An example of the single species approach: Siberian Crane conservation mechanisms past and present

An example of the single species approach: Siberian Crane conservation mechanisms past and present

Crane conservation undertaken on 5 levels 1. Global (WI/IUCN Crane Specialist Group) 2. Flyway (UNEP/GEF Siberian Crane Wetland Project) 3. Watershed (ICF s 7 River s Campaign) 4. Ecosystem (Poyang Lake) 5. Species (Whooping Crane Recovery Plan, CMS MOU for Siberian Crane)

Key to Success on All Levels Effectively linking birds, places, and people Connecting to people and addressing what is important to them

Siberian Crane: Two Case Studies 1. Species Approach: CMS Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) concerning Conservation Measures for the Siberian Crane 1. Flyway Project with Flagship Species: UNEP/GEF Siberian Crane Wetland Project

CMS MoU: Seven Range State Meetings

CMS MoU Objectives Conservation Plans developed every 2-3 years 1.Reduce mortality 2.Increase numbers and genetic diversity 3.Enhance international cooperation

CMS MoU Objectives 1. Reduce mortality 2. Increase numbers and genetic diversity 3. Enhance international cooperation and information exchange + On-line country reporting like IOSEA

CMS MoU Objectives Conservation Plans developed every 2-3 years 1.Reduce mortality 2.Increase numbers and genetic diversity 3.Enhance international cooperation and information exchange. 4.Monitor and study the Siberian Crane and its habitats

CMS MoU Objectives Conservation Plans developed every 2-3 years 1.Reduce mortality 2.Increase numbers and genetic diversity 3.Enhance international cooperation and information exchange. 4.Monitor and study the Siberian Crane and its habitats 5.Protect and manage habitats of importance for the Siberian Crane

Officially Launched Western/Central Asian Site Network for the Siberian Crane and Other Waterbirds under CMS MoU 12 sites in 6 countries officially approved

CMS MoU Objectives 1. Reduce mortality 2. Increase numbers and genetic diversity 3. Enhance international cooperation and information exchange. 4. Monitor and study the Siberian Crane and its habitats 5. Protect and manage habitats of importance for the Siberian Crane, 6. Increase public awareness, community involvement, and ecological education

CMS MoU - Legal Basis The Siberian Crane MoU was the first MoU developed under CMS. It was concluded on 1 July 1993 and revised on 1 January 1999. Remains in effect indefinitely unless terminated. Signatories include: 11 environmental agencies of all range states 3 NGOs (ICF, WI, CBCC) Non-binding - financial contributions not required Russia and China have not acceded to CMS Kazakhstan acceded to CMS under SCWP

CMS MOU Governance Arrangements 1. Competent governmental authority and technical representative designated for each country. 2. CMS officially administers and officially communicates with countries 3. ICF works closely with CMS to oversee development and implementation of Conservation Plans 4. Countries responsible for implementing specified activities

CMS MoU Priority Funding Needs 1. Regional Range state meetings Coordinator position Database (go on-line and share more broadly) CEPA activities (Crane Day events and materials, publications, newsletters, website) 2. Country level activities identified in Conservation Plans 3. Western/Central Asian Site Network for Siberian Cranes and Other Migratory Waterbirds implement action plan

CMS MoU Funding Sources 1. Range State Meetings jointly funded by CMS, ICF, with increasing support required from host country 2. Coordinator jointly funded by ICF and CMS 3. CMS has intern for C Asia for 2 years 4. Grants primarily raised by ICF 5. Secured UNEP/GEF funding for Siberian Crane Wetland Project (2003-2009) 6. Some co-financing from partners (CBCC, Moscow Zoo) 7. Country contributions have been limited

CMS MoU Funding Challenges Recently difficult to raise money- depressed economy, increased competition, shifting priorities CMS has limited funds shared across a growing number of agreements (18) ICF strategic plan shifting main focus to E Asian population Western/Central Asian Site Network - preferred strategy is to shift site network under CAF initiative if it can be officially established with ICF as an active partner

CMS MoU -Funding Strategies CMS and ICF focusing on regional activities Investigated CMS Trust Fund but not considered viable, however CMS has potential to set up a budget line for countries to earmark funds Need countries to contribute more to activities in Conservation Plans and asked to sponsor their administrative and technical representatives to attend MoU Meetings Decrease frequency of Range State Meetings to 5 years Link to other meetings for cost savings and synergy Link to other flyway programmes and projects

Species Approach Strong Points 1. MoU provides official mechanism for facilitating international cooperation, and for government-ngo collaboration which can otherwise be challenging 2. Cultural connections and shared issues enabled us to brings people together with a common interest which gives us a clear way to focus on and achieve specific objectives 3. Can be more effective at protecting an individual species since it enables you to focus on monitoring and managing specific threats

Species Approach Weak Points 1. Narrow focus can lead to missed opportunities to have broader impact 2. Limited staff and funds are not used efficiently 3. Number of species can become unmanageable unless we focus on critically endangered 4. If population becomes too small it can be difficult to maintain support (I.e., Sibe in Central Asia) 5. Countries have not been willing to invest adequate resources in implementation

Case Study 2: UNEP/GEF Siberian Crane Wetlands Project

First GEF Project Adopting a Flyway Approach

Project Goal Secure the ecological integrity of a network of critical wetlands needed for the Siberian Crane, migratory waterbirds and other globally significant wetland biodiversity in Asia

Need for Project SCWP was developed in response to the widespread and continuing loss and degradation of wetlands across Asia and the precarious state of waterbird populations. 59% waterbird populations declining in Asia

Siberian Crane is an effective Flagship Species Cultural symbol long life, fidelity, spirit guide Migratory effective ambassador Critically Endangered Its wetlands shared by millions of other waterbirds & people 24

Project sites support >27 threatened bird species dependent on wetlands Sustains millions of migratory waterbirds along their migration routes

Siberian Crane Migration Routes Map by the International Crane Foundation 2005 Cartographer: Zoe Rickenbach

UNEP/GEF SCWP - Strong Points Upgraded Conservation Status of Protected Areas and Expanded Size along Flyways: >New World Heritage Site >5 new Ramsar sites, 4 applications in progress >Management effectiveness improved at 16 sites totaling 7 million hectares >Improved protection of over 1.8 million ha 27

UNEP/GEF SCWP - Strong Points 1. WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS 2. WATER MONITORING 3. MINIMUM WATER FLOWS & SUSTAINED FINANCING 4. WETLAND RESTORATION 28

Enhanced Waterbird Monitoring Along Flyways 29

Regional Public Awareness Programs an effective tool for conservation across continents World Wetlands Day World Migratory Bird Day Crane Festivals (120 sites in 9 countries) 30

Flagship Strong Points 1. Countries brought together and find connections through shared goals, expectations, and vision 2. Allows group as a whole to set expectations, compare goals, allocate resources, assess what is not working (i.e., poor communication with hunters), and propose solutions

UNEP/GEF SCWP -Weak Points 1. Easier to think at the site or national level than at flyway level. Project achieved improved flyway awareness and cohesiveness, but it took more time. 2. Complexity and cost of administering a multicountry and multi-site project 3. Although other waterbirds benefited the focus was often too strongly on flagship species

Future Structure of MoU Should we: 1. Continue with current structure 2. Link implementation more closely with EAAFP and CAF 3. Expand scope to encompass other threatened crane species 4. Merge Conservation Plans form with AEWA Single Species Action PLANS

MoU Alternatives 1. Link implementation of Siberian Crane Conservation Plan activities under two migratory waterbird flyway programs Eastern Population under EAAFP/Crane Working Group Western Population under CAF/AEWA (pending development of CAF) 2. CMS MoU would: Provide link between Siberian Crane flyways through species level conservation plans Schedule full meetings on reduced basis (5 years?) Interim work could occur within flyways by email or linked to other flyway level meetings

35