sign in sign up
<<
Home , Central Asian Flyway, Flyway

UNEP GEF PORTFOLIO

OUTLOOK AND

THE EXPERIENCE OF UNEP GEF AND PARTNERS IN CONSERVATION

BIODIVERSITY ISSUE PAPER BD/001 Copyright © 2009, United Nations Environment Programme - Division of Global Environment Suggested citation: Facility Coordination (UNEP/DGEF) The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation, 2009. UNEP GEF Portfolio Outlook Disclaimers: and Evolution. Biodiversity Issue Paper The content and views expressed in this publication do not necessarily refl ect the views or policies of BD/001. UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya. the contributory organizations or the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and neither do they imply any endorsement.

Publisher: The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression UNEP / DGEF of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP concerning the legal status of any country, territory or city or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers and boundaries. Lead authors and editors: Mention of an entity or product in this publication does not imply the endorsement of UNEP. Edoardo Zandri & Crawford Prentice © Tamer Yilmaz (Sunset in Burdur, Turkey) © Tamer Yilmaz (Sunset

Credits: Copyright of all maps, photos and illustrations as specifi ed individually. Contributing authors: Leon Bennun, Gerard Boere, Tim CONTENTS Reproduction: Dodman, Max Zieren, Jonathan Barnard, Ward Hagemeijer, Camillo This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profi t Ponziani, James Harris, Taej Mundkur, purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgment of the source Claire Mirande, Umberto Gallo-Orsi, FOREWORD p.6 is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a Bert Lenten, Sergey Dereliev, Florian source. Keil, Douglas Hykle, Francisco Rilla, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY p.7 Nick Davidson No use of this publication may be made for resale or any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from UNEP. Applications for such permission, with a statement of purpose DEFINITIONS AND SCOPE p.9 and intent of the reproduction, should be addressed to the Division of Communications and Public Contributing agencies: Information (DCPI), UNEP, P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi 00100, Kenya. UNEP / GEF ACHIEVEMENTS IN GEF 3 & 4 p.9 UNOPS International Foundation The use of information from this publication concerning proprietary products for publicity or advertising INTERNATIONAL ENABLING p.13 Convention on Migratory Species is not permitted. ENVIRONMENT African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement on MAIN LESSONS LEARNED p.14 Produced by: BirdLife International United Nations Environment Programme Division of Global Environment Facility Coordination THE COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE p.30 Biodiversity & Natural Resources Unit OF UNEP P.O. Box 30552 (00100) Layout & design: OUTLINE OF POSSIBLE NEW p.30 Nairobi, Kenya Camillo Ponziani GEF INITIATIVES

Visit us on the web: www.unep.org For additional information ANNEX I: LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS p.33 please visit: ANNEX II: RELEVANT BACKGROUND p.34 www.unep.org DOCUMENTS www.wingsoverwetlands.org www.scwp.info

Printed on recycled, acid-free paper © Jonathan Barnard, BirdLife International (Hadejia-Nguru Wetlands) Barnard, BirdLife International © Jonathan Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS PARTNERS AND DONORS

AEWA African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement The drafting of this issue paper has been a highly participatory and collaborative process, in which many CMS Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals partners and donors have been engaged. COP Conference of the Parties CSN Critical Site Network EA Executing Agency EAAFP East Asian - Australasian Flyway Partnership FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FWG Flyway Working Group GEF Global Environment Facility GIS Geographical Information System IA Implementing Agency ICF International Crane Foundation IIT International Implementation Tasks IT Information Technology LULUCF Land Use, Land Use Change and Forests M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MEA Multi-lateral Environmental Agreements MOP Meeting of the Parties MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTE Mid-Term Evaluation NEA National Executing Agency NGO Non Governmental Organisation PIR Project Implementation Report RAF Resource Allocation Framework SCWP Project SMART Specifi c Measurable Achievable Realistic and Time-bound TOR Terms of Reference UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNOPS United Nations Offi ce for Project Services UN-REDD United Nations programme for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation USA United States of America UNEP WCMC World Conservation Monitoring Centre WHSRN Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network WOW Wings Over Wetlands (UNEP/GEF African-Eurasian Flyways Project)

Page 4 Page 5 Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation

groups as well as to trans-boundary conservation FOREWORD EXECUTIVE SUMMARY issues in general.

The two projects are rather different, and comple- mentary, in their scope and emphasis. The African- The “Flyway Approach” has become a key concept strengthened among key stakeholders, as a result Two major regional initiatives1 focusing on the Eurasian Flyways Project (‘Wings over Wetlands’, guiding the development of international initiatives of this and other recent efforts supported by the fl yway-level conservation of migratory and or WOW) covers a wide range of countries, with for fl yway-scale conservation covering many dif- UNEP GEF: a good sign and a reason for optimism their habitats are currently being successfully a strong focus on developing regional tools with ferent migratory species in many parts of the on the validity and potential of the fl yway conser- implemented by UNEP GEF in collaboration with broad applicability. The Siberian Crane Wetland world. vation approach. a wide range of partners, all of whom have Project (SCWP) covers four countries along two contributed to the development of this paper.2 main fl yways, showing how more focused fl yway For the past several years, these international ef- The way ahead is complex, and challenges are These initiatives cover over 122 countries, with efforts – still spanning large distances but involv- forts to conserve migratory waterbirds have been increasingly diffi cult in the face of climate change direct fi eld activities at more than 28 sites span- ing smaller numbers of countries and bird species given an unprecedented boost through the WOW and increased human-induced pressures on our ning 16 countries. We draw upon lessons learned – can achieve outcomes that may be diffi cult for Project and the Siberian Crane Wetland Project. planet. so far in the design and implementation of these more complex and diverse projects. The results of two innovative projects, not only as a basis for both projects provide valuable lessons on the way Both have become a model internationally for fl y- Our direction is also increasingly clear, and new the consolidation of experiences, but also for the forward with fl yway conservation initiatives. way initiatives in other regions showing how “The “fl yway” projects are already on the drawing expansion of this important area of biodiversity Flyway Approach” can be put into practice. These board for possible future funding by GEF and other and habitat conservation work. Notwithstanding Important new conservation tools are being projects are a unique example of the broad part- donors, on the basis of our recent experience. the focus on fl yways and migratory birds, there generated by both projects. The “Critical Site nerships that characterise UNEP’s support to multi- are some important lessons learned that are It is our hope that these initiatives will lead to Network Tool” contributes to improving our con- national efforts in the conservation of biodiversity quite relevant also to other migratory species servation planning capacity at the local, national and natural resources further investments in the wise-use of wetland resources and to better conservation of migratory The UNEP GEF team is committed to continue to waterbirds worldwide. support this approach, and the commendable efforts of all stakeholders in fl yway conservation. We look forward to avenues for consolidating and expanding the scope of this and other recent successful fl yway Maryam Niamir-Fuller conservation initiatives in our UNEP GEF project GEF Executive Coordinator and Director portfolio. We are also glad to note that existing Division of Global Environment Facility Coordination fl yway conservation partnerships are being United Nations Environment Programme © Camillo Ponziani (Namga-Kokorou Complex, Niger) Complex, (Namga-Kokorou Ponziani © Camillo © Gábor Simay (Ferruginous ) Simay (Ferruginous © Gábor

1. Namely: the UNEP/GEF “Siberian Crane Wetland” Project and the UNEP/GEF “African-Eurasian Flyways” Project.

2. A third GEF Flyways project – the “Migratory Soaring Birds” project is executed by BirdLife International through UNDP. This is not formally part of this review, but lessons from staff engaged in both this project and WOW are included where appropriate.

3. Voice printing is a technique where individual birds can be identifi ed by their unique vocal patterns without having to catch and band them. It has been tested on Red Crowned and Siberian Cranes. © Patrick Nijhuis

Page 6 Page 7 Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation and flyway levels. A modular “Flyway Training implemented in close collaboration with major in- Kit” is now available and specifically designed ternational NGOs such as Wetlands International, to improve the capacity to understand and ap- BirdLife International, and the International Crane ply flyway-level conservation concepts. A wide Foundation, as well as the UNEP/WCMC. range of conservation strategies for migratory waterbirds is also being effectively demonstrated The innovative nature and management complex- at 28 field sites. Important targeted research on ity of these multi-country and multi-stakeholder technologies such as satellite telemetry and voice- projects required a significant degree of adaptive printing3, and regional training activities on top- management and patience, especially at their ics such as data management, help ensure sound outset. In Section 5, some lessons learned are collection, maintenance and sharing of information summarised, and some improved management across flyways. At the regional level, strong net- measures are proposed. These lessons aim at fa- works are being created among project sites and cilitating the design, approval and implementation between countries along the same flyways. of new GEF flyway-level conservation initiatives, to be consolidated and expanded possibly even on Although regional planning and cooperation is an a broader scale. In particular, section 5.1 covers important pre-requisite for effective flyway con- emerging lessons related to the technical design servation, field practice experience during both and implementation of projects on flyways and projects showed that this can only be achieved migratory species. These focus on:

if local programmes cater for the existing shared (Platalea leucorodia) ©Tim Faasen - www.wildphoto.nl interests of multiple stakeholders at the national • Removing barriers and creating incentives to developing and site levels: for example in managing water multi-national flyway conservation initiatives; resources which sustain wetland ecosystem 2. DEFINITIONS & SCOPE 3. ACHIEVEMENTS IN GEF3 & GEF4 services for both waterbirds as well as economic • Emphasising regional-level activities as they generate functions such as fisheries, agriculture or hydro- important and globally-relevant outputs; power supply. Flyways have been defined as “the entire range Two important and complex GEF-funded regional • Developing well inter-connected flyway conservation of a migratory bird species (or groups of related scale interventions in the field of flyway conser- This is even more important in the face of the activities at the site and national levels; species or distinct populations of a single species) vation are currently being implemented by UNEP impacts of climate change on these systems and through which it moves on an annual basis from GEF. Both projects are at an advanced stage of • Fostering support at the national level by taking into services. Promoting flyway conservation from a the breeding grounds to non-breeding areas, in- implementation at the time of writing, and are account the common issues and interests of stakeholder combination of local, regional or trans-boundary cluding intermediate resting and feeding places as generating important outputs. Their main achieve- groups; perspectives, with emphasis on multiple conser- well as the area within which the birds migrate”.4 ments include: vation and socio-economic benefits rather than • Dedicating specific attention to factors affecting key a. Broader cooperation established: both purely on needs, has demon- sites at national and local levels that can threaten the Flyway-level conservation initiatives treated in projects under review have clearly demonstrated strated greater chances of success especially in integrity of entire flyways; this paper are focusing exclusively on UNEP/GEF the importance and the potential effectiveness of terms of engaging politicians and decision makers projects striving to cover the entire flyway of one a hybrid partnership model for reaching important in conservation-oriented decisions. • Assigning proper value (and budget) to communication or more species or populations of migratory birds. trans-boundary conservation objectives. Partners outputs. This paper also includes input, where applicable, include the Secretariats of several Multi-lateral The tangible activities and results of both projects from Executing Agency staff engaged in both the Environmental Agreements and existing international have contributed greatly to our understanding UNEP/GEF WOW and SCWP projects, as well as partnerships (such as the East Asian - Austral- of flyway-level conservation in all participating Section 5.2 covers important emerging lessons the UNDP/GEF “Migratory Soaring Birds” Project; asian Flyway Partnership), various UN agencies, countries, and have generated political support for with respect to project preparation, management, however this last project is currently only in its national governments as well as international and this approach. Significant interest has also been monitoring and evaluation. These issues appear to early stages of implementation, so it is premature national NGOs. generated beyond the areas covered by these be common and relevant also to most other multi- to fully evaluate the lessons at this stage and as country projects, and are therefore clustered into two “pilot” GEF projects. These results provide an such this project is not formally included in this b. Improved enabling environment: the proj- this section. excellent basis for the consolidation and expan- review. ects facilitated the creation of new MEAs and sion of flyway-level conservation work on a global actively contributed towards consolidating and Section 6 outlines the comparative advantage of scale, within the framework of the relevant Multi- implementing existing ones5, through practical lateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) (includ- UNEP in terms of facilitating this type of multi- ing CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, country initiatives. Section 7 provides a prelimi- 4. Boere, G.C. & Stroud, D.A. 2006. The flyway concept: what it is and what it isn’t. Waterbirds around the world. Eds. G.C. Boere, and the Convention on Biological Diversity) as nary outlook at proposed new initiatives in the C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK. pp. 40. well as strategic alliances such as the East Asian field of flyway-level conservation for possible GEF 5. Particular reference is made to the CMS (and relevant international MOUs under the CMS umbrella), AEWA, Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, as - Australasian Flyway Partnership (EAAFP) or the support from 2010, resulting from initial consultation well as the newly established East Asian - Australasian Flyway Partnership. Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network with some of the partner organisations involved. (WHSRN). These activities are also being

Page 8 Page 9 Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation

the 118 countries of the African-Eurasian Region, largely overlapping with the 11 range states for the Siberian Crane. Examples include the World Migratory Bird Day (www.worldmigratorybirdday. org), the Crane Day celebrations that continue to gain momentum, now covering 100+ sites in nine countries, and an inter-fl yway environmental edu- cation programme that has been initiated among (Yakutia), and USA supported by multi-lingual websites.

g. Best practice examples: hands-on demon- stration activities implemented at 28 sites spanning 16 countries at sites of global importance for the conservation of migratory waterbirds and their habitats with, in most cases, approaches catering for the interests of multiple stakeholders.

(Clockwise from top) Figure 1: Map of the AEWA region (Source: UNEP/ AEWA)

Figure 2: Migration routes of the Siberian Crane (Source: International Crane Foundation) © Abba Mahmoudou (Namga-Kokorou Complex) (Namga-Kokorou © Abba Mahmoudou ©Tim Faasen - www.wildphoto.nl (Numenius phaeopus) ©Tim Faasen - www.wildphoto.nl

Figure 3: The eight broad fl yways of waders / shore demonstration of the fl yway approach; information has also benefi ted planning and con- birds (Source: International Wader Study Group. A servation action. more detailed evaluation by Brown et al. 2001 distinguishes c. Improved science base: the innovative “Criti- fi ve shorebird fl yways in : Pacifi c-Asiatic, cal Site Network Tool” of the WOW project provides d. Improved national capacity for fl yway Intermountain West, Central, Mississippi, and Atlantic) a basis for more effective fl yway-level conserva- conservation: the capability of the national tion planning in the African-Eurasian region6. The agencies responsible for coordinating national pro- fi rst draft of this tool is available and a public grammes concerning migratory waterbird monitor- launch is planned for 2010. ing and conservation and associated international cooperation including participation in related MEAs Signifi cant advances have been made in our has been signifi cantly strengthened through these knowledge of waterbird fl yways in West/Central projects. and Eastern Asia through surveys, monitoring and the fi rst satellite tracking research. Studies and plans con- e. New tools for capacity building: comprehensive multi-lingual “Flyway Training Kit7 cerning the water supplies needed to maintain or ” restore appropriate hydrological regimes, wetland was developed in collaboration with over 40 training ecosystem functions including support for biodi- institutions across the African-Eurasian region and versity (especially migratory waterbirds) as well implementation has started. as the needs of local communities have guided f. Raised awareness: signifi cantly increased local resource managers in taking appropriate through websites, publications, presentations by decisions. These efforts have been supported by all the wide range of stakeholders concerned with the development of GIS-based information man- the conservation of migratory waterbirds across agement at different scales. Improved sharing of

6. Throughout the document the term “African-Eurasian region” is intended as the area covered under the African Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA), covering 118 countries (www.unep-aewa.org).

7. UNEP GEF Wings over Wetlands “The fl yway approach to the conservation and wise use of waterbirds and wetlands: a Training Kit” (2009, in press.).

Page 10 Page 11 Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation

tives. For instance, through SCWP a new site The following short comparative table outlines the two UNEP GEF projects’ main features, implementation 4. INTERNATIONAL ENABLING network has been established in West/Central status and key achievements. ENVIRONMENT Asia under the CMS MoU on the Siberian Crane which could lead the way towards the develop- ment of a wider waterbird site network for the The role of GEF-funded projects and most recent . This progress is also PrOJeCT geF Ia regIONaL SCOPe geF BUDgeT (US$) STaTUS eXeCUTINg deliberations by relevant MEAs CO-FINaNCINg ParTNerS These GEF-funded initiatives have provided an The “Siberian Crane UNEP 4 countries 10,350,000 Ongoing; UNEP/CMS, invaluable opportunity to demonstrate the in- Wetland” Project (12,358,000) Phase I International novative “fl yway conservation approach”. Both (GEF ID 1097) Complet- Crane Foundation ed; Phase II (ICF) UNEP GEF Flyways Projects have played a crucial Closing in role in strengthening the relevant international 2009. MEAs and strategic partnerships under whose PIR rating umbrella they are implemented. The achieve- 2008: “S” ments and issues raised through both projects Objective: to secure the ecological integrity of a network of globally important wetlands that are of critical importance for migra- are stimulating increased political and scientifi c tory waterbirds and other wetland biodiversity, using the globally threatened Siberian Crane as a fl agship species. The project discussions on the fl yway approach at the local, focuses on the conservation of the international network of wetlands upon which the Siberian Crane depends throughout its national, regional and global levels. migration cycle, together with a wide range of other wetland biodiversity. As of September 2009, twelve of these wetlands are Ramsar sites and nominations for four more are in preparation. As a result, the role of relevant MEAs (i.e. Area: fl yways used by populations of Siberian Cranes in Western/ and in East Asia targeting16 key wetland sites lo- AEWA, Ramsar, CMS etc.) focusing on fl y- cated in China, , and Russia. way conservation has also been signifi cantly

Key Achievements: (a) measures for conservation of key yway wetlands in place, including: legal protection, management strengthened in recent years. This impact of plans, stakeholder participation mechanisms, monitoring programs for waterbirds, water, and vegetation, targeted research GEF support is demonstrated by increased MEA aimed at addressing key threats, assessment of water needs to maintain key sites and provision of environmental fl ows in regional membership, increased delivery of implementa- water plans, increased professional capacity, public awareness and education programs, and alternative livelihoods projects; (b) tion priorities with relation to the fl yway ap- national-level measures for conservation of fl yway wetlands and migratory waterbirds in place in all four countries, with well developed fl yway monitoring within Kazakhstan, eastern China and eastern Russia; and (c) international arrangements for proach, and increasingly active participation of yway network conservation established under the framework of CMS and the EAAFP and strengthened capacity for coordination member countries in fl yway conservation initia- of fl yway conservation programmes. © Crawford Prentice (Banding Siberian Crane chick) © Crawford

The “African-Eur- UNEP 18 countries (and the 118 6,350,000 Ongoing UNOPS, Wetlands asian Flyways” UNEP/AEWA Range States) (6,765,000) Closing in International, Bird- Project (GEF ID 2010 Life International, 1258) PIR Rating UNEP/AEWA, Ram- 2008: “S” sar Convention on Wetlands

Expected Outcomes: enhanced conservation of migratory waterbirds and their critical sites in the African-Eurasian fl yways. Activities will be strategic and catalytic in nature addressing the fl yway-scale causes of site degradation and related species decline

Area: Activities will benefi t all 118 countries in the AEWA range (African Eurasian Waterbird Agreement). Demonstration projects are implemented in 12 countries. Sub-regional coordination activities are active in 6 countries.

Key Achievements: (1) The network of sites of critical importance to migratory waterbirds will be identifi ed and existing data / information resources improved and linked to create an innovative “Critical Site Network tool” (CSN) for yway planning and management in all 118 AEWA range states. (2) The fi rst multi-lingual Flyway Training Programme developed and tailored to four sub-regions, providing the basis for individual and institutional capacity development. (3) stakeholder communications improved, enhancing coordination and cooperation in the fl yways between and within governments, research institutions and NGOs, and (4) best practice management showcased at demonstration projects in 12 countries, illustrating approaches and techniques for how to implement an array of wetland management activities in diff erent environmental and social contexts. These include: participatory management planning, ecotourism, education and awareness, control of invasive/alien species, waterbird monitoring and research, and capacity building.. © Gábor Simay (Black-winged Stilt) Redshank) © Gábor Simay (Common

Page 12 Page 13 Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation reflected in the first publication by the CMS on • The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar CoP 10 – South Korea, this approach. These perceptions made it difficult major global flyways8, offering an insight on fly- November 2008) to support the necessary regional-level manage- way involvement worldwide, the recently concluded o Resolution X.22 Promoting international cooperation for the conserva- ment, activities and advisory inputs to address CMS MoU on Birds of Prey and the CMS COP9 tion of waterbird flyways: (http://www.ramsar.org/res/key_res_x_22_e. international concerns that do not always fully resolution 9.2 on the formation of a specific inter- pdf) coincide with single country needs. national “working group” on flyways. 5. MAIN LESSONS LEARNED From a technical perspective, the GEF has histori- The two projects have also significantly supported cally not placed much emphasis on species-targeted enhanced national implementation capacity for conservation projects, but has rather focused on international cooperation of waterbird flyway con- projects with an integrated ecosystem manage- Some important lessons are emerging from the servation commitments, notably under the Ram- ment approach. The latter approach however posed first GEF-funded flyway projects implemented to sar Convention’s guidelines on International Coop- particular challenges to the design of projects on date, providing a basis for the design of new GEF eration, adopted in 1999 (COP7, Resolution VII.19 Zhalong) at survey (Aerial Feng Wen Wang © migratory species, which straddle a wide range of initiatives. These lessons are summarised below, Guidelines for international cooperation under the biogeographic zones, habitats and field contexts. grouped under two main categories: (1) issues Ramsar Convention: http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/ specifically related to the technical design and res/key_res_vii.19e.pdf). Notwithstanding the above constraints, both fly- implementation of projects on flyways and migra- way projects under review have proven that it is tory species, and (2) issues that may also be ap- Additionally, through support of the GEF-projects, possible to gain the full support and commitment plicable to most other multi-country projects. various new wetlands have been identified, docu- of multiple governments and local stakeholder mented and formally designated on the List of groups alike. This support was mainly achieved 5.1 Technical design and implementation of Wetlands of International Importance of the Ram- through partnership building and awareness rais- projects on flyways and migratory species sar Convention. Examples include all four SCWP ing, emphasising the regional-scale inter-linkages sites in Kazakhstan9, and the first trans-bound- between (wetland) sites and their key wildlife, 5.1.1. Barriers to developing multi-national flyway ary Ramsar Site ever nominated in Africa, the their common management issues, and the conservation initiatives must be removed, and “Seloum-Niumi Complex” located at the border shared interests found with stakeholders (such as incentives created between Senegal and the Gambia (through the on water needs). At the government level, these

WOW Project). projects also created a somewhat competitive New and complex technical approaches were con- environment in terms of countries’ commitments ceptualised for both projects under review, always Member countries of all concerned MEAs have under an MEA (e.g., in terms of establishing more involving an important and very broad consulta- recently formally underscored the importance of Ramsar sites). The support and guidance provided tive process. Much of this was enabled through consolidating and expanding flyway-level conser- by these GEF projects on species (e.g., the Si- the financial support available through GEF Project vation efforts for migratory birds and the habitats berian Crane), and site and flyway management Preparation (PDF-B) funds for national and region- they depend upon. Recent MEA deliberations are under these MEAs, has also greatly assisted in al stakeholder consultations, which are now more to a large extent the direct result of the increased mobilising the right level of attention by central limited under the current funding rules of the GEF. level of awareness and positive outcomes of the and local governments. The NGOs involved as Executing Agencies already first flyway-level projects being implemented by had significant relevant prior experience in multi- Nemunas River Delta) © Saulius Svazas (Field work several partners, with GEF support. Some key These species-targeted projects (or groups of spe- country programmes on migratory birds. However deliberations resulted from the following MEA or or multi-country projects such as these flyways cies such as migratory waterbirds) have in effect the multi-level administrative complexity to the international agreements’ conventions (text in projects. provided a clear and tangible common subject for GEF and UN Implementing Agencies, with specific Annexes)10: discussions and action to protect species, as well project design and implementation frameworks, Unsurprisingly, based on their experience with as the habitats and water resources which they • The African Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA MoP 4 – Madagas- added quite a significant, new and sometimes too other projects during GEF 4, the recipient coun- depend upon. Cross-country learning approaches car, September 2008) inflexible set of requirements. This complexity tries prefer to use their allocations towards priori- and dialogue supported by the two GEF projects entailed even longer project development periods • The Convention of Migratory Species (CMS CoP 9 – Italy, December ties within the country. Countries have therefore have further strengthened the understanding and than for normal GEF projects of equivalent size11. 2008) often hesitated to join multi-country GEF projects, action on regional flyways and as such generated Also the Resource Allocation Framework (RAF) ap- raising concerns about the overheads and costs more global environmental benefits, than if this o CMS/Resolution 9.2 on Priorities for CMS Agreements (see point on proach followed under GEF 4 for biodiversity proj- waterbirds flyways): (http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_Pre_ for the regional or global component activities, would have been conducted in a single-country ects presented an obstacle to developing regional final_res_rec_en.htm) largely based on doubts regarding the benefits of environment.

8. “A Bird’s Eye View on Flyways” (2009), A brief tour by the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory species of Wild Animals 11. This was also the case with the UNDP/GEF “Migratory Soaring Birds” project: despite the EAs prior experience with GEF projects. UNEP / CMS secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 68 pages.

9. One of these sites (Naurzum) was also listed as part of the new World Heritage Site Saryaka - Steppe and Lakes of Northern Kazakhstan in July 2008.

10. Some of these deliberations were also largely based on declarations developed at important international conferences on migratory birds, such as i.e. the Odessa declaration (1996) and the Edinburgh Declaration (2004).

Page 14 Page 15 Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation

The above issues have significant operational explicitly linked to other local-level interventions gional and national levels, and ultimately support- implications for GEF 5, and should be addressed in other parts of the flyway, resulting in a higher ing improved site-level conservation action. by providing a more workable mechanism for the cumulative impact. development of regional conservation initiatives • These projects should design and deliver inno- on migratory species (and flyways). The regional-level approach was largely tested vative and effective tools applicable at the flyway in the WOW project, where regional-level activi- level (such as e.g., the common flyway training Recommendations: ties received a substantial share of the budget platforms and spatial mapping/conservation plan- (though less than local demonstration projects). ning tool developed in WOW for the African-Eurasian A set of measures should be put in place to re- In itself, facilitating multi-national teams to inter- region). move barriers and provide incentives for countries act and work together along flyways is proving an • These new tools should be generated through to work together and join resources in addressing important basis for generating and strengthening interactive team work at the global and/or region- trans-boundary and multi-national conservation the international networks of conservation practi- al level, with contributions from multi-national and issues. These measures may, for example, entail: Haixiang (Flying Siberian Cranes) © Zhou tioners that are essential to support flyway level multidisciplinary teams. conservation efforts. Good examples arise from • The development of a new GEF Biodiversity multi-national collaborative work on common is- • The important link with site-based activities “Programme” on migratory species and flyways sues (e.g., the development of the “Flyways Train- should not, however, be lost in this approach (es- within the GEF Biodiversity Focal Area. This step ing Kit” in the UNEP GEF WOW project, involving pecially for critical sites). It can be maintained by would entail a specific funding envelope to cover over 40 training institutions across the African ensuring that all new tools produced are effective- regional or global programme costs, outside the Eurasian region, or the adoption of common water ly tested through pilot projects within participating RAF country allocations for specific national ac- needs and wetland hydrology studies under the countries, including e.g., through expanding the tivities. This approach would (a) provide an addi- SCWP). In this context, the link to site-level action network of critical sites along the flyway, as well tional source of funds and a sound programmatic appears to be more effectively provided by the as ensuring that the tools are demand-driven. framework for this type of complex multi-national executing partners’ own networks, that will any- projects, and (b) have the specific aim of encour- way be directly benefitting from the GEF projects’ 5.1.3. Develop well inter-connected flyway con- aging, simplifying and fast-tracking the review and regional-level outputs (see also the related section servation activities at the site and national levels approval processes for these GEF interventions. 5.1.3). • Species (or groups of species) targeted conser- The two projects are rather different in their scope vation programmes can be effective and should be Recommendations: and emphasis, with the African-Eurasian Flyways promoted, as long as they are designed to ad- Project covering a wider range of countries but dress the underlying economic and environmental New GEF flyway initatives should support global with a stronger focus on developing regional tools issues, as well as to focus on the shared interests and regional/multi-country types of projects, that with broad applicability. The Siberian Crane Wet- and concerns of stakeholder groups. provide the added value of linking work at sub-re- land Project covered four countries along two

• A simplification and reduction of requirements in terms of country endorsements, co-financing commitments and supporting documentation that © Keskkonnaamet (Haapsalu-Noarootsi Bays, Estonia) (Haapsalu-Noarootsi © Keskkonnaamet would also facilitate the project design and ap- proval process. 5.1.2. Emphasise regional-level activities as they generate important and globally-relevant • Encourage relevant MEAs (i.e., CMS, AEWA and outputs Ramsar Convention) to endorse such projects through their Standing Commitees on behalf of, The key to the success of a flyway approach lies and with the mandate from, all signatory govern- in linking conservation work at local and nation- ments. This would significantly reduce the red al level with the international context. The most tape burden and fast-track the project develop- innovative and globally-relevant contributions ment phase. of flyway projects are emerging from regional- • Allowing more flexibility on the definition of level activities. The site-level and national-level budgets and workplans at the project design conservation interventions implemented in the and preparation stages (see also section 5.2.1), WOW demonstration projects or in the Siberian deferring detailed definition to the next stage, Crane Wetland Project were of a more tradi- when the actual project implementation team and tional nature, while still employing the latest Steering Committee are in place. approaches and technology. These activities were influenced by international priority setting, but their information sharing and demonstration potential may have been increased when more © Crawford Prentic (Maya River Chabda Resource Reserve) Prentic (Maya River Chabda Resource © Crawford

Page 16 Page 17 Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation

• These new initiatives will entail collaborative terms of policies and related budget allocations for work at an identifi ed multi-national network of wetland restoration, watershed rehabilitation and sites comprising for example: increased trans- ecological water demand considerations in water national collaboration on fi eld resource management. This was largely achieved research; harmonization of monitoring protocols when waterbird and fl yways conservation issues along major fl yways; joint application of fl yway were effectively combined with a dialogue on conservation planning and management tools common issues such as on water use or socio- (e.g. such as the WOW “Critical Sites Network” economic concerns affecting the sustainable use tool, combined International Waterbird Census / of the wetland sites as the basis for integrated Important Bird Areas monitoring protocols); joint wetland management. These policies and political implementation of fl yway training programmes support have provided the conditions for effective at the sub-regional/fl yway level; exchange pro- project implementation (e.g., the water manage- grammes aimed at improving and harmonis- ment plans for sites in northeast China) and the ing policies and conservation approaches; joint delivery of substantial co-fi nancing and associ- awareness and education campaigns, etc. Where ated fi nancing. In contrast, the Russian Ministry of this approach has been implemented in both proj- Agriculture’s decision to abandon management of ects under review, great success was achieved in all federal zakazniks (wildlife sanctuaries) under demonstrating the philosophy and practical appli- its control was a severe setback for project imple- cation of fl yway-level collaboration. mentation at project sites in West . Stron- ger support from the federal Ministry of Natural 5.1.4. Do not underestimate the importance of Resources could have signifi cantly enhanced im- fostering support at the national level by taking pacts of this project, for example through offi cial into account the common issues and interests of approval for the extension of fl yway site networks. stakeholder groups Recommendations: © Gábor Simay (Wood Sandpiper) © Gábor Simay (Wood © Saulius Svazas At the national level, the enabling environment for main fl yways and, in this respect, showed how ages between sites along the same fl yways, (b) project implementation is an important factor for At the project design stage, greater emphasis a more focused fl yway effort – still spanning focusing the selection of sites on the most criti- success. For example, within the framework of the should be placed on the following aspects: large distances but involving smaller numbers of cal ones along each fl yway, (c) defi ning the most Siberian Crane Wetland Project (SCWP) in China, countries and bird species – can achieve tangible appropriate type of conservation interventions at the central government has increasingly recog- • Identify and agree with key stakeholder outcomes that may be diffi cult for more complex each site, and (d) establishing new collaborative nized the importance of environmental protection groups on common concerns and interests, both and diverse projects involving larger numbers of approaches between sites at various levels (and and biodiversity conservation, manifested in in the fi eld of ecology/conservation, as well as countries. Both show the way forward with fl yway strenghthening existing ones) including scientifi c, related socio-economic issues through focusing projects, as complementary and valuable ap- conservation, communication, legal and policy proaches. level interventions. Therefore in some cases, the selection of fi eld sites for project intervention may The site-based demonstration projects repre- best be carried out at a later stage -during project sented an important component of both fl yway implementation- when the fl yway planning tools projects under review (particularly for the SCWP, can generate an optimal range of critical sites and where approximately 80% of budget was allocated management practices to be tested. for site or national level activities). These activi- ties provided good examples of site-based con- Recommendations: servation work at sites of global importance for migratory birds, and provided an opportunity for • Site and national level activities in the frame- testing new studies and management approaches work of fl yway-scale initiatives should focus as for adoption elsewhere along the fl yway (e.g. on far as possible on the development, testing and wetlands’ hydrology, community-participation ap- demonstration of widely applicable methodologies proaches, trans-bounday management of protect- and conservation tools. ed areas, etc.). They therefore certainly contrib- • These should be conceived as joint efforts uted to the conservation of globally important among several countries along a fl yway (closer habitats and species and the integrity of fl yways. to the experience of the Siberian Crane Wetland Project), and include the development and appli- In future projects, the evolving fl yway conser- cation phases of innovative fl yway-conservation vation approach will provide a more effective approaches and tools shared by several countries. framework for (a) creating improved inter-link- © Camillo Ponziani (Aden Lagoons, ) (Aden Lagoons, Ponziani © Camillo

Page 18 Page 19 Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation on key ecosystem services like water supply and entire basin; or wetlands in Songnen Plain of regulation, fodder and fisheries production, hunt- northeast China, essential staging areas at mid- ing resources, etc. Project objectives and out- point on the flyway that face the common threat comes should cater to these ‘common-grounds’ of water shortage due to diversion and drought. through an ecosystem approach and not just the Targeted research at appropriate sites can also species conservation aspects, which would be too inform about flyway level issues. For instance, col- hard to sell. lection and testing of dead birds at Yancheng – a key wintering area in Eastern China – could pro- • At project design, develop flexible implementa- vide valuable information about the levels of toxic tion arrangements that provide a suitable frame- chemicals being carried by migratory birds. work to enhance and foster national ownership and government support for projects. In such instances, careful consideration should be • During project implementation (especially at given to including targeted interventions address- the start up stage and following any changes in ing these sub-regional or site-based threats to the National Executing Agency (NEA) organization or flyway. The flyway dimension adds leverage to the staffing), emphasis should be placed on ensuring resolution of such issues. constant communication, information and out- reach efforts with all relevant government bodies, The SCWP also had significant positive results to improve understanding of project objectives from national level flyway monitoring, informa- and foster government support (ref. also lesson tion sharing, and exchange. This effort proved of 5.2.3). particular importance in large countries (such as China and Russia) that have long and very impor- • Greater flexibility in determining GEF national tant flyway segments encompassed within their executing agencies (e.g., including sub-regional own boundaries (which, for China, include both and/or local government bodies and NGOs) would breeding and non-breeding or wintering areas for © Tamer Yilmaz allow for the development of more effective part- numerous significant bird populations). There- nerships for project implementation. Within very fore flyway-level activities are needed also at the large countries, this would allow interventions to national level, especially in large countries with be more precisely targeted at specific regions, significant internal flyways, ideally in combination especially where a fair degree of autonomy exists with site activities. within regional government, and where ownership of the project may be stronger locally than at the Recommendations: central level. Interventions at critical flyway sites can have an • The involvement of NGOs as executing agen- international significance that goes well beyond cies (or partners) where possible would often their local setting. Such site and related national strengthen delivery, for example where the rel- Kenar Iran) Meeting Fereydoon Prentice (Trappers Assoc © Crawford activities therefore have an important role to play evant government agencies have limited staff in regional/global initiatives, helping to find work- national-level GEF projects developed under a resources or technical capacity, or where civil able solutions to common problems that can then cohesive programmatic framework, and inter- society involvement is an important prerequisite be scaled up by national governments. linked with one or more international-level proj- for the sustainability of project outcomes (for in- ects, (b) help provide the necessary incentive for stance in the case of community co-management • Such interventions could either be framed as participating countries (ref. Lesson 1) to engage of flyway sites). part of flyway level projects, or included as part in trans-boundary conservation efforts and (c) of national level projects, in the context of a provide an appropriate framework for a greater 5.1.5. The integrity of entire flyways can be flyway conservation approach. cumulative impact of GEF interventions on a threatened by factors affecting key sites requiring global scale. • If the latter course is followed, they should specific attention at national and local levels ideally be supported by a more synergistic ap- 5.1.6. Assign proper value (and budget) to com- proach to the programming of GEF interventions Experience during SCWP indicated that certain munication outputs that takes into account flyway-level thinking. critical sites or clusters of sites may face threats that jeopardize the integrity of the flyway itself. • In this respect, it would be desirable to adopt The presentation, dissemination and discussion Examples are Poyang Lake Basin, the main win- a new GEF “Programmatic Approach” on migra- of project results provided a significant boost to tering ground for cranes and many other migra- tory species and flyways within the GEF Biodi- most of the MEAs related to flyway conservation tory waterbirds in southern China, where a dam versity Focal Area. This change would (a) open (namely CMS and AEWA as well as the Ramsar proposal could radically alter the ecology of the up avenues for launching several local and/or Convention on Wetlands). However the project © Wetlands International ( in Azraq, Jordan) (Birdwatching © Wetlands International

Page 20 Page 21 Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation

dissemination of communication materials includ- 5.2.2. MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS: Conduct a reality-check based on real-life project implemen- ing website, publications, audio-visual products full “reality check” at project start-up tation examples, going beyond the sometimes too and press events as well as organising study tours diplomatic and generic wording adopted in project The institutional and political complexity of this to demonstration sites for groups of journalists. documentation and TORs. This exercise should new multi-stakeholder approach has required a allow agreement and timely implementation of significant initial phase of set-up and testing of • Therefore communications should always be any necessary adjustments to the management the institutional and implementation arrange- considered as an integral part of the main GEF set-up of the project, and lay the foundations for ments at the national and regional levels. The budget for projects of this type, and should not be an effective project “Inception Workshop”. This complex set-up agreed at project design stages left relying entirely on co-financing that may or important process aims at minimising the risk of often requires careful review and re-discussion at may not entirely materialise. misunderstandings and different interpretations project outset based on realities on the ground by implementing partners, while adequately pre-

paring the ground for smooth implementation and 5.2 Management issues that are also Recommendations: © Alexander Sorokin (Crane Celebration) © Alexander Sorokin maximising synergies among the wide range of relevant for most multi-country projects partners involved. • The GEF Implementing Agency (IA – UNEP in

5.2.1 PROJECT DESIGN: Mitigate the impact of the two projects under review) should be proac- 5.2.3. MONITORING & EVALUATION (M&E): Revise lengthy project design phases by revising project tive in supporting the critical role of the Executing Logical Framework and M&E plans at the project strategy and approach at project start-up Agencies (EA) and liaising closely with the wider outset partnership necessary for effective flyways con- The design and GEF approval phase took an ex- servation, especially during the first year of proj- The significant delay between project design 12 cessively long time for both projects (i.e., 3 to ect implementation. and actual implementation start-up results in 5 years from concept to start of implementation). logframes and M&E plans that inevitably need • The IA should convene a dedicated meeting As a result, some components needed substantial substantial revision at project outset and during at project outset (i.e., when the project team is re-design at the start of the project, to reflect the the project lifetime (see also sections 5.2.1 and recruited and in place) to clarify and illustrate changed context and situation. Some important 5.2.2). Identifying appropriate and SMART indica- institutional and implementation arrangements, co-financing and promising partnership opportuni- tors for the outcomes of such large and complex lines of reporting, and roles and responsibilities of ties were lost, whilst the devaluation of the dollar projects was also extremely complicated, and all parties. At this stage the IA should be working significantly impacted the overall project budget. sometimes required innovative approaches. The closely with the international EA and all project Even with a simpler and faster design and ap- complex structure of flyway projects requires a partners in the review and clarification of the proj- proval phase (see section 5.1.1 above), project streamlined approach to logframe design and ect implementation set-up, of the complex mana- development is likely to be relatively lengthy, so indicators. Project documents included extremely gerial, administrative and reporting requirements an initial review of project design needs to be built elaborate logframes that attempted to cover for GEF projects. The team should conduct a in. everything, and in doing so became unusable.

Recommendations:

© Gábor Simay (Bittern) The timely review and update of project logical frameworks and structure at project outset should resources allocated to communication and out- become a mandatory task for the project manage- reach efforts - to develop and cover most critical ment team13, and: elements of a communication strategy - were in most cases underestimated at project design. • The review should be implemented not later than six months from the moment the project Recommendations: management team is in place.

The importance of allocating sufficient resources • Funding for external facilitation should be allo- for communications in projects of this nature (to cated for this process as part of the budget. reach audiences including multi-country stake- • The team should look at and review the baselines, holders and donors) cannot be overemphasised. indicators, and targets in view of the evolved situa- © Gábor Simay (Whitefronts) This emphasis should include: tion, and modify workplans and budgets accordingly. 12. the UNDP GEF “Migratory Soaring Birds” project shared the same experience. • Hiring experienced communications staff to • The revised logframe, workplan and budgets work closely with the project management and should be endorsed by the Steering I and adopted 13. the Project Management Team is here intended as the staff hired by the Executing Agency to manage the project. This team is therefore technical teams, so as to facilitate the establish- thereafter for project management and reporting. normally put in place only upon actual project start, when all preparations are completed and contracts between the GEF Implementing Agency (UNEP in this case) and the Executing Agencies (i.e. International Crane Foundation for the SCWP and UNOPS for WOW) are in place ment and maintenance of links with mass media through activities such as the development and

Page 22 Page 23 Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation

agreement with UNEP, to address the lack of specifi c implementation guidelines. This manual was progressively updated and elaborated during the course of project implementation, and was used for other UNEP/GEF projects.

Language barriers (including the understand- ing of technical terms and related jargon) can also be signifi cant in multinational projects, even though there are regional tendencies towards one or two major languages.

Recommendations:

The capacity of Executing Partners can and should be gradually improved through experience (as happened in both fl yways projects under review), and:

• This factor should be taken into account in the design stages, and subsequently allowing a slow and careful start-up period, including a manda- tory “inception phase” of at least 6 months for © Wu (Red Crowned Cranes) © Wu (Red Crowned multi-country projects.

© Yuri Markin (Kunovat wetlands) © Yuri Markin (Kunovat © Tamer Yilmaz • This approach should be clearly refl ected in the project workplan and through budget allocations Recommendations: Projects should include suffi cient resources in that are suffi cient to enable solid management the design phase and be prepared to support the The development of a really workable, stream- systems within the Executing Agencies (it is sug- strengthening of capacity to implement large gested to raise the current 10% cap on EA man- lined logframe that tracks the main outcomes is UN-GEF projects in partner organisations. an important point for project design and M&E. agement fees in GEF project budgets to at least Though project preparation involves capacity as- 15%). © Saulius Svazas • A mandatory and well-costed initial revision sessments, the complexity of administrative and of the M&E plan should also be enshrined in the • Suffi cient fi nancial resources for staff time on management procedures with such multi-country purely managerial, administrative and reporting project document. This revision should focus on GEF-funded UN projects often challenges EAs as re-assessing the current baselines, actualising tasks must be allocated by the Executing Agency projects start. As a consequence, the additional and its implementing partners. indicators, and re-defi ning realistic targets to ac- management capacity and staff time (as opposed count for the changed situation and time elapsed to technical tasks) required for the successful • It should not be assumed that implementation between project conceptualization and design / management of such UN projects is often under- will proceed smoothly and at full speed, as of day approval. estimated. The 10% project management fee one. In such complex, partnership projects, an • Incorporate specifi c resources for M&E consultants/ available to Eas under current GEF rules is largely adequate and fl exible inception phase should facilitators in the project budget, instead of leav- inadequate to support good management systems create the right conditions to ensure smooth ing this important task to the project management and practices. Such under-resourcing of partners’ project start-up. management capacity may also have signifi cant teams. • At project outset, the IA should dedicate par- negative effects on the implementation of project ticular attention and suffi cient resources to technical tasks. For example, the Executing Agency 5.2.4. Ensure that there are suffi cient fi nancial providing and explaining simple and clear opera- for the Siberian Crane Wetland Project (SCWP) and human resources for adequate project tional guidelines, and to establishing open developed a Project Operations Manual14 in management in partner organisations communication mechanisms with all the execut- ing partners, including development of an effi - 14. And in an adapted form in the UNDP/GEF “Migratory Soaring Birds” project cient Steering Committee. © Crawford Prentice (Fereydoon Kenar, Iran) Prentice (Fereydoon © Crawford

Page 24 Page 25 Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation

• Operational guidelines (i.e., such as the project Executing Agencies. However, in some cases these the issue that much of the available literature on Operations Manual developed within the SCWP) were not accepted by countries due to issues with advanced conservation subjects (e.g., guidelines should be made available by the GEF Implementing autonomy, and this led to sometimes suboptimal produced by MEAs and international NGOs) is only Agencies at the outset of new projects, simplified and staff capacity, requiring various management available in a few major languages. International fine tuned to the conditions and needs of each corrections in the national project coordination projects can make a significant contribution by particular project and supported by a basic orien- units later through the project. However, in the supporting the translation of such materials into tation/training workshop. case of WOW, the direct management functions additional languages. This support would certainly assigned to UNOPS staff may have had higher be welcomed by the related MEAs. • Other materials (e.g., templates and examples value if (a) combined with sufficient resources for of project management documents from other project management in the lead NGOs and (b) 5.2.5. Set-up an active and balanced Steering projects) should be made available in appropriate more explicitly combined with capacity-building on Committee early on languages via a resources website. management aspects, so as to facilitate project Involvement of a wide range of stakeholders, with • Quality-based selection criteria should be ap- implementation and maximise the immediate and sometimes differing agendas and priorities, adds plied in choosing the lead Executing Agencies. long-term benefits for partners involved. Both ap- significantly to the complexity of project imple- The Executing Agency teams (at every level) must proaches required a significant lead-time at proj- mentation. A well-balanced and closely engaged include staff with demonstrated project manage- ect outset to set adequate management arrange- Steering Committee (SC) is essential for such ment skills and experience. Assuming that this ments in place, and this need should be taken into multi-stakeholder and multi-donor inititives. De- is the case may often be wrong and can lead to consideration during project design. pending on circumstances, it may also be use- significant management problems during imple- • There is a general expectation that international ful to have sub-governance structures such as mentation. In the African-Eurasian Flyways projects will be undertaken in one major language a smaller Executive Committee to support more Project (WOW) this issue was addressed by in- (English in the case of the two projects under rapid decision-making or a Technical Review Panel volving UNOPS as the Executing Agency, with UN review). However, allowance should be made for to conduct peer /technical review of plans and es- staff placed within the lead NGO. Although expen- the two-way translation of materials as part of sential outputs. sive and complex (i.e., requiring significant initial normal project operations. This adjustment is

clarification of the respective TORs and mandates Lake Burdur) at Education © Lale Aktay (Environmental particularly necessary in the African-Eurasian and Recommendations: between the EA and executing partners), this ap- Pacific regions (where language diversity is high), proach provided important direct management sup- or where national contacts need to work with local • The GEF Implementing Agency (IA) should take port and coordination functions for the lead NGOs colleagues associated with demonstration sites a proactive role and lead responsibility for facili- and for all the wide range of partners involved and other activities. This process means extra tating and overseeing the timely establishment of in technical delivery. For the Siberian Crane Wetland time and cost, especially where written documents a balanced Steering Committee within the first six Project (SCWP), quality-based staff selection require translation, which should be incorporated months of the project. criteria were discussed and agreed with National into project workplans and budgets. There is also • The critical choice of the Chairperson of the SC should be taken by consensus among all partners and facilitated by the GEF Implementing Agency, so as to ensure that the SC provides a neutral forum for discussion, where the views and expec- tations of all partners in the project may be heard and discussed openly and on a regular basis (with at least annual face-to-face meetings combined with periodic tele-conferences if required), in order to provide timely guidance and feedback to the project implementation team.

• While project management is not its job, the Steering Committee may need to be quite ‘hands- on’ in detecting and tracking problems, and pro- viding support and guidance in resolving them. Where logistics make this difficult, setting up smaller, subsidiary structures, such as an Execu- tive Committee or Technical Review Panel, may be a workable approach, but this must be handled carefully so as not to risk undermining the Steer- ing Committee’s overall governance functions. © Jonathan Barnard, BirdLife International (Hadejia-Nguru Wetlands) Barnard, BirdLife International © Jonathan © Tamer Yilmaz

Page 26 Page 27 Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation

Recommendations: and co-funding from multiple sources into one activity) should be avoided altogether or at the • A more comprehensive and realistic estimate of very least avoided for core activities that are actual management costs should be accepted by considered critical for project success. the GEF, taking into account the complex needs of multi-level and multi-country initiatives, and pos- • If possible, assign co-financing to activities that sible currency fluctuations. do not impact on critical tasks, and hence do not seriously jeopardise the overall chances of success • Prior consultation with the relevant Human of the project, as a strategy to minimise negative Resources teams of the Executing Agency is es- effects, should pledged funds not materialise. sential to allow a better estimation of actual staff costs.

• Annual inflationary increases of management costs should be enshrined in the budgeting pro- cess and some flexibility allowed to reflect chang- es in management costs through annual budget revisions.

5.2.8. During project design, mitigate the potential impact of failing to secure anticipated co-financing

© Marko Valker (Southern Dunlin) Valker (Southern © Marko In some cases, essential core activities were neg- • The establishment of a simple e-mail forum for • Allowing more generous estimates for procure- atively affected throughout the project duration by individual projects is a low cost mechanism for ment, staffing and contracting, and/or the adop- the uncertainty of co-financing, or by co-funding facilitating discussion and sharing of information tion of a “contingency” budget line to provide a commitments that did not materialise within the between SC members and partners, as well as fa- buffer for currency fluctuations. project life span. cilitating informed decision-making among Steer- • Systematically allowing for annual increases of ing Commitees. Recommendations: project running costs over the project period, or • Complex and inter-mixed financing arrangement 5.2.6. Mitigate the impact of currency fluctuations • Striving towards a currency balance between ratios for specific activities (combining GEF funds at project design stage GEF funds (provided in USD) and cash co-financ-

ing in other major currencies (e.g., the Euro), so © Jim Harris (Student camp Xianghai National Nature Reserve) The value of the US dollar can fluctuate signifi- as to balance the risk of currency fluctuation. cantly (in some cases up to 40%) between design and start-up phases. This issue applies to most 5.2.7. Envisage realistic overall project manage- large development projects of this nature, which ment costs may be affected to a variable degree. In the case of the WOW project, currency fluctuations had a Actual overall project management costs appear negative impact and required significant revisions to be systematically underestimated at project of budgets and workplans throughout project design stage. This tendency has a serious nega- implementation. Therefore, where possible, ad- tive impact on the smooth implementation of equate mitigation measures should be put in place projects: apparent savings on management costs at the project design stage. that are set at project design can later negatively affect the quality and timeliness of delivery of the Recommendations: entire project intervention. In particular, regional or multi-country projects such as the ones un- A pragmatic and multi-pronged approach is rec- der review have significantly greater manage- ommended, which may entail: ment costs than do less complex projects. This • Adopting a basket of currencies as a basis for specific characteristic of multi-coutry initiatives budget estimations, or defining the project budget was not adequately accounted for at the project on the basis of the currency in which most project design stage. See also section 5.2.4 on ensuring expenditure is likely to be incurred. adequate management budget within the project Executing Agencies. © Crawford Prentice (Chabda, Yakutia) © Crawford

Page 28 Page 29 Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation

6. THE COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE OF UNEP

UNEP is the GEF Implementing Agency with direct involvement in two out of three15 major Flyways projects implemented so far with GEF support, as discussed in this paper. The African-Eurasian Flyways Project is by far the most complex fl yway conservation initiative funded by GEF to date, and it is being successfully implemented (according to the independent MTE report). In addition:

• Most relevant MEAs supporting fl yway conser- vation lie within the UNEP family (e.g., CMS and AEWA) and/or work closely with UNEP on interna- tional conservation issues (i.e., Ramsar Conven- tion).

• The UNEP/WCMC is providing critical underlying IT/GIS elements of fl yway-level initiatives, and it is also part of the UNEP family. © Jonathan Barnard, BirdLife International (Hadejia-Nguru Wetlands) Barnard, BirdLife International © Jonathan • Technical capacity, and multi-stakeholder part- nerships have now been established with key © Tőgye János (Biharugra Fishponds) János © Tőgye fl yway conservation partners, MEAs, UN agencies © bigstockphoto.com and international conservation NGOs active at a • Consolidating achievements in the African- goals through emerging and shared themes such global level, as well as with national governments Eurasian region (through the AEWA and the CMS as climate change adaptation and securing the and local/regional NGOs. Raptor MoU), and in regions outside AEWA such fl ow of environmental services to sustain wetland • Important lessons were learned during design as Central and East Asia (through the Central ecosystem functions and to support local devel- and implementation stages in GEF 4, and are be- Asian Flyway initiative and possibly the West/ opment needs. ing internalised by UNEP GEF and partners in view Prentice © Crawford Central Asian Site Network for Siberian Cranes • Assisting members of the East Asian – Austral- of future interventions. and other Waterbirds – under the CMS MoU on the Siberian Crane). asian Flyway Partnership (EAAFP) to implement collaborative regional projects that will contribute The combination of the above elements provides a • Transferring approaches, know-how and new towards realizing the goals of the fl yway partner- sound platform for the development of new fl yway scientifi c and training tools on fl yway conserva- ship; diverse concepts already formulated include, conservation initatives by the UNEP GEF team and tion from the African-Eurasian and Siberian Crane for example, (1) support for a network of wetland partners in view of GEF5. Wetland Projects (and, at a later stage, the Mi- sites engaged in sustaining livelihoods linked to gratory Soaring Birds project) into other regions waterbird conservation, (2) a similar network ap- 7. OUTLINE OF POSSIBLE NEW GEF including (a) the East Asian – Australasian and proach involving multiple sites along the fl yway INITIATIVES Pacifi c Region, (b) the Central Asian Region, (c) using the cranes as fl agships for environmental the Americas16, and (d) the Antarctic Region. education programmes (these two concepts might well be linked), and (3) assessment of climate Consultation on possible new GEF initiatives is • Developing a new regional (or multi-country) change risks for a set of sites along the fl yway, ongoing with a wide range of partners, some of project in the transboundary region of NE China, with development of adaptation responses. See which were invited to contribute to this paper. SE Russia and NE , as a follow-up to the http://www.eaafl yway.net/documents/East-Asian- This consultation is already generating some initial Siberian Crane Wetland project, emphasizing the project-concepts.pdf for a compiled package of concepts for new fl yway conservation projects, at benefi ts of achieving fl yway wetland conservation the regional and global level. These projects may include: 15. The third: the “Migratory Soaring Birds” project is implemented through UNDP.

(a) Consolidating achievements in the same 16. The interest for the new WOW fl yway conservation tools within these other regions is already high. For example the WOW Critical Site Network Tool is being developed with an engine that would allow application in each of the other fl yways mentioned. regions, and sharing experience and new fl yway conservation tools with other regions. These new projects may focus on: © Lale Aktay (Environment Education) © Lale Aktay (Environment

Page 30 Page 31 Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation

EAAFP project concepts. These initiatives would address the direct and indirect drivers that are causing the degradation ANNEX I: LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS • Assisting international NGOs to nurture a portfolio of migratory bird populations, their habitats, and of new flyway initiatives anchored to AEWA’s Stra- key ecosystem services, with a strong focus on tegic Plan and International Implementation Tasks resolving immediate and long term impacts of wa- The drafting of this issue paper has been a highly participatory process, in which many people have been (IIT). ter scarcity through environmental flow provision engaged. It has brought together some of the leading conservation agencies, experts and practitioners in and promoting more sustainable use of water and the field of bird conservation to discuss experiences and lessons from ongoing flyway-themed initiatives (b) Developing new Global Initiatives under the natural resources. currently being implemented by UNEP. umbrella of the CMS, with a possible focus on:

• The economic value of migratory birds (particu- • Facilitating the gradual integration, sharing of The following table provides contact details of all authors and contributors to this document. experiences and tools, and harmonisation of ap- larly waterbirds) in the framework of sustainable proaches among all different regions and partners uses including regulated hunting. Name TITLE Organization E-mail involved in flyway conservation at a global scale, • Assessment of hunting legislation and practices allowing for specific and individual adaptations to in Western/Central Asia and implementation of a regional needs. regional education and awareness programme on Bert Lenten Executive Secretary UNEP/AEWA [email protected] • Supporting the new CMS “Flyway Working Group” hunting in the Central Asian Flyway. Camillo Ponziani Operations Manager - UNEP/GEF African- UNOPS [email protected] and feeding it with experience from ongoing suc- • Improving global monitoring and analytical ca- Eurasian Flyways Project or “WOW” cessful flyways projects. The FWG will be an impor- pacity on migratory birds’ seasonal movements, Claire Mirande Project Director – UNEP/GEF Siberian Crane International Crane [email protected] tant forum to assist the process. It will scientifically as indicators of climate change, as well as to im- Wetland Project Foundation underpin and help to rationalise and streamline the prove our level of preparedness and active early Crawford Prentice International Technical Advisor – UNEP/GEF International Crane [email protected] Siberian Crane Wetland Project Foundation framework for all existing and planned flyway con- warning systems for major outbreaks of diseases Douglas Hykle Senior CMS Advisor UNEP CMS [email protected] servation agreements and initiatives worldwide. such as avian influenza (established links with FAO) • Enhancing awareness raising, training and Edoardo Zandri Task Manager Biodiversity & Natural UNEP GEF [email protected] Resources education efforts to support flyway conservation as • Re-assessing identified networks of Critical Sites outlined in the CMS Flyways brochure – supporting for migratory species in the light of predicted Florian Keil Information Officer UNEP/AEWA [email protected] the wider implementation of the BirdLife Interna- climate change impacts, and recommending how Francisco Rilla Information and Capacity Building Officer UNEP CMS [email protected] tional Global Flyways Programme and continued to strengthen these networks in the context of delivery and application of Wetland International’s national climate change adaptation plans. Gerard Boere Senior Advisor to UNEP/CMS, Chairman of Independent [email protected] “Flyway Training Kits” (initiated through the UNEP/ the WOW Project Steering Committee GEF African-Eurasian Flyways project). James Harris Vice President International Crane [email protected] Foundation • Expanding and consolidating the broad Jonathan Barnard Senior Programme Manager BirdLife International [email protected] multi-stakeholder partnerships that were successful- ly developed prior to and during both flyways proj- Leon Bennun Director of Science, Policy and Information BirdLife International [email protected] ects under review, and entailing several MEAs and International Partnerships (i.e. the EAAFP) teaming Max Zieren Task Manager and Regional Coordinator UNEP GEF [email protected] Asia Pacific up with UN agencies, International NGOs as well as National Governments, creating an unusually broad Nick Davidson Deputy Secretary General Secretariat of the [email protected] Ramsar Convention on and very effective constituency. Wetlands Sergey Dereliev Technical Officer UNEP/AEWA [email protected] Linkages with other UNEP/GEF focal areas and themes: Taej Mundkur Flyway Programme Manager Wetlands International [email protected]

Significant potential links exist or are emerging, with several other focal areas and themes of GEF Tim Dodman Associate Expert Wetlands International [email protected] and UNEP interventions. These themes include, but may not be limited to Ecosystem Services, UN- Umberto Gallo-Orsi WOW Project Coordinator Wetlands International [email protected] REDD, LULUCF, Climate Change and Adaptation: Ward Hagemejer Head of Programme and Strategy - Biodiver- Wetlands International [email protected] sity and Ecological Networks • Sustaining ecosystem services during conditions of water scarcity and climate change in a regional or transboundary context, as a basis for increasing the resilience of local communities and wildlife, including migratory birds, to water stress and climate change © Gábor Simay (Eiders)

Page 32 Page 33 Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation

CMS 2007. Conservation Plan for the Western, Central and Eastern Populations of the Siberian Crane 2007-2010. ANNEX II: RELEVANT BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS http://www.cms.int/species/siberian_crane/sib_cnspln.htm

Davidson, N., Bryant, D. & Boere, G.C. 1999. Conservation uses of ringing data: flyway networks for waterbirds. Ringing and Migration (1999) 19 (suppl.), S 83-94.

Prepared by: Gerard Boere, Tim Dodman and Crawford Prentice Davidson, N.C. & Stroud, D.A. 2006. African-Western Eurasian Flyways: current knowledge, population status and future challenges. Waterbirds around the world. Eds. G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK. pp. 63-73. Able, K.P. 1999. Gatherings of Angels. Migrating birds and their ecology. Cornell University Press. 193 pp. Delany, S., Scott, D.A., Dodman, T. & Stroud, D.A. (eds.). 2009. An atlas of wader populations in Africa and Western ACIA. 2004. Impacts of a Warming . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. . Wetlands International, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Alerstam, T. 1990. Bird Migration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK. 420 pp. Dodman, T. 1997. A Preliminary Waterbird Monitoring Strategy for Africa. Wetlands International Publication No.43. Wetlands International, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Asia-Pacific Migratory Waterbird Conservation Committee. 2001. Asia-Pacific Migratory Waterbird Conservation Strategy: 2001-2005. Wetlands International - Asia Pacific. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 67pp. Dodman, T. & Diagana, C.H. 2006. Conservation dilemmas for intra-African migratory waterbirds. In: Waterbirds around the world. Eds. G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, UK. pp. 218- Bamford, M., Watkins, D., Bancroft, W., Tischler, G. & Wahl, J. 2008. Migratory Shorebirds of the East Asian-Austral- 223. asian Flyway; Population Estimates and Internationally Important Sites. Wetlands International - Oceania. Canberra, Australia. Donald, P.F., Sanderson, F.J., Burfield, I.J., Bierman, S.M., Gregory, R.D. & Waliczky, Z. 2007. International Conser- vation Policy Delivers Benefits for Birds in Europe. Science 317: 810-813. Bennett, G. 2004. Integrating biodiversity conservation and sustainable use: lessons learned from ecological net- works. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK. Vi + 55 pp. Emerton, L. 2002. Community-Based Incentives For Nature Conservation. IUCN-Eastern Africa Regional Office, Nairobi & Economics Unit. Bennett, G.& de Wit, P. 2001. The development and application of ecological networks; a review of proposals, plans and programmes. Aid Environment, Amsterdam. 132 pp. FAO. 2007. Wild Birds and Avian Influenza: an introduction to applied field research and disease sampling tech- niques. Edited by: D. Whitworth, S.H. Newman, T. Mundkur and P. Harris. FAO Animal Production and Health BirdLife International 2003. Saving Asia’s Threatened Birds: A Guide for Government and Civil Society. Cambridge, Manual No.5. Rome. UK: BirdLife International Finlayson, C.M., Gitay, H., Bellio, M.G., van Dam, R.A. & Taylor, I. 2006. Climate variability and change and other BirdLife International 2004a. Important Bird Areas in Asia: key sites for conservation. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife pressures on wetlands and waterbirds: impacts and adaptation. Waterbirds around the world. Eds. G.C. Boere, International. BirdLife Conservation Series No.13. C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK. pp. 88-97.

BirdLife International 2004b. Tracking wanderers: the global distribution of albatrosses and petrels. Results from Gill, R,E., Tibbitts, T.L., Douglas, D.C., Handel, C.M., Mulcahy, D.M., Gottschalck, J.C., Warnock, N., McCaffery, B.J., the Global Procellariiform Tracking Workshop, 1-5 September 2003, Gordon’s Bay, South Africa. Cambridge, UK: Battley, P.F. & Piersma, T. 2008. Extreme endurance flights by landbirds crossing the Pacific Ocean: ecological cor- BirdLife International ridor rather than barrier? Proc. R. Soc. B, doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.1142, online publication.

Boere, G.C. & Rubec, C.D.A. 2002. Conservation Policies and programmes affecting birds. In: Norris and Pain (Ed’s): Gwinner, E. (ed.) 1990. Bird Migration, physiology and ecophysiology. Springer Verlag Berlin. 435 pp. Conserving Bird Biodiversity, general principles and their application; pp 246-270. Cambridge University Press. Hawkins, A. S. Hanson, R.C., Nelson, H.K. & Reeves, H.M. 1984. Flyways. Pioneering Waterfowl Management in Boere, G.C. & Taylor, D.R. 2004. Climate change, waterbird conservation and international treaties. Ibis 146 (sup- North America. USFWS pub. Dep. Of the Interior, Washington DC. pl.1): 111-119. Hobson, K.A. 2005. Stable isotopes and the determination of avian migratory connectivity and seasonal interactions. Boere, G.C. & Stroud, D.A. 2006. The flyway concept: what it is and it isn’t. In: Waterbirds around the world. Eds. Auk 122:1037-1048. G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, UK. pp. 40-47. Hötker, H., Lebedeva, E., Tomkovich, P.S., Gromadzka, J., Davidson, N.C., Evans, J., Stroud, D.A. & West, R.B. (eds). Boere, G.C., Galbraith, C.A. & Stroud, D.A. (eds). 2006. Waterbirds around the world. The Stationary Office, Edin- 1998. Migration and international conservation of waders. Research and conservation on North Asian, African and burgh, UK. 960 pp. European flyways. International Wader Studies 10. 500 pp.

Brainerd, S. 2007. European Charter on Hunting and Biodiversity. Bern Convention document T-PVS (2007) 7 revised, Kam, J. van de, Ens, B., Piersma, T. & Zwarts, L, 2004. Shorebirds. An illustrated behavioural ecology. KNNV Publishers, 29 November 2007, Strasbourg, 28 pp. Utrecht, The Netherlands 368 pages.

CAFF 2001. Arctic Flora and Fauna: Status and Conservation. Edita, Helsinki. 272 pp. Kanstrup, N. 2006. Sustainable harvest of waterbirds: a global review. In: Waterbirds around the world. Eds. G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK. pp. 98-106. CBD & Ramsar Secretariats. 2006. Guidelines for the rapid ecological assessment of biodiversity in inland water, coastal and marine areas. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada, CBD Technical Kirby, J.S., Stattersfield, A.J., Butchart, S.H.M., Evans, M.I., Grimmett, R.F.A., Jones, V.R., O’Sullivan, J., Tucker, Series no. 22 and the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention, Gland, Switzerland, Ramsar Technical Report no. 1. G.M. & Newton, I. 2008. Key conservation issues for migratory land- and waterbird species on the world’s major flyways. Bird Conserv. Internat. 18: S49-S73. Chan, S. 1999. Atlas of key sites for cranes in the North East Asian flyway. Wetlands International Japan, Tokyo, Japan. http://www.wetlands.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=3zc13fSk%2fWQ%3d&tabid=56 Langston, R.H.W. and J.D. Pullan. 2004. Effects of wind farms on birds. Nature and Environment Series no. 139; Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, France. CMS 1999. Conservation Measures for the Siberian Crane. CMS Technical Series Publication 1. UNEP/CMS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. Leech, D. 2007. The effect of climate change on birds. BTO. http://www.bto.org/research/advice/ecc/index.htm

Page 34 Page 35 Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation

Li, Z.W.D. & Mundkur, T. 2004. Numbers and distribution of waterbirds and wetlands in the Asia-Pacific region. Results Sanderson, F.J., Donald, P.F., Pain, D.J., Burfield, I.J. & van Bommel, F.P.J. 2006. Long-term population declines in of the Asian Waterbird Census: 1997-2001. Wetlands International, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 166 pp. Afro-Palearctic migrant birds. Biol. Conserv. 131:93–105.

Ly, O.K., Bishop, J.T., Moran, D. & Dansokho, M. 2006. Estimating the value of ecotourism in the Djoudj National Scott, D.A. 1998. Global Overview of the Conservation of Migratory Arctic Breeding Birds outside the Arctic. Wet- Bird Park in Senegal. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. lands International Publication No.45; CAFF Technical Report No.4. CAFF, Iceland. 132 pp.

Maclean, I.M.D., Rehfisch, M.M., Robinson, R.A. & Delany, S. 2008. The effects of climate change on migratory Scott, D.A. & Rose, P.M. 1996. Atlas of Populations in Africa and Western Eurasia. Wetlands International waterbirds within the African-Eurasian flyways. AEWA Technical Series No. 21. Bonn, Germany. Publication No.41, Wetlands International, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Meine, C.D. and Archibald, G.W (eds). 1996. The Cranes – Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN, Schmidt, P.R. 2006. North American flyway management: a century of experience in the United States. In: Water- Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 294 pp. birds around the world. Eds G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, UK. p. 60-62. Meltofte, H., Piersma, T., Boyd, H., McCaffery, B., Ganter, B., Golovnyuk, V.V., Graham, K., Gratto-Trevor, C.L., Morri- son, R.I.G., Nol, E., Rösner, H.-U., Schamel, D., Schekkerman, H., Soloviev, M.Y., Tomkovich, P.S., Tracy, D.M., Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2004. Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustain- Tulp, I. & Wennerberg, L. 2007. Effects of climate variation on the breeding ecology of arctic shorebirds. Meddelelser able Use of Biodiversity (CBD Guidelines) Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 21 pp. om Gronland Bioscience 59. Copenhagen, Danish Polar Center.48 pp. Straw, P. 2005. Status and Conservation of Shorebirds in the East Asian – Australasian Flyway; Proceedings of the Miyabayashi, Y., and Mundkur, T. 1999. Atlas of Key Sites for Anatidae in the East Asian Flyway. Wetlands International Australasian Shorebirds Conference 13-15 December 2003, Canberra, Australia. Wetlands International Global \ – Japan, Tokyo, and Wetlands International Asia – Pacific, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 148 pp. Series 18, International Wader Studies 17. Sydney, Australia. 197pp.

Moreau, R.E. 1972. The Palearctic-African Bird Migration System. Academic Press, London. Stroud, D.A., Boere, G.C., Galbraith, C.A. & Thompson, D. 2006a. Waterbird conservation in a new millennium – where from and where to? Waterbirds around the world. Eds. G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Statio- Moser, M., Prentice, C. & van Vessem, J. 1993. Waterfowl and Wetland Conservation in the 1990s – a global perspective. nery Office, Edinburgh, UK. Pp. 29-39. Proc. IWRB Symp., St Petersburg Beach, Florida, USA. IWRB Spec. Publ. No. 26, Slimbridge, UK. Sustainable Hunting Project 2007. Guidelines for Moving Towards Sustainable Hunting of Migratory Birds in the Mundkur, T. 2006. Successes and challenges of promoting conservation of migratory waterbirds and wetlands in Mediterranean Countries of North Africa and the Middle East. Sustainable Hunting Project, BirdLife International, the Asia-Pacific region: nine years of a regional strategy. Waterbirds around the world. Eds. G.C. Boere, C.A. Gal- Cambridge, UK. braith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK. pp. 81-87. Available at http://www.jncc.gov.uk/PDF/ pub07_waterbirds_part2.2.5.pdf Sutherland, W.J., Newton, I. & Green, R.E. (eds). 2004. Bird Ecology and Conservation: A Handbook of Tech- niques. Techniques in Ecology and Conservation Series, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Natural History Museum 2007. Atlas of Bird Migration. The Natural History Museum, London. Underhill, L.G., Tree, A.J., Oschadleus, H.D. & Parker, V. 1999. Review of Ringing Recoveries of Waterbirds in Newton, I. 2003. The Speciation and Biogeography of Birds. Academic Press/Elsevier. London. 668 pp. Southern Africa. Avian demography Unit, University of Cape Town, South Africa. 119 pp.

Newton, I. 2004. Population limitation in migrants. Ibis 146: 197-226 UNEP/AEWA. 2008. Migratory Waterbirds and Climate Change: Effects within the African-Eurasian Flyways. UNEP/ AEWA, Bonn. Newton, I. 2008. The Migration Ecology of Birds. Academic Press/Elsevier, London. 976 pp. UNEP/AEWA 2004. Non-toxic shot: A path towards sustainable use of the waterbird resource. UNEP/AEWA Techni- O’Connell, M.J., Huiskes, A.H.L., Loonen, M.L., Madsen, J., Klaassen, M. & Rounsevell, M. 2006. Developing an inte- cal Series No. 3, Bonn, Germany. grated approach to understanding the effects of climate change and other environmental alterations at a flyway level. In: Waterbirds around the world. Eds. G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK. UNEP/CMS 2009. A Bird’s eye view on flyways. A brief tour by the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory pp. 385-397. Species of Wild Animals. UNEP/CMS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany.

Piersma, T. 1987. Hop, skip or jump? Constraints in migration of arctic waders by feeding, fattening and flight Veen, J., Yurlov, A.K., Delany, S.N., Mihantiev, A.I., Selivanova, M.A. & Boere, G.C. 2005. An Atlas of movements of speed. Limosa 60: 185-194. Southwest Siberian waterbirds. Wetlands International, Wageningen, The Netherlands. http://www.wetlands.org/ LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=fjmT2I7Hn14%3d&tabid=56 Piersma, T. 2006. Migration in the balance: tight ecological margins and the changing fortunes of shorebird popula- Wernham C.V., Toms M.P., Marchant J.H., Clark J.A., Siriwardena G.M. & Baillie S.R. (eds.) 2002. The Migration tions. Waterbirds around the world. Eds. G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, Atlas: movements of the birds of Britain and Ireland. Poyser, London. UK. pp. 74-80. http://www.jncc.gov.uk/PDF/pub07_waterbirds_part2.2.4.pdf Wetlands International 2006. Waterbird Population Estimates – Fourth Edition. Wetlands International, Wagenin- Piersma, T. & Lindstöm, A. 2004. Migrating shorebirds as integrative sentinels of global environmental change. Ibis gen, The Netherlands. http://www.wetlands.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=WIL4sin9T%2fY%3d&tabid=56 146 (Suppl.1), 61–69. Winden, J. van der, 2002. The odyssey of the Black Tern Chlidonias niger: migration ecology in Europe and Africa. Prentice, C., Mirande, C., Ilyashenko, E. & Harris, J. 2006. Flyway site network development in Asia: wetland con- Ardea 90(3): 421-435. servation using the Siberian Crane Grus leucogeranus as a flagship species. Waterbirds around the world. Eds. G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK. pp. 690-696. Wohl, K.D. 2006. The Arctic – origin of flyways. Waterbirds around the world. Eds. G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK. pp. 120-123. http://www.jncc.gov.uk/PDF/pub07_waterbirds_ Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2007. Ramsar handbooks for the wise use of wetlands, 3rd edition. Ramsar Con- part2.2.10.pdf vention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland. Zwarts, Leo, Rob G. Bijlsma, Jan van der Kamp & Eddy Wymenga 2009. Living on the edge; wetlands and birds in Robinson, R.A., Learmouth, J.A., Hutson, A.M., MacLeod, C.D., Sparks, T.H., Leech, D.I., Pierce, G.J., Rehfische, a changing Sahel. KNNV Publisher Zeist, The Netherlands. 564 pp. M.M. and Crick, H.Q.P. 2005. Climate change and migratory species. British Trust for , Thetford, U.K.. Salathé, T. (ed.) 1991. Conserving migratory birds. ICBP, Cambridge.

Page 36 Page 37 United Nations Environment Programme Division of Global Environment Facility Coordination Biodiversity & Natural Resources Unit P.O. Box 30552 (00100) Nairobi, Kenya

w w w . u n e p . o r g