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 co-

operation 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 DefinitionsMigratory speciesMigratory 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 initiativeAny 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 ReviewTo 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 near-

threatened 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

• Opportunity for all partners to meet on a regular basis.• Clear mechanism for high-level government engagement, with clear decision-

making 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 (multi-national)

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.

“Ingredients for success”:

Western Hemisphere ConventionStrengths 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 SpeciesStrengths WeaknessesFunded Global Secretariat Structure imposes administrative barriers and costs

Clear mechanism for government engagement Little capacity and engagement in the AmericasLegally binding treaty No North American Parties, and limited coverage in the CaribbeanDecision 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 sectorsScientific Council ensures best science used Limited government capacity for implementationSci Council and CoP agree on priority speciesMoUs and Joint work plans with other agreementsClear goals/objectives in Strategy and global flyways work planAllows for Agreements and MoUs with non-partiesProgress reviewed by Flyways WG, Standing Committee and CoPSmall 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 Inter-American 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