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

AEWA Technical Series No. 36
2. Ensure that all key sites for Lesser White-fronted Goose have a management plan that
addresses the conservation requirements of Lesser White-fronted Goose and that is
resourced, implemented, monitored and periodically updated;
3. Monitor habitat quality in the breeding range to ensure that any anthropogenic
pressures, including the potential impacts of climate change, are identified as early as
possible;
4. Take measures to restore and/or rehabilitate Lesser White-fronted Goose roosting and
feeding habitat in the staging and/or wintering range.
These actions are applicable in all of the Range States.
Result 3: Reproductive success is maximised
1. Avoid infrastructure development and other sources of human disturbance, including
recreation/tourism liable to have an adverse impact on the know core breeding areas;
2. Take measures to avoid overgrazing and nest trampling if/where this is known to be a
problem;
3. Take measures, where feasible, to minimise predation, where this is shown to be a
significant limiting factor;
4. Take measures to eliminate waterbird hunting on the breeding grounds (Russian
Federation and Norway) and in all staging areas close to the breeding grounds
(Fennoscandia, Russian Federation).
These actions are applicable in the few Range States that share the species’ entire breeding
range, namely Finland, Norway, Sweden and Russian Federation.
Result 4: No introgression of DNA from other goose species into the wild population
occurs as a result of further releases and introgression from already released birds from
captive breeding programmes is minimised.
As set out in Chapter 3, there has been a lack of consensus among Lesser White-fronted
Goose stakeholders on the use of captive breeding, supplementation/reintroduction, and
flyway modification as valid conservation tools to be integrated with measures directed at
conservation of the surviving wild population. Proponents have argued that all efforts to date
have failed to stop or reverse the decline of the Lesser White-fronted Goose and that
supplementation/reintroduction is the only assured means of securing the species’ survival,
citing the high adult survival rates achieved through diverting the flyway through ‘safe’
countries. Opponents have argued that introduction in areas that do not form part of the
species’ natural range is scientifically and ethically unsound and believe that efforts and
resources should be devoted to conservation of the wild Fennoscandian population as long as
it continues to exist, with supplementation/reintroduction remaining an option if all other
measures fail. They also highlight the risk of introgression of DNA from other goose species
into the wild population, following the discovery of such DNA among the captive breeding
stock.
As detailed in Chapter 3 (pages 34–35), the Scientific Council of the Convention on
Migratory Species presented a series of conclusions and recommendations on these issues in
November 2005. The full text of the Scientific Council’s statement, together with relevant
comments made by Dr Robert C. Lacy, can be found in Annexes 9a and 9b, respectively.
The Scientific Council’s findings proved controversial and the AEWA Secretariat conducted
a series of consultations with the key Range States in 2007 resulting in an agreement between
the parties concerned. The conclusions set out in this agreement form the basis of the Single
Species Action Plan’s approach to this issue. They are detailed on pages 35-37 and in Annex
10. The following is a summary only of the key points agreed by the parties:
International Single Species Action Plan for the Conservation of the Lesser White-fronted Goose 52