Transcript Presentation - Organization of American States

Review of existing migratory bird
instruments and initiatives in the
Americas
R. Clay & A. Lesterhuis
Background
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In 1996, the wildlife conservation agencies of the United States, Mexico, and Canada
signed a Memorandum of Understanding establishing the Canada/Mexico/US Trilateral
Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and Management.
In 1999, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative was officially recognized.
In 2001, at III Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, environment ministers agreed to
develop a mechanism to come together to cooperate on shared species, beginning with
migratory birds.
In response, Western Hemisphere Migratory Species Initiative (created in 2003.
Edinburgh Declaration, 2004 ,concluded that “…it is clear that international cooperation amongst Pan-American countries sharing migratory birds should increase”.
Ramsar COP10, 2008. Resolution X.22 Promoting international cooperation for the
conservation of waterbird flyways.
CMS COP10, 2011. Resolution 10.10 calls for development of an overarching
conservation Action Plan for migratory birds in the Americas
IV WHMSI Conference (2010) mandated a task force to advance “Integrating Migratory
Bird Conservation Initiatives in the Americas”. An action plan has now been completed,
and calls for the development of a cooperative flyways agreement for the Americas.
Some Definitions
Migratory species
Migratory bird species means the entire population or
any geographically separate part of the population of any
bird species, a significant proportion of whose members
cyclically and predictably cross one or more national
jurisdictional boundaries.
Flyways
A flyway is taken to be a geographical region within which
a single migratory species, a group of migratory species,
or a distinct population of a given migratory species,
completes all components of its annual cycle (breeding,
molting, staging, “wintering” etc.).
More definitions
Migratory species initiative
Any initiative (binding or voluntary) that has as its
primary focus the conservation of one or more
migratory bird species, covers two or more countries,
and involves multiple stakeholders (i.e. single
organization initiatives are excluded).
Migratory bird species of global concern:
Globally threatened or near threatened species as
per the BirdLife/IUCN Red List.
Purpose of Review
To prepare a report reviewing existing migratory bird instruments
and initiatives in the Americas and provide recommendations for
the development of an overarching conservation action plan.
Specific tasks and deliverables:
1. Develop a directory of existing bi- and multi-lateral migratory
bird instruments and initiatives within the Americas.
2. Review existing instruments and initiatives to identify
synergies, incongruities, unique values, and key geographic,
thematic and taxonomic gaps.
3. Provide recommendations for the development of an
overarching conservation action plan, based on the results of the
review.
4. Develop a draft (“strawman”) framework for an action plan, to
facilitate discussion at the meeting.
Need for an overarching plan:
• Facilitate mainstreaming of migratory species conservation in
broader environment and sustainable development agenda.
• Mechanism to engage governments.
• Better link the work of governments with the work of NGOs.
• Garner greater political and donor support.
• Build efficiencies and reduce redundancies.
• Mechanism to “roll-up” conservation action plans and
business strategies into larger conceptual models of change to
magnify the outcomes and help direct funding.
• Define overarching measurable conservation goals and
objectives.
• Help facilitate well-connected flyway conservation activities at
different levels (site, national, regional).
• Mechanism for high-level focus on key sites or issues.
• Mechanism for sharing experiences and lessons learned.
What an overarching plan should do:
• Build on and bring together existing initiatives, facilitating
greater coordination and collaboration between them.
• Capitalize on existing knowledge and experience working
with flyways/migratory bird conservation in the Americas.
• Facilitate action that helps strengthen existing
flyways/migratory bird initiatives (and which avoids
duplication of effort).
• Advance full lifecycle conservation of migratory species at
the flyway level.
• Communicate (and market) the importance of working at a
flyways level.
• Keep paperwork overload to a minimum!
• Help reduce the amount of flying we all do!!
Key Findings 1
• 38 migratory bird focused/flyways-based
initiatives and instruments
– 3 Multi-lateral binding treaties
– 2 Bi-lateral binding treaties
– 4 Multi-lateral formal agreements (Memoranda of
Understanding)
– 8 Multi-lateral multi-species voluntary
initiatives/partnerships
– 11 Multi-lateral single species voluntary
initiatives/partnerships
– 10 Geographically focused conservation business
plans (8 still in development)
Key Findings 2
• Among other multi-lateral initiatives for
migratory birds:
– 11 focused on the monitoring of bird populations
– 6 focused primarily on migration research
– 3 whose primary function is to provide
information on migratory species.
– There are 25 globally threatened and nearthreatened species with action plans (17 of 21
Nearctic migrants; 8 of 23 Austral migrants).
– At least another 21 not globally threatened
species with action plans
Key Findings 3
• Other legally binding instruments of key importance to
migratory bird conservation include:
–
–
–
–
–
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
Ramsar Convention
CITES
UNESCO World Heritage Convention
Cartagena Convention (and the SPAW Protocol).
• These instruments have many synergies with migratory
bird conservation initiatives, attested to by the
memoranda of cooperation and joint work programs
developed between CMS and the CBD, Ramsar and
CITES.
Key Findings 4
• Free Trade Agreements
– NAFTA - Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC)
– SICA - Central American Commission for Environment and
Development (CCAD)
– CAFTA-DR – includes environmental cooperation
agreement
• Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs)
– International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tuna (ICCAT)
– Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC)
– Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO)
– South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization
(SPRFMO)
– Convention on Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources (CCAMLR)
Key Findings 5
• Many regional initiatives (at least 38) provide valuable
platforms for implementing actions for migratory
species. These include:
– Protocols under legally-binding instruments (e.g. the SPAW
Protocol).
– Regional initiatives under legally-binding agreements (e.g.
four regional initiatives of the Ramsar Convention).
– Intergovernmental fora (e.g. Arctic Council, Tinational
Committee)
– Civil society fora (e.g. Patagonian Sea Forum)
– Regional conservation plans (e.g. Mesoamerican Biological
Corridor, Caribbean Biological Corridor)
– Voluntary multi-sectoral partnerships (e.g. the North
American Joint Ventures, the Pine-Oak Alliance, and the
Southern Cone Grasslands Alliance).
Geographic coverage
• Geographic and taxonomic coverage is greatest in
North America (Canada, USA, Mexico) with all
three countries and all migratory species
“covered” by a mix of binding and voluntary
instruments and initiatives. [Though St. Pierre et
Miquelon and Greenland are gaps]
• Geographic coverage of binding instruments is
weak outside of North America, and there are
significant gaps in voluntary initiatives as well.
• Geographic coverage is weak in the oceans
(coastal and pelagic flyways, both Atlantic and
Pacific), though RFMOs provide some coverage.
Taxonomic coverage
• Coverage is greatest for waterfowl, shorebirds and
other migratory waterbirds. However:
– Waterfowl receive little coverage outside of North
America, with significant gaps being Nearctic species
wintering in Central America, and Austral migrant species
(with the exception of Chloephaga rubidiceps).
– Limited coverage of primarily colonial waterbirds outside
of North America.
• Array of initiatives for shorebirds, but primarily focused
on single species, sites (WHSRN), or national plans. The
Atlantic and Pacific (in development) flyway business
strategies provide a coordinated hemispheric
approach, but:
– Mid-continental flyway(s) remains a significant gap, as do
austral migrant shorebirds.
Taxonomic coverage
• Nearctic-breeding landbirds that migrate to the
Neotropics are not well covered outside of North
America, with the exception of a few of the highest
priority migrants.
– Of particular concern are migratory raptors, which face a
suite of threats additional to habitat loss (collisions with
wind turbines, direct persecution, poisoning).
• Austral and intra-tropical migrants are poorly
represented, other than a few of the most threatened
species listed on CMS Appendices (and only austral).
• Coastal and pelagic species are poorly covered, other
than those listed under ACAP and considered by RFMO
mitigation measures.
Building an Overarching Framework
“Ingredients for success”:
• Opportunity for all partners to meet on a regular basis.
• Clear mechanism for high-level government engagement, with clear decisionmaking processes at a policy level.
• Clear mechanisms for participation by other sectors (NGO, industry).
• Clear mechanisms for ensuring decisions are based on the best available
science.
• Clear mechanisms for capitalizing on synergies with other relevant
instruments and initiatives.
• Clear conservation goals and objectives that are measurable/verifiable.
• Flexibility to support work at different scales, rolling this up to meet
overarching goals.
• Minimal (administrative) “barriers” to the development of new (multinational) initiatives under the framework agreement.
• An action plan for reaching those goals and objectives.
• An implementation monitoring and evaluation plan.
• Funding mechanisms to facilitate on-the-ground conservation.
Western Hemisphere Convention
Strengths
Weaknesses
Clear mechanism for government engagement
No administrative structure to review/promote enforcement
Legally binding treaty
Largely inactive
Parties cover the hemisphere
No clear decision making process
No meetings
No clear mechanisms for participation by other sectors
No best science mechanisms for decision-making
No mechanism for agreeing priority species
No mechanisms for working with other agreements
No clear goals/objectives
No clear mechanisms for sub-agreements
No monitoring/evaluation
No funding mechanism
Convention on Migratory Species
Strengths
Funded Global Secretariat
Weaknesses
Structure imposes administrative barriers and costs
Clear mechanism for government engagement Little capacity and engagement in the Americas
Legally binding treaty
No North American Parties, and limited coverage in the Caribbean
Decision making at CoPs via Resolutions
No regular meetings in the Americas
Clear mechanisms for participation by other
sectors
Intergovernmental nature potentially off-putting for other sectors
Scientific Council ensures best science used
Limited government capacity for implementation
Sci Council and CoP agree on priority species
MoUs and Joint work plans with other agreements
Clear goals/objectives in Strategy and global flyways work plan
Allows for Agreements and MoUs with non-parties
Progress reviewed by Flyways WG, Standing Committee and CoP
Small grants fund for on-the-ground conservation work
Western Hemisphere Migratory
Species Initiative
Strengths
Weaknesses
Voluntary multi-sectoral steering committee
No formal mechanism for government engagement
Hemspheric participation
No binding mechanisms
Regular conferences and steering committee meetings No clear decision-making process
Open to participation by all sectors
No best science mechanisms for decision-making
MoUs with other initiatives
No mechanism for agreeing priority species
Strategies outlined in "Purpose and organization"
Action Plan for integrating migratory bird initiatives
Very flexible in terms of developing initiatives under WHMSI umbrella
Progress reviewed by Steering Committee
Potential for all stakeholders to work as equal partners
Towards an Overarching Framework
• At least three mechanisms by which an
agreement could be developed and/or housed
(based on current experiences in the
Americas):
– An intergovernmental treaty (potentially with
official partners from other sectors).
– A formal but not legally binding memorandum of
understanding between governments (and
potentially other partners).
– A voluntary public-private partnership.
Potential Ways Forward
• Intergovernmental treaty
– CMS provides the best existing structure
• Memorandum of Understanding
– Non-binding agreement is an option under CMS
– Expand NABCI Declaration of Intent to “Americas
Bird Conservation Initiative”
– Reactivate formal government process under
WHMSI
• Voluntary public-private partnership
– WHMSI provides an existing mechanism
Moving Forward
• Undertake a multiple stakeholder (across all sectors) SWOT
analysis of the three mechanisms for developing an
overarching agreement.
• If an agreement under CMS is judged to be the best option,
then the CMS COP 11 in Ecuador in Nov 2014 provides an
immediate opportunity to engage governments in the
development of an overarching agreement for the Americas.
• Trinational meeting in May 2014 provides an opportunity to
discuss with North American governments.
• Regardless of the preferred mechanism, the draft CMS global
programme of work, combined with the strategies identified
in the WHMSI “Purpose and Organization” and the WHMSI
“Integrating Migratory Bird Conservation Initiatives in the
Americas” action plan provide a good starting point for
developing an overarching Americas agreement.
Other Recommendations 1
• Policy instruments
– Develop new instruments and expand existing
ones for the conservation of migratory species in
Latin America and the Caribbean (especially
Austral migrants).
– Strengthen integration of migratory bird
conservation needs in biodiversity-related policy
instruments not migratory bird focused.
Other Recommendations 2
• Taxonomic and Geographic Gaps
– Development of formal instruments and voluntary
agreements for austral migrants, intra-tropical migrants,
Nearctic-breeding migrants outside of North America, and
coastal and pelagic species.
– For coastal and pelagic species, priority should be given to
building on ACAP (more range states, expanding the list of
species covered, and increase cooperation with RFMOs).
– Raise awareness of the plight of these migrants, and in
particular austral migrants, among governments and the
donor community.
– Promote networks such as Inter-American Biodiversity
Information Network (IABIN) and other actions and
activities that facilitate sharing information about the
conservation and sustainable use of migratory species.
Other Recommendations 3
• Mainstreaming
– Include of migratory bird conservation provisions in future
trade promotion agreements and bilateral investment
treaties.
– Greater collaboration with environmental bodies and
mechanisms established by existing free trade agreements.
– Strengthen/build upon synergies with broader
biodiversity-related conventions, and key institutions in
other sectors (e.g. FAO, RFMOs).
– Work closely with the member states of OAS to promote
the conservation of migratory species through the InterAmerican Program for Sustainable Development.
Personal Vision for Future
• Overarching Agreement, with:
– Strong government engagement, building upon
existing (WHC, CMS) obligations
– Strong multisectoral coalition of partners with
regular meetings
– Facilitating on-the-ground implementation
through conservation business plans and regional
initiatives
– Effectively mainstreaming migratory bird
conservation into other sectors