Marine Birds Strategic Plan

Transcription

1 Marine Birds Strategic Plan October 2013 Photo by: Pacific Rim Conservation Black footed albatross at Ka ena Point, Hawai i. The installation of the predator proof fence and removal of all invasive species from the Point is contributing to increases in seabird presence at this breeding site.

2 Table of Contents Goal... 3 Background... 4 Theory of Change... 5 Grantmaking Strategy... 9 Island restoration... 9 Bycatch reduction... 9 Shorebird habitat conservation Landscape Assessment Risk Assessment and Mitigation Island restoration Bycatch reduction Shorebird habitat conservation Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Island restoration Bycatch reduction Shorebird habitat conservation Estimated Timeline and Exit Plan Budget and Staffing Appendix A: Redstone Strategy Group Marine Birds Evaluation Executive Summary Appendix B: Island ROIs... 2

3 The conservation of marine birds is part of the Packard Foundation s broader commitment to restore the health and productivity of oceans and coasts, on which all life depends. Seabirds and shorebirds both are dependent upon and contribute to robust ocean and coastal systems. Human pressures, such as overfishing, development, and climate change, threaten the health of our oceans by disrupting ecosystems, degrading coastal habitats, threatening marine biodiversity, and affecting human welfare. The Marine Birds strategy is part of our effort to protect and restore marine biodiversity, and the work we support is focused on protecting coastal environments and creating sustainable fisheries. Seabirds are among the most threatened animals on Earth, with 39 percent of seabird species on the Red List of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). In North America, 28 of 31 shorebird species that depend on Pacific Coast habitats are thought to be declining. The Marine Birds strategy addresses three major threats to their survival: Invasive predators: Reduced seabird breeding productivity caused by invasive species, primarily predators, in their breeding areas Bycatch: Higher than normal mortality for albatrosses, petrels, and other seabirds that are inadvertently caught in longline and other fishing gears Habitat loss: Loss and degradation of important shorebird habitats, primarily as a result of wetland reclamation and human disturbance To address these threats, the Marine Birds strategy supports the eradication of invasive species on priority seabird breeding islands, the development of bycatch reduction methods and of improvements to fisheries management that ensure the broad use of best practices for seabird bycatch mitigation, and the protection of critical shorebird habitat along the Pacific Flyway. The eradication of invasive species on seabird breeding islands contributes to restoring island ecosystems that are important for biodiversity. Islands account for approximately 3 percent of land area worldwide but contain 40 percent of all critically endangered species. Eighty three percent of documented historical extinctions have occurred on islands, where invasive species are the primary cause of extinctions. Reducing seabird bycatch is part of improving overall fisheries management, a key objective of the Packard Foundation s oceans work, to ensure that fisheries are not depleting non target species. Restoring and protecting shorebird habitat contributes to the Foundation s broader objective of conserving critical coastal ecosystems. The original Marine Birds grantmaking strategy was prepared in This document presents an updated and revised strategy that is informed by the experience from the last five years of grantmaking, input from grantees and experts, and a recent third party evaluation of the subprogram carried out by the Redstone Strategy Group (see Appendix A). Goal The goal of the Marine Birds strategy is to reverse the decline of selected species of birds associated with marine environments as a contribution to the restoration of sustainable marine ecosystems. Specifically, the strategy aims to: 3

4 Increase seabird breeding success and survival through eradication of introduced predators Reduce mortality of seabirds through reduction of bycatch Build conservation and monitoring capacity together with effective action in key shorebird sites Background Different groups of marine birds face very different types of threats. For most seabirds, one of the greatest threats is invasive predators on their breeding islands. Among Procellariiform birds, including albatrosses, shearwaters, and large petrels, fisheries bycatch is a greater threat to populations than invasive predators, although invasives have a significant impact on these species as well. And among shorebirds dependent upon coastal ecosystems, habitat loss in their breeding, migratory, and wintering grounds is having the greatest impact on populations. Invasive predators: Introduced mammals are the greatest threat to the largest number of seabird species; they affect 75 percent of all threatened seabirds. Invasive species that pose the greatest threat are rats, mice, rabbits, cats, goats, and pigs. Rats and cats prey upon seabird eggs, chicks, and in some cases adult seabirds. Larger invasive mammals, such as goats and pigs, can degrade habitats, making them unsuitable for use by breeding seabirds. Rats are nearly ubiquitous, having found their way, with human help, to 85 percent of the world s island groups before this movement was reduced. In recent decades, rats have been eliminated from more than 300 islands. The results of these eradications, where they have been documented, are usually dramatic for seabirds as well as other flora and fauna. Because islands are often centers of biodiversity and endemism, eradications also restore important ecological relationships as well as populations of land birds, reptiles, invertebrates, and native vegetation. Bycatch: The dramatic growth of longline fishing in the past 20 years is the principal cause of the population declines of albatrosses as well as of several shearwater and petrel species. Of the 22 albatross species, 17 are threatened or endangered, primarily due to incidental take in fisheries. A recent study estimated that at least 160, ,000 seabirds are caught annually as bycatch in longline fisheries. The conservation community has established best practices for industrial longline fisheries to mitigate seabird bycatch. These methods include weighted fishing lines, streamer or tori poles, and setting at night. When applied, these modifications can significantly reduce bycatch rates. However, many fisheries operate without regulations requiring best practices, and even those with bycatch regulations may function with little to no oversight to ensure compliance. Although the basic methods for mitigating seabird bycatch in industrial longline fishing fleets are known, each fleet may require a different combination of fishing methods and gear, depending on the seabird species assemblage, requisite fishing operations to maintain catches of target species, and other conditions unique to an individual fleet. While industrial longline fleets in areas overlapping with albatross and petrel distributions have been recognized as posing the greatest bycatch threat, bycatch in small scale fisheries and trawl and gillnet fisheries are emerging concerns. Small scale fisheries, using a variety of gears, tend to be data poor, and while bycatch of endangered seabirds has been documented in areas such as the Humboldt Current, it is difficult to estimate the global magnitude of seabird bycatch in small scale fisheries. A recent review of reported seabird bycatch in gillnet fisheries estimated that at least 400,000 seabirds are caught annually. While many of the species caught are not currently experiencing declining populations, some of those affected are threatened or endangered, such as white chinned petrels, pink footed 4

5 shearwaters, Humboldt penguins, and waved albatrosses. Techniques to reduce seabird bycatch from gillnet and small scale gears are still under development, and best practices for these gears have yet to be broadly proved and established. Habitat loss: Although shorebirds as a group are less threatened than seabirds, they nevertheless face significant pressures, particularly associated with the loss of breeding and wintering wetland habitats. The future effects of climate change will compound the threats to shorebirds. Sea level rise will reduce the extent of coastal wetlands utilized by most shorebird species, while the tundra habitat where most shorebirds breed is being invaded by the northward march of high latitude forest. Although it is beyond the scope of the Marine Birds strategy to directly address the threat of climate change, there are opportunities to increase the resilience of species to climate change by protecting and in some cases restoring shorebird habitats. Thus far the shorebirds component of the Marine Birds strategy has focused primarily on the Pacific Flyway, the north south route of travel for migratory birds along the West Coast of the Americas from Alaska to Chile. Both the pressures on shorebirds and the conservation response vary, depending on geographic location. In the United States., there has been significant loss of coastal habitat, but since the 1960s an active nongovernmental organization (NGO) community has supported conservation action, and significant private and public funding has been mobilized for projects that protect habitat and address water quality and, more recently, sea level rise. In contrast to the engaged public and active U.S. NGO community, further south along the Pacific Flyway there is less political will for habitat conservation. In key sites along the Central and part of the Flyway, habitat is more intact than it is in the United States but resources for its conservation are scarce. NGO presence is limited, and greater capacity is needed to address the increasing pressures on shorebird habitat. Theory of Change The status, threats, and opportunities related to marine bird conservation differ significantly between shorebirds and seabirds and even among groups of seabirds. In the case of seabirds, our theory of change relies on strategically addressing their two greatest threats: invasive species on breeding islands and bycatch in fisheries. For a number of species of seabirds, it is possible to slow or reverse population declines through eradication of invasive species. The threat of invasive species to seabirds has been recognized for over a century, but the field of conservation eradications on islands has matured only in the past several decades. In that time, the number of species that can be eradicated safely and the size of islands that can be treated have steadily increased. Failed eradication efforts are now rare. Over the past five years, the Marine Birds subprogram has worked with grantees to identify islands where eradications can most cost effectively contribute to seabird conservation. These islands were selected based on several criteria, including relatively high confidence that the eradications can succeed, that the impact on seabird populations will be significant in relation to the cost of the eradication, and that there is a low likelihood of re invasion. Given the progress made in island eradications in the past five years, we will continue to pursue these types of eradication opportunities as a high return oninvestment tool for restoring seabird populations. 5

6 The primary barriers to successful eradications involve the technical difficulty of some removal projects and the risk of opposition from animal welfare groups. Many small, readily accessible islands have already been treated; as a result, some of the remaining highest priority eradications are on larger and more remote islands or involve species, such as feral cats, that are more difficult to eradicate. Special interest groups, including animal welfare organizations, have occasionally protested eradication of island invasive species. Despite the potential for increasing technical difficulties, the recent analysis of island eradication opportunities by the Redstone Strategy Group found remaining cost effective highimpact opportunities (see Appendix A). For seabird species threatened primarily by bycatch, our theory of change is more complex. Our prioritysetting process focuses on threatened and endangered seabird species whose populations are affected by bycatch and on geographic areas where bycatch reduction could have the greatest impact. Solving the seabird bycatch problem requires progress in two areas: ensuring that established best practices for mitigating bycatch are adopted by fishing management authorities and then securing compliance of the fishing fleets with these best practices. Much of the Marine Birds grantmaking has focused on bycatch reduction in industrial longline fleets, which are known to have the greatest bycatch impact on threatened and endangered seabirds. However, as noted earlier, other gear types are increasingly recognized as problematic for seabird bycatch, including small scale, gillnet, and trawl fisheries. Smallscale and gillnet fisheries often operate with little to no observer coverage, and they overlap with the distributions of albatrosses and petrels. In trawl fisheries, seabird mortality is often unobserved due to the way seabirds become entangled in the warp or netsonde cables. This source of hidden mortality has been increasingly documented, and best practices to mitigate this type of bycatch have been developed. We propose to continue to support advocacy for bycatch regulations and compliance measures, outreach to fishing fleets to ensure adoption of best practices, and the development of bycatch reduction technologies and techniques for other gears. This approach will build upon progress made in high seas fisheries regulations by pressing for increased transparency about seabird bycatch rates and implementation of mitigation measures. Support for fleet outreach and new mitigation methods is consistent with our approach over the last five years; these areas have made progress, and continuing to support that work will be important to further reducing seabird bycatch. The results of bycatch reduction efforts are less direct than the conservation impacts from eradications. In the past five years, significant progress has been made at the regulatory level in Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) that govern high seas tuna and other fisheries. The majority of RFMOs have adopted regulations requiring best practices for bycatch. However, the move from regulatory requirements to on the water implementation may face considerable resistance within RFMOs, which operate with minimal reporting and oversight. Many variables beyond grantee control will affect the success of these campaigns, and the capacity for implementation, reporting, and enforcement of member and non member cooperating states of RFMOs is extremely variable. Determining fleet compliance with RFMO bycatch regulations will require improvements in data collection and reporting within RFMOs. Specifically, changes in how RFMOs operate are needed in the following areas: Increased requirements for fisheries observer coverage. Most RFMOs have established requirements for at least 5 percent observer coverage. Accurate reporting on seabird bycatch will require at least 25 percent observer coverage. Increased standardization of fisheries observer data collection and reporting. RFMOs have different requirements for reporting and data quality that hinder comparative analyses of 6

7 bycatch rates. Changes in data collection and reporting are needed to harmonize data collection methods, institute rigorous collection standards, and ensure that seabird bycatch and vessel compliance with bycatch regulations are part of onboard observer coverage data collection protocols. Improved transparency in bycatch reporting. Even if RFMOs increase observer coverage and harmonize data collection and quality control, these data may not be available for analysis by outside experts. Assessing compliance and advocating for any needed improvements will depend on accessibility to information on compliance with RFMO regulations, including research grade observer data. High seas fisheries are challenging to govern and have historically operated with rudimentary systems for monitoring, surveillance, and enforcement. These proposed changes will likely be met with considerable opposition from industry and treaty nation representatives. Even if RFMO data collection and reporting are improved, these changes will only enable conservationists to assess levels of compliance with bycatch regulations. If compliance is lacking, creating norms for compliance with bycatch regulations for RFMO fleets will be required. Reducing seabird bycatch also requires direct engagements with fishing fleets. Outreach to industrial longline and trawl vessels is needed to ensure that gear modifications effectively mitigate seabird bycatch while maintaining good target catch rates and operating fishing gear safely. The basic methods for bycatch mitigation are known, but outreach extension ensures that gear modifications are properly suited to the unique fishing requirements of each vessel. Engaging with fishing vessel captains and crew through portside workshops and on board applied research is critical to secure adoption of best practices. We propose to support this type of outreach to industrial longline and trawl fleets operating on the high seas and within exclusive economic zones with high rates of bycatch of threatened and endangered seabirds. The absence of proven seabird bycatch mitigation methods for gears other than industrial longlines and trawls may be intractable, especially for small scale and gillnet fisheries. Gear modifications for smallscale fisheries face greater constraints of commercial viability and implementation practicality, because these fisheries tend to operate on much smaller profit margins. For gears like gillnets, the challenge is not only to reduce the bycatch of seabirds but also to ensure that the mitigation methods maintain target catch rates and do not increase the bycatch of other species, such as sea turtles, elasmobranchs, and marine mammals that can be incidentally captured by gillnets. Solutions to gillnet bycatch may require partnerships with groups focused on gillnet bycatch of other species. This approach would prevent problems that arise from mitigation methods focused on single species, such as circle hooks for longlines that reduce sea turtle bycatch but are thought to increase shark bycatch in some fisheries. Developing, testing, and implementing gear modifications also requires the participation of fishers from the targeted fisheries. Fishers are critical partners in gear modifications for multiple reasons: they modify their gear to increase its efficiency and are adept at experimenting with gear; they know best the conditions under which their vessels operate and can assess the practicality of proposed solutions; and as the intended users of gear modifications, their buy in is required for successful uptake. Successful gear solutions to mitigate bycatch, such as turtle excluder devices in trawl fisheries and Medina panels for marine mammals in purse seine fisheries, emerged from collaborative research with fishers. Experiments that partner gear specialists who are scientists with fishers will be important for catalyzing innovations that produce uptake in fisheries. If solutions are developed for small scale and gillnet fisheries, implementation will require both outreach with fleets and, potentially, advocacy for regulatory 7

8 reform to require use of those mitigation measures. In addition, substantial bycatch caused by illegal, unregulated, and unreported fisheries will not be addressed even if new technologies or techniques are developed. Shorebird conservation is even more challenging because there are no straightforward approaches like predator eradications. Shorebirds are also typically threatened by multiple factors, and it is sometimes difficult to determine which threat is most significant for a particular species. Nevertheless, specific actions even at relatively small, discrete sites can have large and positive consequences. The initial scoping for the Marine Birds strategy identified five priority sites along the Pacific Flyway where protection and in some cases restoration of habitat is needed and could greatly benefit shorebirds: Gray s Harbor, Washington; the California Central Valley; Bahia Santa Maria, Mexico; Panama Bay, Panama; and Chiloé Island, Chile. Our past grantmaking has focused on some of these sites and beyond, but moving forward we propose to refine our focus on several of these key sites. For the past five years, the primary focus of the Marine Birds subprogram has been protecting important shorebird habitat. Within the United States, the scale of the Foundation s investments to protect and restore habitat is relatively small compared with other sources of public and private funding. Projects that the Foundation has supported have had positive impacts or piloted new systems of land management, but not at both the scale and level of permanence to make more than a relatively marginal improvement in shorebird conservation. Internationally, our investments have similarly not resulted in significant habitat protection over the past five years, although the circumstances are quite different than in the United States. At the international sites where our strategy has been focused (Panama Bay and Chiloé Island), Packard Foundation funding is a very large fraction of the total funding available for shorebird conservation. At these sites, the Foundation s investments have helped to build organizational capacity and public awareness. While the actual habitat area permanently conserved over the past five years is limited, the potential longer term impact of a stronger shorebird habitat conservation focus in these regions is strong. (In Panama Bay, for example, NGOs have been actively working to overcome the national government s resistance to habitat protection.) While the long term outcome of our shorebird conservation work will continue to be the protection and restoration of key coastal habitats along the Pacific Flyway, our experience over the past five years has convinced us that our grantmaking should focus on building NGO capacity, public awareness, and political will for habitat conservation. Our relatively limited funding can have the greatest impact on building this capacity at sites in Central and South America, given the relatively limited resources there for shorebird conservation. Specifically, we propose to shift a larger share of our shorebird habitat investments over the next five years on building capacity and awareness for shorebird conservation in Panama Bay and Chiloé Island. Within the United States, we will still consider support for projects with the potential to fundamentally alter the management of shorebird habitat in specific locations. In addition to site based work, monitoring shorebirds along the Pacific Flyway is important for strengthening connections between shorebird sites and knowledge of shorebird populations. Monitoring is integral to understanding the status of shorebird species and assessing how threats may be affecting populations. In the northern part of the Pacific Flyway, monitoring networks are strong and often supported by citizen scientists. In the Central and areas, however, monitoring is limited by shortfalls in scientific capacity. The remoteness of shorebird sites and the absence of engaged citizen scientists also restrict the current range of monitoring. Drawing on shorebird experts to build monitoring capacity down the Flyway will improve shorebird knowledge and build institutional connections between shorebird sites, creating a more unified network of Pacific Flyway conservationists. 8

9 Grantmaking Strategy The Marine Birds subprogram invested $22.7 million from 2006 to Of that total, funding was allocated as follows in the three initiatives of the subprogram (in addition to $500,000 for scoping and evaluation): $3.6 million for bycatch reduction projects, $5 million for shorebird conservation projects, and $13.6 million for island restoration projects. Grantees have made progress in all three areas, most significantly in island restoration. Completed or ongoing island restoration projects will benefit at least 22 threatened and 7 near threatened seabird species. Bycatch reduction projects have reduced global annual seabird bycatch by at least 73,500 birds, mostly albatrosses and petrels. Shorebird conservation projects have helped to place 100,000 acres of land under new management systems in the United States and to support an effort to defend the designation of a 200,000 acre national protected area in Panama Bay. The second phase of the Marine Birds subprogram will build on progress made in these three initiatives. Island restoration Objective 1: Eradicate invasive predators on seabird breeding islands Given the success of previous eradication projects, we propose to continue our focus on eradications of invasive predators that reduce the breeding productivity of threatened and endangered seabirds. To ensure that islands are selected to maximize the return on investment, we will draw on the analysis of island eradication opportunities produced by the Redstone Strategy Group. Selection of islands will also be based on considerations of re invasion risk, the beneficial impact for non threatened seabirds, and the lack of an immediate threat from sea level rise. Consistent with our approach to past eradication projects, we will support the eradications that incorporate biosecurity measures to prevent re invasions and that deploy social attraction methods to draw seabirds to the targeted island. As part of an eradication project, these measures ensure the increased presence and persistence of breeding seabirds on targeted islands. Bycatch reduction Objective 2.1: Implement best practices for bycatch reduction in industrial longline fisheries When the Marine Birds strategy was initiated in 2007, there was some uncertainty about the feasibility of reducing seabird bycatch on the high seas. Over the past five years, advocates at RFMO meetings have made significant progress in creating new seabird bycatch regulations. We propose to build upon the momentum at the RFMOs and support improvements in RFMO regulations, monitoring, and transparency. As transparency increases and compliance with bycatch regulations is known, we expect to support efforts to set norms for compliance in RFMO fishing fleets. The type of activities that we would consider for support of bycatch reduction include the following: Advocate increased requirements for fisheries observer coverage, standardization of reporting and quality control for data collection, transparency in bycatch reporting Develop and disseminate approaches to reduce fisheries observer costs Assess the effectiveness of bycatch mitigation regulations and fleet compliance levels Establish norms for compliance with bycatch regulations The development of best practices for bycatch mitigation in industrial longline and trawl fisheries has created opportunities to work directly with fishing fleets on implementation. We propose to support gear modification outreach projects that focus on industrial longline and trawl fisheries with bycatch of 9

10 endangered and threatened seabirds. We plan to focus the majority of our grantmaking in bycatch reduction around this objective, coupling policy advocacy with fisheries outreach. Objective 2.2: Develop new technologies and techniques for bycatch reduction Methods to mitigate bycatch for gears other than industrial longlines are in the early stages of development. We propose to support activities that can pilot promising approaches to bycatch mitigation through collaborative research with fishers or that can catalyze development of new methods across sites and fisheries, such as bycatch workshops. Fisheries that could benefit from this type of work operate in regions such as the Humboldt Current, the Brazil Falklands (Malvinas) system, and the Benguela Current. For this objective, we plan to work with one or two grantees on pilot projects to support experimentation and innovation in gear modifications. Given the extent of the obstacles to solutions for small scale and gillnet fisheries, the bulk of the bycatch reduction grantmaking will focus on Objective 2.1. Shorebird habitat conservation Objective 3.1: Build capacity for shorebird conservation Creating infrastructure and support for shorebird conservation in Panama Bay and Chiloé Island will require investments focused on building multiple types of capacity and drawing more funders to these places. In Panama, the Panama Audubon Society (PAS) has been focused on generating public awareness and support for shorebird habitat conservation. When the national protected area of critical shorebird habitat lost its designation, the PAS partnered with other environmental NGOs in Panama to form a coalition in protest of the government s decision. While some progress has been made in restoring the area s protected status, the national government and development interests remain resistant to habitat conservation in Panama Bay. The types of activities we would consider for support of Panama Bay shorebird habitat protection include the following: Strengthen the organizational capacity of organizations focused on protecting the Panama Bay wetlands. Leverage the coalition of environmental NGOs to increase pressure on the national government to support conservation measures. Environmental NGOs work throughout Panama on a variety of environmental issues, especially around the protection of Coiba Island. Enhancing their ability to network and to amplify the power of their advocacy as a coalition can improve their standing as stakeholders in land use decision making processes. In addition, leadership and communications skills development for individuals involved in this work can help to strengthen the overall coalition. Create opportunities to partner with business interests that may be negatively affected by increased development in Panama Bay. For example, filling the Bay s wetlands for development is predicted to worsen flooding within the city and the nearby international airport. Identifying those negative impacts and how they might affect businesses can help NGOs develop highprofile partners in conservation. Use science to inform decision making about land use planning for Panama City and the wider Panama Bay. Studies that model how development projects will affect the city s infrastructure, water quality, and resilience to flooding can be used to inform both the general public and government about the socioeconomic impacts of particular development projects. Partner with other conservation funders in Panama. The Packard Foundation is the only philanthropic organization focused on protecting Panama Bay, but other funders are invested in environmental work in Panama, specifically the Walton Family Foundation and the International Community Foundation. Working more closely with them on the broader challenges of national 10

11 government resistance to conservation and identifying new funding partners will improve the policy climate for conservation in Panama. Shorebird habitat conservation on Chiloé Island also faces challenges from development projects and has deficits in multiple types of capacity. Awareness of shorebirds and habitat management is limited on the island. Development on Chiloé is growing but without planning and evaluation of environmental impacts for projects such as residential subdivisions and the installation of wind turbines. The types of activities we would consider for support of Chiloé Island shorebird habitat protection include the following: Strengthen the organizational capacity of organizations focused on shorebird conservation on Chiloé Island. Leverage the coalition of NGOs. Each NGO brings experience and skills in conservation to Chiloé. Members of this coalition need to share their expertise in areas like land management, social marketing, and advocacy and to apply them to work in Chiloé. In addition, leadership and communications skills development for individuals involved in this work can help strengthen the overall coalition. Build awareness about shorebirds and their habitat. The coalition in Chiloé has been focused on linking shorebird conservation to the Heritage Trail managed by the national government. Increasing awareness of shorebirds and their potential value to tourism on the island can help create political will for habitat conservation. Engage decision makers on land use planning for Chiloé. Advocates need to work with decision makers at the national, regional, and local levels to ensure that habitat protection is a priority and that scientific analyses of land use impacts are considered in development decisions for Chiloé. Identify other partner institutions in habitat conservation and land use planning based in Chiloé. Increasing the political will on the island for conservation will require more direct engagements with local and regional stakeholders. Create designated protected areas for critically important shorebird habitat. Multiple land uses may be possible without negatively affecting habitat, but in some areas official protections will be needed to secure the integrity of the site for shorebirds. Draw in other funders to Chiloé. The Packard Foundation is currently the only philanthropic organization focused on shorebird habitat conservation in Chiloé. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has offered some support in the site, but consistent funding is needed to support long term conservation efforts. In addition to the site specific work, we will also support activities that increase capacity for and standardization of shorebird monitoring in the Central and sites of the Pacific Flyway. We propose to support projects that can address monitoring challenges in this region, such as the limited base of citizen scientists and remoteness of many shorebird sites. This part of the objective is expected to be small and will likely involve one grantee. The aim of this work is not only to increase the extent of monitoring in the Central and sections of the Pacific Flyway but also to build the capacity of local institutions in this region to do that monitoring. Increased knowledge of shorebird populations in specific sites, compiled across the Flyway, will enable conservationists to determine the population trends and changes in usage of sites, which can inform conservation actions. Objective 3.2: Pilot innovative approaches to habitat management 11

12 For shorebird habitat conservation in the United States, given the limited resources that we have available we do not intend to pursue a specific habitat conservation target. But we will remain open to providing support to innovative or catalytic projects that have the potential to introduce new conservation approaches that might fundamentally transform how habitat is managed. In areas like the California Central Valley, water management and the creation of shorebird habitat on agricultural lands face increasing pressures due to climate change. Tackling this challenge will require piloting gamechanging approaches, such as the development of markets for habitat creation or fundamentally shifting state wide management of watersheds. For this component of the shorebirds initiative, we propose to work closely with other funders interested in water and habitat issues, such as the Resources Legacy Fund, the S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, the Pisces Foundation, and the California Water Foundation. We will pursue this objective as opportunities arise, but the majority of shorebirds grantmaking will be focused on the capacity building work described in Objective 3.1. Landscape Assessment The Packard Foundation is the leading philanthropic funder of seabird conservation in the United States. The only other major philanthropic funder in this field is the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), which has a $20 million, five year initiative focused on Pacific seabirds, specifically species in Alaska, the California Current, Chile, and Hawai i. Projects supported by NFWF that overlap with the Packard Foundation s Marine Birds subprogram have focused on the eradication of island invasive species and the reduction of seabird bycatch. Most funding for eradications comes from national government agencies. In some instances of largescale eradications, there have been significant contributions from the Global Environment Facility. Eradications in Europe have been funded through the European Union s Life+ Programme. Funding for seabird bycatch reduction is relatively modest. The primary sources of support include national fisheries agencies. While other foundations are supporting work in fisheries bycatch reduction, the Packard Foundation is the largest donor for seabird bycatch reduction, followed closely by NFWF. Our implementing partners for seabird activities are primarily NGOs and some academics. Eradication planning and implementation is carried out by NGO teams working in regions with targeted islands. Partners in universities and science teams based in NGOs have produced scientific information for the analyses of eradication opportunities and returns on investment. Our support for policy advocacy around bycatch has focused on NGO efforts, while outreach and development of gear modifications has been conducted by bycatch specialists who have experiential expertise with fishing gears and are recognized as credible research partners with fishers. Key influencer institutions for bycatch reduction are the RFMOs that are responsible for the management of commercial fisheries in areas beyond national jurisdiction. These international bodies consists of nations that share management of fish stocks in a particular region, including nation states whose marine waters are used by at least one of the identified fish stocks and distant water fishing nations whose fleets travel to the region. The RFMOs most important to seabird bycatch reduction are the five that manage tuna and tuna like species, such as swordfish and marlin namely, the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, the Inter American Tropical Tuna Commission, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, and the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna. Much of our support for advocacy around bycatch has focused on influencing these institutions. In addition to the tuna fisheries, high seas 12

13 demersal trawl and longline fisheries in southern waters are also of concern for bycatch of threatened and endangered seabirds. The RFMOs for these fleets are the South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization and the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization. Both are newly formed, and our grantees have begun to engage them on seabird bycatch issues. High seas fishing fleets are an important stakeholder group for seabird bycatch reductions. The majority of these fleets are Asian distant water ships, including vessels from Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and increasingly China. Engagements with these fleets tend to be difficult due to the remote nature of their operations and cultural differences. Our grantees have engaged with some of the Asian distant water fleets as opportunities have emerged to work with them on gear modifications. The Packard Foundation s Fisheries subprogram is currently engaged in an exploration of opportunities for fisheries work in Asia, specifically in Japan and China, as well as at the tuna RFMOs more broadly. We plan to draw from lessons learned by the Fisheries subprogram exploration to inform our grantmaking around engagements with Asian fleets. An additional international influencer on bycatch is the multilateral Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP). There are currently 13 ACAP member countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, France, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom, and Uruguay. The United States and Canada are not signatory nations, but U.S. and Canadian seabird experts attend meetings as observer delegations. ACAP aims to stop or reverse population declines of 30 species of albatrosses, petrels, and shearwaters by coordinating actions among range states and influencing conservation policies. The ACAP meetings convene seabird scientists across the globe to come to a consensus on issues such as best practices to mitigate bycatch. By establishing this consensus, scientists can bring these agreements back to their home countries, and seabird conservationists can advocate internationally on a shared platform. ACAP has engaged with RFMOs, providing scientific analyses on the ecological risks to albatrosses and petrels from high seas longline fisheries as well as recommending best practices for mitigating seabird bycatch. The sustainable seafood movement is another potentially important influencer for seabird bycatch reduction as the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) expands to new fisheries and continues to improve its standards for certification. In 2012, the American Bird Conservancy analyzed the MSC fishery certification process in regard to seabird bycatch and mortality issues. The report, Analysis of the effects of Marine Stewardship Council fishery certification on the conservation of seabirds, found that too many fisheries were being certified without sufficient information about seabird bycatch. The report recommends that the certification process be strengthened to address more directly the potential bycatch threat posed by fisheries, including improved assessments of the presence of seabirds and the risk posed by the fishing gear, improvements in standardization and the quality of fisheries observer data, and rejection of certification if there is an information gap on seabird bycatch. Our grantee, Birdlife International, has submitted comments on the MSC standards on these issues, as part of the MSC s Fishery Standards Review in We will monitor the outcomes of the Review and assess whether there is an opportunity for deeper engagement on this issue. Support for habitat conservation in the United States comes from public and private sources. Funding for habitat conservation in Central and South America is limited, especially for shorebirds. Available funds in Panama were significantly decreased when the U.S. Agency for International Development pulled funding for habitat conservation. Currently, the Packard Foundation is the only philanthropic funder supporting shorebird habitat conservation in Panama Bay and Chiloé Island. As noted earlier, both the Walton Family Foundation and the International Community Foundation are invested in 13

14 conservation in Panama, and we will seek to create opportunities to partner with them on national Panamanian conservation issues. In addition, it may be possible to work with the Inter American Development Bank, a source of multilateral financing for sustainable development in Central and South America. Risk Assessment and Mitigation Island restoration By supporting eradications of invasive species on seabird breeding islands, our assumption is that seabird breeding success will be higher after such eradications. Post eradication surveys are proven methods for assessing the success of the eradication, but the potential increase in reproductive success requires a longer timescale to verify eradication and is dependent upon the length of the seabird lifecycle. Using island eradications as a conservation tool is based on the assumption that invasive species are the primary threat to seabirds and that other threats, such as fisheries bycatch or loss of habitat to sea level rise, will not inhibit rebounds in the seabird populations. (In certain cases where a species is known to be threatened by multiple factors, we have supported multiple interventions. For example, the waved albatross is endangered by both invasive species and bycatch, and the Marine Birds subprogram has supported work to eradicate invasive species on one of the waved albatross s two known breeding islands and work to reduce waved albatross bycatch in Peruvian and Ecuadorian fisheries.) The Marine Birds subprogram has not supported projects on islands with a maximum elevation lower than 10 meters to avoid investing in islands where breeding habitat will be lost to sea level rise. However, climate change may have far ranging impacts on global seabird habitat and prey availability. Bycatch reduction By focusing the bycatch reduction element of the strategy on advocacy and outreach on RFMOs, our assumption is that these governing bodies and the fishing fleets that operate under their jurisdiction will respond to international pressure to improve the monitoring and oversight of their fisheries. Regulatory changes over the past five years suggest that improvements in RFMO fishery policy are possible. The bycatch reduction initiative also operates on the assumption that fisheries on the high seas that are more tightly regulated will, with time, begin to accept norms for compliance with bycatch mitigation. The increasing pressure from fisheries sustainability advocates, such as the Pew Charitable Trusts and Greenpeace, should help bolster the overall effort to create stronger management of RFMOs. Shorebird habitat conservation By focusing on capacity building for shorebird conservation, our assumption is that improving capacities around organizational effectiveness, advocacy, stakeholder engagement, and science is possible in our focal sites and will ultimately lead to protection of critical shorebird habitat. The risks to this approach are twofold: first, building capacity will take longer than the five years of this strategy or may not be sustainable without Foundation support and, second, improvements in capacity if they do occur will not be enough to overcome development pressures on shorebird habitat in Central and South America. To mitigate these risks, we will seek to draw on the skills and expertise of U.S. based shorebird conservation organizations to support capacity building efforts as well as partner with other funders and environmental NGOs to augment support in these areas. 14

15 Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Through our monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) efforts, we aim to: Understand grantee and funder achievements and impacts. Learn what works in order to refine grantmaking. Be informed of trends and developments in predator eradications, fisheries bycatch and management, environmental policies in key shorebird sites, and advancements in marine bird science. The nature of MEL activities will differ significantly across the various components of the Marine Birds strategy due to the diverse range of activities and targeted outcomes in each initiative. Eradication outcomes tend to be relatively straightforward to quantify. While outcomes for bycatch reduction are quantifiable in theory, these activities happen in data poor environments that make collecting data for indicators challenging. Outcomes for shorebird conservation capacity building activities are more complex and challenging to measure. Through our MEL approach, the Marine Birds staff will monitor, evaluate, and learn from grantmaking at three levels: individual grant, initiative, and programmatic. At the individual grant level, we will assess grantee capacity and needs and will track progress toward mutually agreed upon project objectives. Tools used to capture data for these assessments include: Grantee proposals with mutually agreed upon stated objectives for grant period and evaluation methods to track progress toward them Grantee reports that document progress toward objectives stated in proposal, challenges, and key learnings Due diligence performed by the program officer through phone calls, site visits, and review of organizational documents Monitoring, evaluation, and learning at the initiative level will include assessments of individual grants as well as analyses of initiative outcomes by third party evaluator(s). The initiative level learning is described further in the initiative sections. To respond to emerging trends and opportunities in marine bird conservation, the Marine Birds subprogram staff monitors and learns from peer reviewed scientific publications, white papers, scientific meetings, and discussions with issue experts. Island restoration For the island restoration work, grantees will play the central role in monitoring the progress and completion of eradication. Indicators for this initiative measure the extent and permanence of the removal of invasive species from targeted islands as well as the increase in seabird presence posteradication. After eradications, it is standard procedure for grantees to survey the targeted island(s) and determine if the eradication succeeded or not. These assessments are included in grantee project reporting. Monitoring of these islands continues for several years after the eradication to ensure accuracy of the assessment and confirm that invasive predators have not re invaded the land. This type of monitoring and reporting will be sufficient for measuring near term outcomes, and we expect that the five year evaluation by a third party evaluator will assess progress toward the targeted intermediate outcomes for the this initiative. For grantee reporting in this initiative, we will tailor reporting questions to the specific activities and targeted outcomes for island restoration. We will ask grantees to report on: The number of islands with successful eradications. 15

16 The number of invasive species populations eradicated from islands. The number of targeted islands that are free of invasive species after each year of posteradication monitoring. The number of targeted islands with increases in seabird presence. These responses will enable program staff to monitor the ongoing progress of each grantee in implementing successful eradications and their potential impact on specific seabird species. In addition, much of the eradication work involves planning, scoping, and generating stakeholder support for eradications. For projects in these stages, we will ask the grantees to include in their proposals and report on: The timeline for implementation of eradication. The results of eradication trials. Funds required for eradication and progress toward fundraising goal. The permitting and type of government approval required for eradication and the progress toward approval. Personnel and gear requirements planned and allocated for eradication. These questions will enable program staff to monitor the progress of eradication planning and implementation of grantees and to identify any potential stopgaps or areas where grantees might benefit from support in building capacities, such as fundraising and stakeholder communication. We expect to incorporate this type of reporting into grantee reports after the strategy is launched. In addition to monitoring the outcomes of eradications, we will explore several learning questions over the course of this strategy: How will eradications on selected seabird breeding islands contribute to the restoration of seabird species? How can we measure the impact of eradications to improve the status of seabird species on the IUCN Red List? How will sea level rise affect seabird breeding habitat in the long term? The first two questions are closely related and seek to better understand how eradications as a conservation tool can make a species level impact on threatened and endangered seabirds. Answering these questions will refine understandings of the overall impact of specific eradications on seabird species such that certain species may be taken off the IUCN Red List. We will engage scientists involved in the species assessments for the Red List to answer these questions. For the third question, we will explore the impact of sea level rise on seabird populations and what mitigation measures, if any, can be applied in advance of these projected impacts. Answering this question can inform priority setting for eradications and possible mitigation measures, such as translocating populations facing critical habitat or prey losses. We expect to share findings from all three learning questions with our grantees and the broader field of seabird ecology and conservation. Bycatch reduction For the bycatch work, we will be able to measure outcomes that involve the development of new technology, but much of the policy and outreach work will require a third party evaluator to obtain meaningful feedback on the effectiveness of grantees and overall strategy. In our grantmaking on bycatch reduction, part of the focus is on increasing the data available on seabird bycatch. A third party evaluator will be able to assess the improvements in data collection and transparency at the RFMOs. 16

17 In fisheries with strong observer coverage, we can determine the effectiveness of projects by tracking the changes in bycatch rates. In fisheries without adequate observer coverage, it is difficult to confirm the outcomes. As part of our learning for bycatch reduction, we will work with the seabird conservation community to explore the following question: How can we assess uptake of bycatch mitigation measures and their effectiveness in fisheries that are data poor and operate with limited oversight? Given the diverse nature of bycatch reduction activities, we will not ask grantees to report on outcomes related to all the indicators for the initiative. Depending on the types of activities supported by the grant, we will ask grantees to report on some of the following indicators: Increase in required fisheries observer coverage Increase in standardized fisheries observer reports Increase in observers receiving standardized training Increase in fisheries data available for analysis Increase in vessels outfitted with best practices for bycatch mitigation Number of new technologies or techniques developed for bycatch mitigation Shorebird habitat conservation Monitoring for the shorebird component will be challenging, given that measurements of capacity may be resource intensive and not easily quantifiable. Over the next several months we will work with the Packard Foundation s MEL and Organizational Effectiveness staff to identify evaluation partner(s) to help us explore opportunities to assess our outcomes appropriately. This work will include developing indicators to measure capacity around organizational effectiveness, advocacy, stakeholder engagement, and science, specifically in Panama Bay and Chiloé Island. This assessment will also enable us to determine the baseline of capacity in these two sites and to plan capacity building support according to need. In addition to providing information about indicators, these assessments will provide landscape maps of potential partners and funders as well as influencer institutions in these sites. For grant projects focused on expanding shorebird monitoring capacity and standardization as well as habitat projects in the United States, we will rely on grantee reporting until the five year evaluation. Throughout the course of this strategy, the program officer will monitor the results of these activities through phone conversations, grantee proposals and reports, site visits, and discussions with issue experts. Over the course of this strategy, we will explore two learning questions around shorebird habitat conservation: How can we measure the development of different types of capacity? Does building capacity improve outcomes for shorebird habitat conservation? The first question will be addressed through third party evaluators, as discussed above. The second question will be addressed through third party evaluation of the results of several years of grantmaking in Panama Bay and Chiloé Island. Answering this question will be critical to determining the effectiveness of our strategic focus on capacity building in key sites. We plan to share the results of these learning explorations with our grantees and the shorebird conservation community through an evaluation report and meetings with shorebird grantees. 17

18 Estimated Timeline and Exit Plan The Marine Birds strategy was approved in 2007 with the expectation that this would be a 10 year effort. We propose that this subprogram continue for the next five years. Toward the end of this time frame it will be necessary to evaluate both the near term outcomes of this strategy and the opportunities for continued conservation interventions for seabirds and shorebirds. Budget and Staffing This strategy was developed with the assumption that the annual grant budget will be $2.9 million annually over the next five years. The relative allocation of funds across the Marine Birds initiatives will be similar to the allocation over the past five years. Island restoration will continue to be the largest initiative, followed by shorebird habitat conservation and bycatch reduction. 18

19 Appendix A: Redstone Strategy Group Marine Birds Evaluation Executive Summary This five year evaluation reviews progress made by the Davidd and Lucile Packard Foundation s Marine Birds subprogram. It was prepared at the request of the Foundation, which asked whether the subprogram was on track to accomplish its goals, how the Foundation was contributing more broadly to the field, and what opportunities exist to maximize the impact of future investments. The remainder of this document is organized in response to those three questions. In order,, the answerss are: 1. Overall progress exceeded expectations 2. Packard is a leader of marine bird conservation 3. There are rich opportunities to increase impact These findings are based on interviews with 18 grantee organizations (39 people in all) ), proposals and reports submitted by grantees, and published literature. Overall progress exceeded expectations The Marine Birds Initiative has three components: to eradicate invasive species on important seabird breeding islands, to reduce Figure 1. Marine Birds seabird bycatch, and to conserve habitat for funding shorebirds in the Pacific Flyway. The Foundation s grantees have Total = $22.7M made progress in all three areas and particularly strong progress in eradications despite less than expected supportt from other funders in a difficult economic climate. The subprogram is widely known and praised among marine bird researchers and advocates, and the Foundation is seen by most as having a far larger impact on marine bird conservation than any other private funder. The eradication component, the largest in the Marine Birds portfolio, has received about 60 percent of the subprogram s s total spending since 2006 (Figure 1) ). Such investment is justified by the outcomes, which have been more rapid than hoped inn the original strategy: at least 22 threatened and seven near or threatened seabird species will benefit from completed ongoing eradications on 67 island groups, with seven threatened species likely to dramatically increase and possibly even to restore over time their populations. In addition, at least fivee other threatened species may benefit. Once completed, thesee eradications will approach the original targets of restoring 10 to 15 threatened species and increasing the populations of 10 to 15 threatenedd or near threatened species in less than the decade anticipated by the initial strategy. Consequently, at least 29 and possibly 34 seabird species will be less likely to become extinct. These successes came despite the fact that the Foundation did not insist thatt grantees work only on the most important breeding islands for threatened and near support from many funders, and to increasee their technical capacity as rapidly as possible. As a result, future progress could be even greater and more threatened seabirds such latitude allowed organizations to develop and mature, to attract rapid. 19