oct 08 ->]
|
Ukraine
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Uzbekistan
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
EU/EC
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
4.3. National Policies, Legislation and Ongoing Activities
Annex 5 provides a table summarising the national protection status of the species in each Range State. The general picture is one of a high level of legal protection – at least on paper – in most of the key countries. This suggests that the main challenge is one of implementation and enforcement of conservation legsilation.
4.4 Site and Habitat Protection and Research
Annex 3a provides a listing of Important Bird Areas known to be of significance for Lesser White-fronted Goose. Annex 3b is a listing of additional sites, as provided by reviewiers of the first draft of this Action Plan (in all cases the sites were listed by nationals of the countries concerned), but this will need further development to ensure that it includes only those sites that are of real importance for the species’ conservation, rather than sites that are used only occasionally by vagrants etc.
Annex 6 provides a table, by Range State, of site protection measures. While the Fennoscandian population is well covered by site protection designations (at least along the westernmost flyway) this is not the case for the Western main population, which lacks adequate site protection in many Range States. In some cases there is insufficient information available for assessing the adequacy of site/habitat protection measures.
4.5. Recent Conservation Measures
Table 5 summarises the mechanisms and institutional arrangements for the Principal Range States (see section 1.4 for definition), while Annex 7 provides additional information concerning recent and ongoing conservation measures in each country.
Table 5. Summary of mechanisms and institutional arrangements for conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus.
Country
|
National
Action
Plan for Lesser White-fronted Goose?
|
National
Working
Group for Lesser White-fronted Goose?
|
National
Monitoring
Programme for Lesser White-fronted Goose?
|
Monitoring Programme
in Protected Areas?
|
Routines for Informing the
Responsible Authorities Regarding
Nesting Areas and Nest Sites?
|
Azerbaijan
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
N/A
|
Bulgaria
|
No
|
No
|
Partial
|
No
|
N/A
|
Estonia
|
In prep (2008)
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
N/A
|
Finland
|
In prep (adoption in 2008)
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
(Yes)
|
Germany
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
N/A
|
Greece
|
No (lacks ratification since 1999)
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
N/A
|
Hungary
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
N/A
|
Iran, Islamic Republic of
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
?
|
N/A
|
Iraq
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
N/A
|
Kazakhstan
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
N/A
|
Lithuania
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
N/A
|
Netherlands
|
?
|
N/A
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
N/A
|
Norway
|
Review in prep (2008)
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Poland
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
?
|
N/A
|
Romania
|
No
|
No
|
Partial
|
No
|
N/A
|
Russian Fed.
|
No
|
Yes
|
Partial
|
Partial
|
?
|
Sweden
|
In prep
|
Yes*
|
Yes*
|
Yes*
|
Yes
|
Syria
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
N/A
|
Turkey
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Partial
|
N/A
|
Turkmenistan
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
Yes
|
N/A
|
Ukraine
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
N/A
|
Uzbekistan
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
N/A
|
* Applies mainly to reintroduced population
Transboundary EU LIFE Project – Fennoscandian population
An international project ‘Conservation of the Lesser White-fronted Goose on European migration route’, funded by the EU’s LIFE mechanism, is underway between April 2005 and March 2009. The project is led by WWF Finland, with nine additional partners in Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary and Norway. For further information see http://www.wwf.fi/lwfg.
The aim of the project is to improve and monitor the conservation status of the species at the most important breeding, staging and wintering sites along the European flyway by:
-
Locating the most important breeding areas, and securing favourable conservation status of these areas
-
Eliminating the most important threats (high mortality due to hunting and poaching, loss of feeding and roosting habitats, and human disturbance)
-
Monitoring the population and effects of the project actions
The project is focusing on the following sites:
-
Norway – Porsangen Fjord and Varangerfjord; breeding grounds in Finnmark
-
Finland – Hailuoto/Liminganlahti area, Bothnian Bay coast, Finnish Lapland
-
Estonia – Matsalu National Park, Nigula
-
Hungary – Hortobágy National Park
-
Greece – Evros Delta, Lake Kerkini, Nestos Delta, Lake Mitrikou
Specific project activities include:
-
Catching, colour ringing and satellite tracking of Fennoscandian LWfG
-
Preparing National Action Plans for LWfG in Estonia, Finland and Norway.
-
Restoring and managing of LWfG habitat – Haeska Islets, Matsalu Bay, Estonia
-
Providing safe feeding and roosting areas by habitat management in Hortobágy National Park, Hungary
-
Raising public awareness, especially amongst hunters, landowners and farmers – Estonia, Hungary, Greece
-
Monitoring the Fennoscandian population and the effect of LIFE Project actions – Norway, Finland, Estonia, Hungary, Greece
5. Framework for action
5.1 Lesser White-fronted Goose Action Plan Goal, Purpose, and Results
This section identifies and defines the Goal, the Purpose, and Results of the Action Plan and describes indicators and means of verification for monitoring its implementation and effectiveness.
The Goal is the ultimate conservation objective to which this Action Plan contributes, namely restoration of Lesser White-fronted Goose to a favourable conservation status. The Purpose refers to the actual role of the Action Plan itself, namely to stop and reverse the current population decline. The Results are the changes required for this Purpose to be realised.
A priority has been assigned to each Result, according to the following scale:
Essential: a Result that is needed to prevent further large declines in the population that could lead to the species’ extinction.
High: a Result that is needed to prevent a decline of more than 20% of the population within 20 years.
Medium: a Result that is needed to prevent a decline of less than 20% of the population within twenty years.
Low: a Result that is needed to prevent local population declines or which is likely to have only a small impact on the population across the range.
However, owing to the strongly contrasting sizes of the subpopulations, some refinement of these categories should be applied practice. Hence, an Action may be High for a given subpopulation, even if the overall impact on the global population size would place it in the ‘Low’ category. In the case of the Lesser White-fronted goose, unless such considerations are taken into account, all actions for the Fennoscandian subpopulation would automatically become ‘Low’ priority.
Timescales are attached to each Result using the following criteria:
Immediate: to commence within the next year.
Short: to commence within the next 3 years.
Medium: to commence within the next 5 years.
Long: to commence within the next 10 years.
Ongoing: an action that is currently being implemented and should continue.
Completed: an action that was completed during preparation of the action plan.
The Results and Objectively Verifiable Indicators have been selected to address the challenges set out in Chapter 3, in particular:
-
to eliminate mortality of birds due to biologically unsustainable hunting pressure – in spite of the legal protection afforded to the species across most of its range;
-
to ensure that all of the key sites, including roosting and feeding sites, used by Lesser White-fronted Geese are adequately protected and managed;
-
to minimize disturbance and predation on the breeding grounds, thereby helping to maximize productivity;
-
to prevent further anthropogenically caused introgression of DNA from other goose species into the wild population of Lesser Whitefronts;
-
to fill the still-significant knowledge gaps concerning the species’ numbers and movements.
Table 6. Action Plan Goal and Purpose
|
Objectively Verifiable Indicator
|
Means of Verification
|
Action Plan GOAL
To restore the Lesser White-fronted Goose to a favourable conservation status within the AEWA Agreement Area
|
Neither of the wild populations in the Agreement Area qualifies as ‘threatened’ according to the IUCN Red List criteria because the Western Main population exceeds 25,00022 individuals, the Fennoscandian population exceeds 1,00023 individuals and neither population is declining.
Breeding range is stable or expanding.
Adequate managed and protected habitat is available at all the key sites along the species’ flyways.
|
Conservation Status Assessment of Migratory Waterbirds, Wetlands International
Assessments by the International Lesser White-fronted Goose Working Group established to coordinate implementation of this Action Plan
|
Action Plan PURPOSE
To stop and reverse the current population decline and range contraction.
|
Neither the Western Main population nor the Fennoscandian population is declining. A 5-year moving average of the finite rate of population increase (lambda) is above 1.0
.
|
For the westernmost flyway: counts of spring flocks at Matsalu Bay, Estonia, at Porsangerfjord, Norway; counts of spring and autumn flocks at Hortobágy, Hungary.
For the main flyway: counts of autumn flocks in Kustanay oblast, Kazakhstan, covering a large-enough area to avoid effects of local fluctuations caused by year-to-year variations in location and extent of suitable roosting/feeding sites.
|
|
Yüklə 9 Mb.