International Single Species Action Plan for the ... - AEWA

AEWA Technical Series No. 36 - Annexes
Article 5.1
“The Contracting Parties shall consult with each other about implementing obligations
arising from the Convention especially in the case of a wetland extending over the territories
of more than one Contracting Party or where a water system is shared by Contracting
Parties. They shall at the same time endeavour to coordinate and support present and future
policies and regulations concerning the conservation of wetlands and their flora and fauna.”
(i) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna
(CITES 1973)
Lesser White-fronted Goose is not included in any of the appendices to this Convention.
(j) European Union policies and instruments not specifically dealing with species/habitat
conservation but offering opportunities for enhanced management of Lesser Whitefronted
Goose habitats
The EU’s principal nature conservation legislation is made up of the Birds and Habitats’
Directives, some provisions of which are outlined above. The development of the ‘Natura
2000’ network of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)
has been the main focus in recent years and has been supported by the EU’s financial
instrument for nature conservation LIFE–Nature. Both Natura 2000 and LIFE have made
important contributions to Lesser White-fronted Goose conservation. However, there other
EU policies and instruments that could be used to achieve potentially more significant
progress at the landscape scale. Three are highlighted below.
Common Agriculture Policy
The partial reform of the CAP, including the introduction of the Rural Development
Regulation (2000-2006) offers opportunities for “a prominent role [to] be given to agrienvironment
instruments to support the sustainable development of rural areas and to respond
to society’s increasing demand for environmental services”. Agri-environment measures
represent the only compulsory rural development instrument that Member States MUST
implement. ‘Less Favoured Areas’ compensation, wetland restoration, extensive farming, and
reversion of arable land to grasslands are all management measures that could be targeted.
The drawback to date has been the relatively small budget for the RDR in comparison with
CAP market subsidies (10% versus 90%). In July 2004 the European Commission published
its proposals for revision of the RDR to cover 2007 to 2013.
• the establishment of a special fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural
Development (EAFRD), separate from the normal CAP mechanisms, with simpler
financial rules;
• a requirement for European and national strategy documents;
• three priority axes for spending (I – improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and
forestry sector; II – land management including animal welfare; and III – diversification
of the rural economy and the quality of life in rural areas), with detailed measures under
each axis;
• a requirement that a minimum of 25% of Community support for each rural development
programme is spent on axis II (land management), and that a minimum of 15% is
committed to each of the other two axes;
• the existing LEADER (funding for local action groups in rural communities) financial
instrument to be ‘mainstreamed’ within the RDR and a minimum 7% of funding for
LEADER within rural development programmes;
• a mechanism for revising the designation of Less Favoured Areas; and
International Single Species Action Plan Lesser White-fronted Goose –Annexes
XLV