Convention on Migratory Species

Transcription

1 Convention on Migratory Species Contribution to UEF-UNEP Course on MEA Synergies Asian Institute of Technology, 6 September 2011 Douglas Hykle Coordinator / Senior CMS Advisor IOSEA Marine Turtle MoU Secretariat, Bangkok

2

3 What is meant by synergy? Co-operation, coordination (to enhance effectiveness of conservation action) Avoid duplication of effort (to improve efficiency) Recognition of complementarities (avoiding stepping on toes )

4 Synergy: among / between whom?? Synergy between MEAs / Conventions often taken to mean Synergy between Convention secretariats but synergy has to start at home between / within Ministries Three case studies: Ramsar, CITES, CBD; plus some other examples of MEA cooperation Conclude with general observations, lessons-learned

5 CMS Partnership King (Queen) 25 and counting, as of Nov. 2008: 15 NGO 9 IGO 1 GOV

6 CMS Ramsar Convention on Wetlands Premise / Rationale: Many migratory species depend on wetland habitats for their survival at some point during their life cycle (e.g. migratory birds - breeding, stopover during migration, wintering)

7 CMS Ramsar February Memorandum of Understanding concluded (between Heads of Secretariats): 5 pages long Six main elements: Reciprocal promotion of Convention membership and implementation Reciprocal participation in meetings of respective convention bodies Coordination of development of technical guidelines Identification of pilot projects and possible funding sources Potential coordination in the areas of collection and exchange of data, and COP reporting Cooperation in relation to wetland-dependant species, through the conclusion and implementation of CMS daughter agreements

8 2003 Joint Work Plan concluded, to operationalise the 1997 CMS / Ramsar MoU Covered the period Main elements: Applied to Ramsar, CMS and AEWA (major CMS migratory bird agreement) JWP = 14 (!) pages long, including 4 pages of introductory text Contents similar to 1997 MoU, but in more detail: Reciprocal promotion of Convention membership, preparation of note/brochure to explain complementarities; joint regional meetings Reciprocal participation in respective convention bodies; exchange of information on focal points, reciprocal contributions to newsletters etc Identification of opportunities for joint activities, projects, guidelines etc.; sharing of information on small-grants projects (with a view to considering joint support) Encouragement of CMS-Ramsar policy linkages based on sites of importance for wetland dependant migratory species Exchange of technical information on data management, harmonisation of selected reporting elements Cooperation in relation to wetland-dependant species, through the conclusion and implementation of CMS daughter agreements

9 CMS Ramsar Joint Work Plan to be reviewed in early 2004, with a view to developing an even more detailed implementation plan (including priority actions, time frames, specific outputs etc.); thereafter annual review meetings. Results for initial planning period:??? Not clear as to whether as to whether any review meetings took place between 2004 and 2010

10 Current situation July 2011: Consensus that the existing MoU/JWP has not served its purpose and that a simplified MoU is needed Idea: Annex containing a rolling list of concrete activities, updated periodically through routine correspondence. Plan to develop a revised framework MoU for endorsement by CMS Standing Committee at time of COP10 (Nov 2011). Potential areas of cooperation are being explored, but still without tangible processes / outcomes built in Full circle

11

12 CMS Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) Premise / Rationale: Some migratory species are threatened, among other things, by international trade (of live animals or products/derivatives) CITES concerns itself exclusively with these international trade issues, while CMS is concerned with domestic conservation/protection of species (i.e. within a given country); as well as fostering international cooperation through shared management (agreements)

13 Marine turtles: Highly migratory, harvested domestically CMS (Former) extensive international (legal) trade; ongoing illegal cross-border trade CITES CMS and CITES are perfectly complementary

14 CMS CITES September Memorandum of Understanding concluded (between Heads of Secretariats) Only 3 pages Very general provisions: promote compatibility of policy decisions between CITES and CMS reciprocal representation at meetings exchange of information (including a data exchange system )

15 CMS CITES November reference first made to CITES-CMS co-operation in CITES COP 12 Decision 12.5, 12.6 directed to CITES Standing Committee & Secretariat (not Parties) recognised need to implement a more detailed work programme ensure that CITES take into account CMS initiatives in relation to: Saiga antelope, Snow leopard, African elephants Marine turtles Whale shark, Great white shark Sturgeon October Virtually identical reference in CITES COP13 Resolution Conf. 13.3

16 CMS CITES July Adoption of CITES/CMS List of Joint Activities for Main elements: Review / harmonisation of taxonomy (species listings issues) functional collaboration, exchange of experience cooperation / coordination on species conservation issues (same as those as listed previously, plus Great apes, Houbara bustard)

17 CMS CITES July / November 2008 CITES/CMS Standing Committees review of results Results for : first attempt at preparing a taxonomic concordance list to be done by mid ; more support sought for harmonisation of nomenclature cross-representation at meetings, exchange of information on strategic planning collaboration at a workshop which led to the conclusion of a CMS MoU on Saiga antelope potential identified for collaboration on raptors, gorillas and elephants; but nothing concrete realised. No joint activities on Whale sharks, Snow leopard, Marine turtles. Geographic separation of CITES-CMS actions on Sturgeon and agreement on new Joint Activity Plan for

18

19 CMS CITES Main elements of new Joint Activity Plan for : finalise taxonomic review, eliminate taxonomic differences, establish common species database cooperation on joint actions for species conservation, subject to available resources (CITES focus on sustainable use; CMS focus on species recovery). Same species list as above, but no mention of raptors or gorillas identification of indicators for shared species and identification of decisions of common relevance (to ensure coherence of policy and implementation) annual meetings of secretariats, exchange of ideas on Knowledge Management; joint fund-raising; coordinated outreach and capacity-building

20 CMS CITES 2009: Engagement of consultant (attached to CITES Secretariat) to promote synergies with CMS March 2011: Agreement of CITES StdCom to extend period of Joint Activity Plan through end of 2011 (as proposed by CITES & CMS Secretariats)

21 CMS CITES August/September 2011: Draft review of activities (to be considered by CMS StdCom in November 2011 and CITES StdCom in 2012) Taxonomic review completed and considered by respective scientific bodies. CMS/CITES agreement on standard taxonomic reference for marine mammals; agreement to review bird taxonomy by time of CMS COP10 November 2011; suggestion to create a nomenclature/taxonomy committee. Common species database still to be perfected. Joint activities (meetings and project preparation) realised between CMS African Elephant MoU Focal Points and counterparts of CITES MIKE programme. CMS and CITES jointly-organised separate meetings in 2010 concerning Saiga antelope conservation. Cross-representation at certain species-related meetings (elephants, sharks, raptors, gorillas; snow leopard - planned) and at respective COPs, scientific bodies. Periodic (not yet regular) meetings between CMS and CITES Secretariats (February & August 2009; March 2011) Technical support from CITES Secretariat in relation to CMS COP document production

22 CMS CITES Draft proposal for new Joint Activity Plan for (under development) Common species database (carried over from previous plans); continuation of nomenclature harmonisation; development of nomenclature/taxonomy committee concept African elephants: Joint CMS-CITES MIKE meetings, continuation of project development, provision of MoU coordination services; possible extension of collaboration to cover elephants of central Africa CITES participation in finalisation of CMS Action Plan for Sharks Continuation of CITES involvement in trade-related aspects of Saiga antelope conservation Proposal for joint meeting of multilateral turtle instruments

23

24 CMS Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) June Memorandum of Cooperation concluded (between Heads of Secretariats) Only 3 pages, including 1 page of preamble General provisions: reciprocal representation at meetings exchange of information (including a data exchange system ) explore possibility of coordinating work plans, reporting requirements encourages Parties to integrate special requirements of migratory species into CBD strategies, plans, programmes endeavour to coordinate research, training and public awareness report to convention bodies and seek guidance of new areas for cooperation

25 CMS CBD March / April 2002 Very detailed Joint Work Programme developed for period, including identification of actors, priorities, mechanisms and financial considerations (25 pages long) CBD thematic and cross-cutting areas provide the framework (headings) for the JWP s detailed activities ( > 60 in total, organised in tabular format) Proposed mechanisms include: Secretariats consultation, workshops, pilot projects, preparation of guidelines, solicitation of case studies from Parties, information exchange

26 CMS CBD JWP circulated as Information document to CBD and CMS COPs in April and September 2002, respectively. CBD Decision VI/20 recognizes the Convention on Migratory Species as the lead partner in conserving and sustainably using migratory species over their entire range. JWP was formally endorsed by CMS Parties through Resolution 7.9, which invites collaboration between CMS and CBD in order to generate guidance on integrating migratory species concerns into National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs); and cooperation in relation to CBD reporting on migratory species JWP implementation to be kept under review, but no specific mechanism identified for regular inter-secretariat consultation

27 CMS CBD Outputs for : Not evident that any systematic review of JWP progress was undertaken and/or published prior to CMS COP8 (November 2005); however the CMS COP adopted a new resolution (8.18) which focused specifically on the integration of migratory species into NBSAPs, and included a new Joint Work Programme for CMS Resolution 8.18: Provided preliminary guidance (10 points) to Parties on integrating migratory species into NBSAPs, including a list of information needed to accomplish this task. Endorsed a revised CBD-CMS Joint Work Programme for (reduced to 1 page vs. 25 pages) Familiar themes expressed in general terms include: preparation of case studies on migratory species; harmonisation / interoperability of data management systems

28 CMS CBD Outputs for : No mention in documents prepared for CMS COP9 (Dec 2008) of any review having been undertaken of the CBD-CMS JWP for CMS COP Resolution 9.6 (on Cooperation with other Bodies) makes no mention of a revised CBD-CMS JWP for the period or an explicit extension of the old one; however it does request the Secretariat and Parties to pursue implementation of CMS Resolution Notably, the same resolution stresses the need for such JWPs to contain attainable targets, clear timetables, necessity to report on progress and the need to assess effectiveness of results regularly. Reference is made to the high-level Liaison Group of Biodiversityrelated Conventions (BLG), formed in 2004 and including both CBD and CMS, which meets periodically to discuss matters of common concern to the respective instruments.

29 CMS CBD Intersessional Developments / Current Situation CBD COP 10 (Nagoya, October 2010) requests the CBD and CMS Secretariats to update the JWP; and includes a new target for each CBD Party to have developed and commenced implementing an effective, participatory and updated national biodiversity strategy and action plan. June 2011: CMS Secretariat circulated to all CMS Focal Points and Scientific Councillors a publication titled Migratory Species & National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans. The document serves essentially as a primer on CMS and NBSAPs; and gives the rationale for, and general guidance on integrating migratory species concerns into the revised NBSAPs. It is envisaged that a revised CBD-CMS JWP for will be drafted for consideration at CMS COP10 (November 2011); but the next opportunity for it to be formally noted by all CBD Parties will not arise until CBD COP11 (October 2012).

30

31 Liaison Group of Biodiversity-related Conventions (BLG) In order to enhance coherence and cooperation in implementation, a liaison group has been established between the heads of the secretariats of the six biodiversity-related conventions. The Liaison Group of Biodiversity-related Conventions meets regularly to explore opportunities for synergistic activities and increased coordination, and to exchange information. Heads of Agencies Task Force on the Implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets"

32 CMS East Asia - Australasia Flyway Partnership (EAAFP) Interesting model of Government, IGO, NGO co-operation and synergy Currently 25 partners: including 13 countries, 3 intergovernmental agencies and 9 international non-government organisations. Framework for development of a Flyway Site Network (for sites of international importance to migratory waterbirds); collaborative activities to increase knowledge and raise awareness of migratory waterbirds along the flyway; building capacity for the sustainable management and conservation of migratory waterbird habitats. In its capacity as one of the IGO Partners, CMS is chairing a Task Force to review implementation of the EAAFP Strategic Plan, and to make recommendations for necessary revisions

33 MEA Synergy - General Observations Extremely slow, incremental / iterative process Synergy begins with acceptance of basic idea of cooperation; attending each others meetings Even after up to 15 years of effort, tangible outputs / outcomes few and far between, but some signs of progress: CMS-Ramsar: back to the drawing board CMS-CBD: helpful emphasis on NBSAP integration of migratory species CMS-CITES: Greatest chance of success? (both conventions have a species focus, similar generation, dedicated consultant, proximity of secretariats) Level of detail / document length inversely correlated with progress?

34 Conclusions Useful synergy happens when both parties have an active mutual interest in co-operating (and not necessarily because of contrived work plans, however well-articulated they may be) Joint Work Plans need to be underpinned by commensurate Secretariat staff resources, which are infrequently available CMS Inter-Agency Liaison Officer post; CITES consultant (exceptions to the rule?) Secretariats should fulfil a minimum commitment to meet regularly and review progress MEA synergy begins (or should begin) with member States; and Parties should insist on accountability

35