DOCSLIB.ORG

Guidelines on the Management of Farmland in Natura 2000

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Guidelines on the Management of Farmland in Natura 2000 GUIDELINES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF FARMLAND IN NATURA 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................1 1. PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDANCE .....................................................................................2 1.1 What is this guidance for? .........................................................................................2 1.2 Who is this guidance for? ..........................................................................................2 1.3 What can you find in this document?........................................................................2 2. FARMING AND NATURA 2000.....................................................................................4 2.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................4 2.2 Agricultural landscapes and habitats: what is their importance for biodiversity? ...4 2.3 Why is farming important for Natura 2000 sites and for conservation of their habitats and species?...............................................................................................10 2.4 What are the aims of the Natura network and how must the Natura 200 sites be managed? ................................................................................................................11 Setting conservation objectives ...............................................................................11 Establishing the necessary conservation measures .................................................12 2.5 What habitats and species are linked to agricultural practices?.............................14 2.5.1 Key agricultural habitats...........................................................................................14 2.5.2 Key agricultural species.............................................................................................16 2.6 What are the main pressures and threats to habitats and species dependent on agriculture?..............................................................................................................18 2.6.1 Abandonment of extensive farming practices – lack of grazing, hay cutting ..........21 2.6.1 Lack of shepherding ..................................................................................................21 2.6.2 Lack of controlled burning management - under-burning, over-burning and wildfire damage 21 2.6.3 Intensification of farming practices, Over-grazing and high stocking levels, supplementary feeding ............................................................................................................22 2.6.4 Changes in mowing practices and mechanisation....................................................22 2.6.5 Fertilisation ...............................................................................................................22 2.6.6 Herbicides and pesticides..........................................................................................23 2.6.7 Intensification of grassland use or cultivation and conversion to arable.................23 2.6.8 Changes in arable farmland......................................................................................23 2.6.9 Loss of habitat features in agricultural landscapes ..................................................24 2.6.10 Loss of habitat diversity ............................................................................................24 1 2.6.11 Other farm operations or infrastructure...................................................................24 2.6.12 Changes in hydrology................................................................................................24 2.6.13 Afforestation .............................................................................................................25 2.7 Conclusions..............................................................................................................25 3. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT OF NATURA 2000 HABITATS AND SPECIES.............................................................................................26 3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................26 3.2 Key considerations for ecological management of farmland habitats....................26 3.3 What farming practices contribute to maintenance and conservation of agricultural habitats and species in Natura 2000? ..................................................27 3.3.1 Grazing......................................................................................................................27 3.3.2 Shepherding ..............................................................................................................28 3.3.3 Sheep and cattle folding, location of water and shelter...........................................28 3.3.4 Burning......................................................................................................................29 3.3.5 Mowing/hay-cutting.................................................................................................29 3.3.6 Fertiliser use – manure and mineral fertilisers .........................................................30 3.3.7 More intensive restoration measures including habitat re-creation........................31 3.3.8 Restoring hydrological management........................................................................31 3.3.9 Measures for species conservation...........................................................................32 3.3.10 Key measures to conserve species on arable land....................................................33 3.3.11 Protecting, maintaining and restoring farmland habitats for species .....................33 3.3.12 Maintaining viable populations and meta-populations ...........................................34 4.4 Conclusions..............................................................................................................35 4. PLANNING FOR NATURA 2000 FARMLAND MANAGEMENT ...................................36 4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................36 4.2 What are the obligations in Natura 2000 sites?......................................................36 4.2.1 Ensuring appropriate management and avoiding deterioration..............................36 4.2.2 Ensuring coherence and connectivity of the Natura 2000 network .........................38 4.2.3 Financing the conservation measures need in Natura 2000 ....................................39 4.3 What are the main drivers of agricultural change that need to be addressed? .....41 4.4 What are the main policy and funding instruments that can support required farmland management? ..........................................................................................42 4.5. The Common Agricultural Policy and its relevance for management of farmland in Natura 2000 .............................................................................................................46 4.5.1 CAP Cross compliance ...............................................................................................47 4.5.2 CAP Pillar 1 Single Farm Payment.............................................................................49 2 4.5.3 CAP Pillar 1 Article 68 for National Envelope programmes ......................................52 4.5.4 CAP EAFRD Rural Development Programmes (CAP Pillar 2) - Introduction..............52 4.5.5 CAP EAFRD natural handicap / constraint measures (LFA) ......................................54 4.5.6 CAP EAFRD Agri-environment payments ..................................................................55 4.5.7 CAP EAFRD Natura 2000 payments ..........................................................................60 4.5.8 CAP EAFRD Non-productive investments..................................................................62 4.5.9 CAP support for organic farming ..............................................................................63 4.5.10 CAP EAFRD Conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage................................63 4.5.11 CAP EAFRD Animal welfare.......................................................................................64 4.5.12 Instruments for the conservation of genetic resources in agriculture......................65 4.5.13 Farm advisory services, training and information provision.....................................65 4.5.14 CAP EAFRD local partnerships, co-operation projects, and producer groups...........68 4.5.15 CAP EAFRD Measures to support diversification of farming activities or to promote and add value to agricultural products....................................................................................69 4.5.16 CAP EAFRD Measures to support farm infrastructure and modernisation...............70 4.6 Other EU financial instruments that can support management of farmland in Natura 2000 .............................................................................................................71 4.6.1 LIFE+ Programme funding.........................................................................................71 4.6.2 European Regional Development Fund and Social Fund ..........................................72 4.7 Market-based instruments and innovative instruments.........................................74 4.7.1 Labelling
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TRUSTVETASSISTSSURVIVAL of WORLD'srarestparrot New Clues to Echo Parakeet Problem Bypallia Harris
    News about parrot conservation, aviculture and welfare from qg&%rld q&rrot~t TRUSTVETASSISTSSURVIVAL OF WORLD'SRARESTPARROT New clues to Echo Parakeet problem ByPallIa Harris When the World Parrot Trust was The World Parrot Trust has project, contributing funds and of the World Parrot Trust and a launched in 1989, our first consistently provided funding for parrot expertise to both the member of the International Zoo priority was to help the world's the Echo Parakeet and maintained captive breeding programme and Veterinary Group. When the rarest parrot, the Echo Parakeet, close relations with the project's wild population management captive population of parrots which still numbers less than 20 director, Carl Jones, and the efforts. This new opportunity became ill this spring, Andrew birds in the wild. With your Jersey Wildlife Preservation provides the World Parrot Trust advised project staff in Mauritius generous donations, the Trust Trust, which finances and with one of the greatest by telephone and by fax. was proud to present the Echo manages the project with the co- challenges in parrot conservation Subsequently, at the request of Parakeet project with a badly operation of the Mauritius today. the Jersey Wildlife Preservation needed four wheel drive vehicle government's Conservation Unit. The followingstory is drawn, Trust, the World Parrot Trust sent to enable field researchers to Recently, the World Parrot Trust in part, from a veterinary report Andrew to Mauritius to reach the remote forest in which was invited to become a major by Andrew Greenwood,MAVetMB investigate tragic mortalities the parrot struggles to survive. partner in the Echo Parakeet MIBiolMRCVS,a founder Trustee among the Echo Parakeets.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Lead Poisoning from Ammunition Sources in Terrestrial Birds
    BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION 131 (2006) 421– 432 available at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon A review of lead poisoning from ammunition sources in terrestrial birds Ian J. Fishera,*, Deborah J. Paina, Vernon G. Thomasb aRoyal Society for the Protection of Birds, International Department, The Lodge, Potton Road, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL, United Kingdom bDepartment of Zoology, Axelrod Building, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ont., Canada N1G 2WI ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Article history: Poisoning from lead shot in waterbirds has been well documented globally and, in some Received 7 October 2005 countries, legislation exists to combat lead toxicosis at wetlands and/or in waterbirds. Received in revised form However, poisoning of terrestrial species such as raptors and upland game birds, while 20 February 2006 of potential conservation concern, remains largely to be addressed. For several species, Accepted 28 February 2006 shot are not the only ammunition source of lead, as bullet fragments can be ingested from Available online 5 June 2006 hunter-killed animal carcasses and gut piles left in the field. This review collates the cur- rent knowledge of lead poisoning from ammunition in non-waterbirds. Fifty-nine terres- Keywords: trial bird species have so far been documented to have ingested lead or suffered lead Bullet fragment poisoning from ammunition sources, including nine Globally Threatened or Near Threa- Game bird tened species. We discuss the conservation significance of continued lead use, and detail Lead shot measures needed to combat lead poisoning. Raptor Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction occur following exposure to very elevated lead concentra- tions, such as may be found in the vicinity of mines, waste Lead has long been recognised as a poison to living organ- dumps, and industrial plants (Blus et al., 1977; Custer and isms, with negative effects on general health, reproduction, Mulhern, 1983; Henny et al., 1991, 1994; Garcı´a-Ferna´ndez behaviour, and potentially leading to death.
    [Show full text]
  • Survival Rates of Russian Woodcocks
    Proceedings of an International Symposium of the Wetlands International Woodcock and Snipe Specialist Group Survival rates of Russian Woodcocks Isabelle Bauthian, Museum national d’histoire naturelle, Centre de recherches sur la biologie des populations d’oiseaux, 55 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France. E-mail: [email protected] Ivan Iljinsky, State University of St Petersburg, Russia. E-mail: [email protected] Sergei Fokin, State Informational-Analytical Center of Game Animals and Environment Group. Woodcock, Teterinsky Lane, 18, build. 8, 109004 Moscow, Russia. E-mail: [email protected] Romain Julliard, Museum national d’histoire naturelle, Centre de recherches sur la biologie des populations d’oiseaux, 55 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France. E-mail: [email protected] François Gossmann, Office national de la chasse et de la faune sauvage, 53 rue Russeil, 44 000 Nantes, France. E-mail: [email protected] Yves Ferrand, Office national de la chasse et de la faune sauvage, BP 20 - 78612 Le-Perray-en-Yvelines Cedex, France. E-mail: [email protected] We analysed 324 recoveries from 2,817 Russian Woodcocks ringed as adult or yearling in two areas in Russia (Moscow and St Petersburg). We suspected that birds belonging to these two areas may experience different hunting pressure or climatic conditions, and thus exhibit different demographic parameters. To test this hypothesis, we analysed spatial and temporal distribution of recoveries, and performed a ringing-recovery analysis to estimate possible survival differences between these two areas. We used methods developed by Brownie et al. in 1985. We found differences in temporal variations of the age ratio between the two ringing areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Practice Guidelines for the Javan Green Magpie Cissa Thalassina
    EAZA Best Practice Guidelines Javan Green Magpie Cissa thalassina Author: Andrew Owen. North of England Zoological Society, Chester Zoo Email: [email protected] Name of TAG: Passerine TAG Passerine TAG Chair: David Jeggo [email protected] Edition 1: April 2019 1 EAZA Best Practice Guidelines disclaimer Copyright (April 2019) by EAZA Executive Office, Amsterdam. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in hard copy, machine-readable or other forms without advance written permission from the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA). Members of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) may copy this information for their own use as needed. The information contained in these EAZA Best Practice Guidelines has been obtained from numerous sources believed to be reliable. EAZA and the EAZA Passerine TAG make a diligent effort to provide a complete and accurate representation of the data in its reports, publications, and services. However, EAZA does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy, or completeness of any information. EAZA disclaims all liability for errors or omissions that may exist and shall not be liable for any incidental, consequential, or other damages (whether resulting from negligence or otherwise) including, without limitation, exemplary damages or lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use of this publication. Because the technical information provided in the EAZA Best Practice Guidelines can easily be misread or misinterpreted unless properly analysed, EAZA strongly recommends that users of this information consult with the editor in all matters related to data analysis and interpretation. EAZA Preamble Right from the very beginning it has been the concern of EAZA and the EEPs to encourage and promote the highest possible standards for husbandry of zoo and aquarium animals.
    [Show full text]
  • Detailed Species Accounts from The
    Threatened Birds of Asia: The BirdLife International Red Data Book Editors N. J. COLLAR (Editor-in-chief), A. V. ANDREEV, S. CHAN, M. J. CROSBY, S. SUBRAMANYA and J. A. TOBIAS Maps by RUDYANTO and M. J. CROSBY Principal compilers and data contributors ■ BANGLADESH P. Thompson ■ BHUTAN R. Pradhan; C. Inskipp, T. Inskipp ■ CAMBODIA Sun Hean; C. M. Poole ■ CHINA ■ MAINLAND CHINA Zheng Guangmei; Ding Changqing, Gao Wei, Gao Yuren, Li Fulai, Liu Naifa, Ma Zhijun, the late Tan Yaokuang, Wang Qishan, Xu Weishu, Yang Lan, Yu Zhiwei, Zhang Zhengwang. ■ HONG KONG Hong Kong Bird Watching Society (BirdLife Affiliate); H. F. Cheung; F. N. Y. Lock, C. K. W. Ma, Y. T. Yu. ■ TAIWAN Wild Bird Federation of Taiwan (BirdLife Partner); L. Liu Severinghaus; Chang Chin-lung, Chiang Ming-liang, Fang Woei-horng, Ho Yi-hsian, Hwang Kwang-yin, Lin Wei-yuan, Lin Wen-horn, Lo Hung-ren, Sha Chian-chung, Yau Cheng-teh. ■ INDIA Bombay Natural History Society (BirdLife Partner Designate) and Sálim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History; L. Vijayan and V. S. Vijayan; S. Balachandran, R. Bhargava, P. C. Bhattacharjee, S. Bhupathy, A. Chaudhury, P. Gole, S. A. Hussain, R. Kaul, U. Lachungpa, R. Naroji, S. Pandey, A. Pittie, V. Prakash, A. Rahmani, P. Saikia, R. Sankaran, P. Singh, R. Sugathan, Zafar-ul Islam ■ INDONESIA BirdLife International Indonesia Country Programme; Ria Saryanthi; D. Agista, S. van Balen, Y. Cahyadin, R. F. A. Grimmett, F. R. Lambert, M. Poulsen, Rudyanto, I. Setiawan, C. Trainor ■ JAPAN Wild Bird Society of Japan (BirdLife Partner); Y. Fujimaki; Y. Kanai, H.
    [Show full text]
  • Conserving Migratory and Nomadic Species
    Conserving migratory and nomadic species Claire Alice Runge A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Queensland in 2015 School of Biological Sciences Abstract Migration is an incredible phenomenon. Across cultures it moves and inspires us, from the first song of a migratory bird arriving in spring, to the sight of thousands of migratory wildebeest thundering across African plains. Not only important to us as humans, migratory species play a major role in ecosystem functioning across the globe. Migratory species use multiple landscapes and can have dramatically different ecologies across their lifecycle, making huge contributions to resource fluxes and nutrient transport. However, migrants around the world are in decline. In this thesis I examine our conservation response to these declines, exploring how well current approaches account for the unique needs of migratory species, and develop ways to improve on these. The movements of migratory species across time and space make their conservation a multidimensional problem, requiring actions to mitigate threats across jurisdictions, across habitat types and across time. Incorporating such linkages can make a dramatic difference to conservation success, yet migratory species are often treated for the purposes of conservation planning as if they were stationary, ignoring the complex linkages between sites and resources. In this thesis I measure how well existing global conservation networks represent these linkages, discovering major gaps in our current protection of migratory species. I then go on to develop tools for improving conservation of migratory species across two areas: prioritizing actions across species and designing conservation networks. Protected areas are one of our most effective conservation tools, and expanding the global protected area estate remains a priority at an international level.
    [Show full text]
  • From Collectors to Conservationists: Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation Al
    From Collectors to Conservationists: Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation Al Wabra Wildlife Preservation (AWWP) is a private conservation and endangered species breeding-center located in the Arabian gulf State of Qatar. Founded by Sheikh Saoud Bin Mohammed Bin Ali Al-Thani, the facility focuses on work with threatened antelope and bird species. Although AWWP has had great success with numerous endangered animals, the Preserve is most noted for developing a captive breeding program for the Spix’s Macaw, a species of parrot now extinct in the wild and once considered “the world’s most endangered bird species.” In May 2009 Mark Szotek from Mongabay, a non-profit provider of conservation and environmental science news, visited Al Wabra in Qater to speak with Dr. Sven Hammer, the Director of Wildlife and Veterinary Services at Al Wabra, Ryan Watson, Blue Macaw Coordinator, and Dr. Amrita Deb, Al Wabra’s Head of Conservation. The following is a compilation his interviews. Mongabay: Please tell us about Al Wabra’s mission and how the facility evolved from a “hobby farm” of the Al-Thani family into a world-class facility for breeding endangered species? Dr. Hammer (Director of Wildlife and Veterinary Services): It is quite common for wealthy Sheikhs in the gulf region to keep wild animals, most of which are acquired illegally from unstable parts of the world such as the Horn of Africa region. Rarely do these animals receive proper care and are simply replaced if and when they die. Just prior to the turn of the 21st century Sheikh Saoud made the decision that this practice was no longer personally acceptable and that if he was going to continue keep exotic animals at Al Wabra farm, conditions had to improve.
    [Show full text]
  • Emergency Landing After Bird Strike Boeing 737-4B6
    Emergency landing after bird strike Boeing 737-4B6, Amsterdam Schiphol Airport, Emergency landing after bird strike Emergency landing after bird 6 June 2010 The Dutch Safety Board telephone +31(0)70 333 70 00 • e-mail [email protected] • website www.safetyboard.nl visiting address Anna van Saksenlaan 50 • 2593 HT The Hague postal address PO Box 95404 • 2509 CK The Hague • The Netherlands Emergency landing after bird strike Boeing 737-4B6, Amsterdam Schiphol Airport, 6 June 2010 The Hague, November 2011 (project number 2010034) The Dutch Safety Board’s reports are in the public domain. All reports are also available through The Dutch Safety Board’s website: www.safetyboard.nl THE DUTCH SAFETY BOARD The aim in the Netherlands is to reduce the risk of accidents and incidents as much as possible. If accidents or near-accidents nevertheless occur, a thorough investigation into the causes of the problem, irrespective of who is to blame for it, may help to prevent similar problems from occurring in the future. It is important to ensure that the investigation is carried out independently from the parties involved. This is why the Dutch Safety Board itself selects the issues it wishes to investigate, mindful of citizens’ position of dependence with respect to public authorities and businesses. Dutch Safety Board Guidance committee Chairman: T.H.J. Joustra Chairman: F.J.H. Mertens A. Brouwer-Korf A.H. Brouwer-Korf F.J.H. Mertens E.J. Burmeister J.P. Visser J. Marijnen E.R. Muller J.A. Mulder H. Munniks de Jongh Luchsinger J.G.W.
    [Show full text]
  • CONSERVATIONOF TUEKED.VENTED Cockatoobymarcboussekey, Eepcoordinator,Espacezoologique,(France)
    CONSERVATIONOF TUEKED.VENTED COCKATOOByMarcBoussekey, EEPCoordinator,EspaceZoologique,(France). I was able to visit the Philippines Red-vented Cockatoos in the again, mainly Palawan from July Palawanese province. 12th to August 12th 1995, just after the Red-vented Cockatoo breeding Cockatoos Observed in Captivity season, to see how the Conservation Apart from about 40 Philippine Cockatoos seen at Antonio De Dios Program was going on. facility 12 more were found in Mypurpose was fourfold: private hands. to observe some of the latest I was able to visit again the viable populations of Philippine breeding farm of Birds International Cockatoos left on Palawan Incorporated: I was allowed to see . to evaluate the local captive some of the hand-reared hatchlings population of this bird (26bred this year),two groups of . to meet our Philippine partners about 20juvenilesfrom one to two involved in the conservation years old and several of the 20 program current pairs, 10 of which are . to meet some members of the already breeding. This local captive SagipKatala("Save the Cockatoo") population is healthy and really well Movement maintained. William Oliver's superb painting of theRed-ventedCockatoohas beenusedfor I was lucky to be successful on education and fund-raising. all these points so, we decided to Our Philippine Partners Priscilla ADRIANOand Art intensify our conservation program The Sagip Katala Movement issued an official memoranda on in '96 on Palawan. PAlATINO are our major partners I was pleased to meet several Cockatoo conservation. in the Philippines: the successful Red-vented Cockatoo Flocks members of the Sagip Katala Nevertheless, three aspects can broadcast program they have Observed in the Wild Movement on 4 different places in be improved in 96: to increase the conducted from September 94 to More than 100 wild Cockatoos were the Palawanese province.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Gulls Part 1 with References
    Introduction This is the final version of the Gulls (Part 1) list, no further updates will be made. It includes all those species of Gull that are not included in the genus Larus. Grateful thanks to Wietze Janse and Dick Coombes for the cover images and all those who responded with constructive feedback. All images © the photographers. Please note that this and other Reference Lists I have compiled are not exhaustive and are best employed in conjunction with other sources. Joe Hobbs Index The general order of species follows the International Ornithologists' Union World Bird List (Gill, F. & Donsker, D. (eds.) 2019. IOC World Bird List. Available from: https://www.worldbirdnames.org/ [version 9.1 accessed January 2019]). Final Version Version 1.4 (January 2019). Cover Main image: Mediterranean Gull. Hellegatsplaten, South Holland, Netherlands. 30th April 2010. Picture by Wietze Janse. Vignette: Ivory Gull. Baltimore Harbour, Co. Cork, Ireland. 4th March 2009. Picture by Richard H. Coombes. Species Page No. Andean Gull [Chroicocephalus serranus] 20 Audouin's Gull [Ichthyaetus audouinii] 38 Black-billed Gull [Chroicocephalus bulleri] 19 Black-headed Gull [Chroicocephalus ridibundus] 21 Black-legged Kittiwake [Rissa tridactyla] 6 Bonaparte's Gull [Chroicocephalus philadelphia] 16 Brown-headed Gull [Chroicocephalus brunnicephalus] 20 Brown-hooded Gull [Chroicocephalus maculipennis] 20 Dolphin Gull [Leucophaeus scoresbii] 32 Franklin's Gull [Leucophaeus pipixcan] 35 Great Black-headed Gull [Ichthyaetus ichthyaetus] 43 Grey Gull [Leucophaeus
    [Show full text]
  • Tinian Monarch Petition 0
    BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR Tinian Monarch (Monarcha takatsukasae) Photo by Eric VanderWerf, USFWS PETITION TO LIST THE TINIAN MONARCH (Monarcha takatsukasae) AS THREATENED OR ENDANGERED UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT December 11, 2013 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Center Tinian Monarch Petition 0 Notice of Petition ________________________________________________________________________ Sally Jewell, Secretary U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240 [email protected] Dan Ashe, Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1849 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240 [email protected] Douglas Krofta, Chief Branch of Listing, Endangered Species Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420 Arlington, VA 22203 [email protected] PETITIONER The Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) is a non-profit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center is supported by more than 625,000 members and activists. The Center and its members are concerned with the conservation of endangered species and the effective implementation of the Endangered Species Act. Center Tinian Monarch Petition 1 Submitted this 11th day of December, 2013 Pursuant to Section 4(b) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b); Section 553(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(e); and 50 C.F.R. § 424.14(a), the Center for Biological Diversity, Tara Easter, Tierra Curry, and Randy Harper hereby petition the Secretary of the Interior, through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS,” “Service”), to list the Tinian monarch ((Monarcha takatsukasae) as a threatened or endangered species.
    [Show full text]
  • Cop14 Com. I Rep. 3 (Rev
    CoP14 Com. I Rep. 3 (Rev. 2) CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA ____________________ Fourteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties The Hague (Netherlands), 3-15 June 2007 Summary record of the third session of Committee I 6 June 2007: 09h00-12h00 Chairman: G. Leach (Australia) Secretariat: T. De Meulenaer D. Morgan Rapporteurs: J. Caldwell S. Ferriss J. Gray T. Inskipp Interpretation and implementation of the Convention Species trade and conservation issues 54. Rhinoceroses The Secretariat introduced document CoP14 Doc. 54 and referred the delegates to the draft decisions and draft amendments to Resolution Conf. 9.14 (Rev. CoP13). Germany, on behalf of the European Community and its Member States, fully endorsed the draft decisions and draft amendments to the Resolution, requesting that the financial implications of adopting these be reflected in the costed programme of work for the triennium 2009-2011 in order to provide a sustainable basis for funding future work on this issue. They wished the issue of rhinoceros conservation to remain on the Standing Committee’s programme of work until CoP15 and requested an amendment to paragraph d) of the third draft decision directed to the Secretariat to require that it report on progress towards the implementation of all three Decisions at the 57th and 58th meetings of the Standing Committee and at the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties. Qatar, supported by China, Japan, Namibia, Nepal, South Africa, Swaziland, the United States of America and TRAFFIC, endorsed the draft decisions and draft amendments to the Resolution.
    [Show full text]