monarch-esa-petition-final_61585

States is one of the most significant factors leading to the loss and degradation of monarch
breeding habitat.
The NAMCP provides recommendations for the three party nations to consider implementing,
but explicitly does not impose any obligations on the parties, and its recommended actions
primarily focus on developing studies and recommendations, not specific actions. For example,
while the NAMCP identifies genetically engineered crop glyphosate use as a significant threat to
migratory monarchs, its recommended action is to study and limit impacts of herbicides and
insecticides on monarch populations and their habitat. In general the NAMCP establishes goals
for study and future actions that as such cannot be considered adequate regulatory mechanisms.
Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve
The first reserve to protect overwintering monarchs in Mexico was established in 1986. In 2008,
the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) added Mexico’s
Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve to its list of World Heritage sites. UNESCO’s listing
brought recognition of the significance of this site and efforts to protect the millions of monarchs
who rely on it for overwintering habitat. However this effort is not a cognizable regulatory
mechanism because it only requires voluntary actions, and because by its inherently-focused
nature it cannot adequately address range-wide threats to monarchs, particularly those in the
monarch’s summer breeding habitat in the United States.
UNESCO recommends a principal focus on prevention of illegal logging on the property;
additional areas of focus include achieving sustainable use of the property by making tourism to
it more sustainable, involving local communities in benefit-sharing programs to incentivize
conservation, and continued investment in continent-wide management of the migratory
phenomenon. A 2011 UNESCO report indicates that these efforts have resulted in large
reductions in illegal logging. The effort has also helped to develop infrastructure to better
manage tourism. However efforts pursuant to this designation are voluntary and come in the
form of recommendations. For example, in its list of requirements for protection and
management at the site, UNESCO is careful to use “should” instead of “shall” when it offers
suggestions such as “[t]he principal focus of protection and management should be to prevent
illegal logging on the property” (see: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1290/). In addition,
UNESCO’s efforts do not adequately address the threats faced by migratory monarchs across
their range, because its focus is on this one reserve and the surrounding area.
Small-scale logging in particular remains a problem in the Monarch Reserve. Vidal et al. (2013)
used aerial photographs, satellite images, and field surveys to monitor forest cover in the core
zones of the Reserve from 2001 to 2012. They found that from 2001-2012, 1,254 ha were
deforested (defined as areas with less than ten percent canopy cover remaining), 925 ha were
degraded (defined as areas in which canopy forest decreased), and 122 ha were negatively
affected by climatic conditions including winds, drought, fire, and floods (p. 180). Of the total
2,179 ha of affected area, 2,057 ha were affected by illegal logging, 1,503 ha of which were
affected by large-scale logging and 554 ha of which were affected by small-scale logging.
Monarch ESA Petition 86