1

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan

Focal point of contact:

Dr Steve Klose, National Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan Coordinator BirdLife Australia National Office, Suite 2-05, 60 Leicester Street, Carlton, Victoria, Australia [email protected]

This document may be cited as: Weller, D.R. & Lee, C.V. (2017) Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan, BirdLife Australia unpublished report, September 2017.

This Conservation Action Plan has been produced with the support of the Australian Bird Environment Foundation.

Copyright © BirdLife Australia This document is subject to copyright and may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned. The use or copying of this document in whole or part without the permission of BirdLife Australia is an infringement of copyright.

Disclaimer Although BirdLife Australia has taken all the necessary steps to ensure that an accurate document has been prepared, the organisation accepts no liability for any damages or loss incurred as a result of reliance placed upon the report and its content.

Cover Images: Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica ssp. Baueri) at Merimbula, NSW and Red-necked Stints (Calidris ruficolis) at Western Treatment Plant, Werribee, Victoria (Dan Weller)

1

CONTENTS i. Acknowledgements ...... 4 ii. Abbreviations...... 4 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 5 1.1 Migratory Shorebirds ...... 5 1.2 The Conservation Challenge ...... 5 1.3 BirdLife Australia and Migratory Shorebirds ...... 7 1.3.1 Shorebirds 2020 Project (S2020) ...... 7 1.3.2 Australasian Wader Study Group (AWSG)...... 8 1.3.3 Broome Bird Observatory (BBO) ...... 8 1.4 Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan (MS CAP)...... 9 1.5 Project Vision and Context ...... 10 1.6 Focal Species...... 10 1.7 Geographic Scope...... 10 1.8 Stakeholder Involvement & Project Team ...... 13 2. CONSERVATION TARGETS ...... 14 2.1 Lumping conservation targets ...... 14 2.1.1 Coastal obligate species ...... 14 2.1.2 Habitat Generalists ...... 14 2.1.3 Inland Species ...... 15 2.1.4 Snipes ...... 15 2.1.5 Internationally and Nationally Significant Sites in Australia ...... 15 2.1.6 Internationally significant staging sites ...... 15 2.2 Viability of Conservation Targets ...... 16 3. MAJOR THREATS ...... 17 3.1 Habitat Loss ...... 17 3.1.1 Infrastructure / coastal development in Australia ...... 17 3.1.2 Infrastructure /coastal development in staging and stop-over areas, particularly the Yellow Sea...... 18 3.2 Habitat Modification ...... 18 3.2.1 Chronic Pollution ...... 18 3.2.2 Acute Pollution ...... 18 3.2.3 Invasive Species ...... 19 3.2.4 Altered Hydrological Regimes ...... 19 3.3 Anthropogenic disturbance ...... 19 3.4 Climate variability and change ...... 20 3.5 Harvesting of shorebird prey...... 20 3.6 Fisheries by-catch ...... 20 3.7 Hunting ...... 21 3.8 Threat analysis...... 21 4. CONSERVATION STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS ...... 24 4.1 Objective 1...... 25 4.2 Objective 2...... 27 4.3 Objective 3...... 29 4.4 Objective 4...... 32 5. IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION ...... 35 5.1 Work plans...... 35

2

5.2 Population monitoring ...... 35 6. REFERENCES ...... 36 7. APPENDICES ...... 39 7.1 Appendix 1 – Flyway Population Estimates (Hansen et al. 2016) ...... 39 7.2 Appendix 2 – Shorebirds 2020 Migratory Shorebird Monitoring Areas in Australia ...... 40 7.3 Appendix 3 - The Nature Conservancy – CAP Process ...... 41 ...... 42 7.4 Appendix 4 – Migratory Shorebird CAP Participants ...... 43 7.5 Appendix 5 – Results Chains & Workplans ...... 45 7.5.1 Objective 1. Protection of important habitats for migratory shorebirds has occurred throughout the EAAF...... 45 Strategy 1b. Seek support of Chinese and Republic of Korean governments to protect tidal flats in the Yellow Sea...... 45 ...... 45 7.5.2 Objective 2. Wetland habitats in Australia, on which migratory shorebirds depend, are protected and conserved...... 46 Strategy 2a. Identify key areas for shorebird species and improve legal site protection and management using international, national and state mechanisms...... 46 ...... 46 7.5.3 Objective 3. Anthropogenic threats to migratory shorebirds in Australia are minimised or, where possible, eliminated...... 47 Strategy 3a. Develop and implement a community education and awareness program to reduce effects of recreation on migratory shorebirds...... 47 ...... 47 Strategy 3b. Investigate and respond to impacts of climate change on shorebird populations. .... 48 ...... 48 Strategy 3e. Develop and implement guidelines for wetland rehabilitation and creation of artificial wetlands to support migratory shorebirds...... 49 ...... 49 Strategy 3f. Ensure all areas important to migratory shorebirds in Australia continue to be considered in development assessment process...... 50 7.5.4 Objective 4. Knowledge gaps in migratory shorebird ecology in Australia are identified and addressed to inform decision makers, land managers and the public...... 51 Strategy 4a. Identify and prioritise knowledge gaps that are required to support the conservation and management of migratory shorebirds and their habitats...... 51 ...... 51 Strategy 4b. Identify important stop-over and staging areas for migratory shorebirds in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway...... 52 ...... 52 Strategy 4c. Survey northern and inland Australia for migratory shorebird populations and identify important habitats...... 53 7.6 Appendix 6 – MS CAP Steering Committee Terms of Reference ...... 54

3

i. Acknowledgements

The BirdLife Australia Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan has benefitted from the expertise, enthusiasm and commitment of many collaborators within Australia and across the East Asian- Australasian Flyway.

BirdLife Australia would like to thank all workshop participants (Appendix 2) for their time and enthusiasm in developing this plan. Special thanks to those participants who have volunteered to assist in overseeing the implementation of the MS CAP as part of the MS CAP Steering Committee.

ii. Abbreviations

AWSG Australasian Wader Study Group CAMBA China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement CAP Conservation Action Plan DBCA Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions DoEE Department of Environment and Energy DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning DEHP Department of Environment and Heritage Protection DEWNR Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources EAAF East Asian-Australasian Flyway EAAFP East Asian-Australasian Flyway Partnership EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 FNS Flyway Network Site JAMBA Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement QWSG Queensland Wader Study Group MS CAP Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan ROKAMBA Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement S2020 Shorebirds 2020 VWSG Victorian Wader Study Group WCP Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 4

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Migratory Shorebirds

Migratory shorebirds, or waders, are a group of birds that can be found feeding on swamps, tidal mudflats, beaches and open country. Most migratory shorebirds make an annual return journey of many thousands of kilometres between their breeding grounds in the northern hemisphere and their non- breeding grounds in the southern hemisphere. Migratory flight paths are referred to as ‘flyways’.

There are eight recognised flyways in the world: • Pacific Americas • Black Sea-Mediterranean • Central Americas • East Asia-Africa • Atlantic Americas • Central Asia • East Atlantic • East Asia-Australasian

Australia is part of the East Asian-Australasian Flyway (EAAF), which extends from breeding grounds in the Russian tundra, Mongolia and Alaska southwards through east and south-east Asia, to non-breeding areas in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Australia and New Zealand.

Thirty-seven species of migratory shorebird regularly and predictably visit Australia during their non- breeding season, from the Austral spring to autumn. Thirty-six of these species breed in the northern hemisphere. The Double-banded plover (Charadrius bicinctus), breeds in New Zealand and migrates to south-eastern Australia during the Austral winter.

Australia’s coastal and freshwater wetlands provide important habitat for these birds to rest and feed, enabling them to build the energy reserves they need to travel the long distance (up to 13 000 kilometres) back to their breeding grounds. In the month or two before migrating, migratory shorebirds need to increase their body mass by up to 70 per cent to sustain their journey. After their first southward migration, juvenile birds often remain in Australia until they reach approximately two years old before embarking on their first northward migration.

On southward migration, shorebirds that migrate from the northern hemisphere reach ‘staging areas’, such as Roebuck Bay and Eighty-mile Beach in north-west Western Australia and the Gulf of Carpentaria in Queensland, by September. From these staging areas, the birds disperse across Australia, reaching the south-eastern states by October. Smaller flocks—cumulatively numbering thousands of birds—take advantage of ephemeral wetlands across inland Australia, while others spread along the coastline. Migratory shorebirds are often gregarious, gathering in mixed flocks, but also occur in single-species flocks or feed and roost with resident shorebird species such as stilts, avocets, oystercatchers and plovers. By March, the birds that have previously dispersed across the country begin to gather at staging areas, once again forming large flocks and feeding virtually round the clock to accumulate the energy reserves that are required for their northward migration.

1.2 The Conservation Challenge

Across the globe, migratory shorebird populations are declining rapidly. In the EAAF, significant regional declines have been identified in at least 18 species. In May 2015, Eastern Curlew (Numenius madagascariensis) and Curlew Sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea) were listed as Critically Endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 5

In May 2016, Bar-tailed Godwit (spp. menzbieri) and Great Knot (Calidris tenuirostris) were listed as Critically Endangered, Red Knot (Calidris canutus) and Lesser Sand Plover (Charadrius mongolus) as Endangered and Bar-tailed Godwit (spp. baueri) and Greater Sand Plover (Charadrius leschenaultia) as Vulnerable.

Conservation of migratory shorebirds in the EAAF is a complex challenge involving a range of stakeholders across political boundaries, as well as cultural, economic and social interests. Coastal development at staging and non-breeding grounds throughout Asia and Australia poses the most significant threat to the majority of the 37 species that regularly visit Australia. In the Yellow Sea, a bottleneck for migratory shorebirds on northward and southward migration, over 65 per cent of intertidal habitat has been lost over the past 50 years (Murray et al. 2014), significantly reducing the availability of feeding and roosting habitat for shorebirds. Other anthropogenic threats include climate change, pollution, human disturbance, hunting of shorebirds and shorebird prey and fisheries by-catch.

Australia has implemented a number of measures domestically and with international partners that help to support migratory shorebird populations and their habitats. These include: • The EPBC Act, which includes four Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) that offer protection to some or all migratory shorebirds: o Migratory species o Wetlands of international significance (Ramsar-listed wetlands) o Threatened species and ecological communities o World heritage properties • The Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds (WCP) • Conservation Advice for listed threatened species • Bilateral migratory bird agreements with Japan (JAMBA), China (CAMBA) and the Republic of Korea (ROKAMBA) • Party to international conventions including the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS; Bonn Convention), the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) • The East Asian-Australasian Flyway Partnership (EAAFP), including relevant working groups and task forces (Shorebird Working Group, Monitoring Task Force, Far Eastern Curlew Task Force, Yellow-Sea Ecoregion Task Force) and a network of Flyway Network Sites (FNS)

Currently, national or international site importance for migratory shorebirds is determined in multiple ways including: • if a site meets or exceeds flyway population thresholds (see Appendix 1); • if a site supports more than 2,000 or 20,000 shorebirds (national and international significance respectively); or, • if a site regularly support more than 15 species of migratory shorebirds (Commonwealth of Australia 2015a).

As well as the threats facing migratory shorebirds, conservation efforts are also hampered by significant knowledge gaps in migratory shorebird ecology. For instance, little is known about habitat use in Southeast Asia, particularly Indonesia. There are also significant parts of (in particular) northern and inland Australia that have either insufficient data for conservation purposes or have not been surveyed at all.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 6

1.3 BirdLife Australia and Migratory Shorebirds

BirdLife Australia is recognised as a leading authority on the ecology and conservation of Australia’s shorebirds. Through our Shorebirds 2020 Project, the Australasian Wader Study Group (AWSG) and the Broome Bird Observatory (BBO), BirdLife Australia has contributed significantly to research, community engagement and conservation of migratory shorebirds for several decades. Together, S2020, AWSG and the BBO will contribute to implementing the MS CAP as part of BirdLife Australia’s Shorebird Program.

1.3.1 Shorebirds 2020 Project (S2020)

Australia has some of the most comprehensive shorebird monitoring data available anywhere in the EAA Flyway. The Australian National Wader Count was launched by the Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union (RAOU) in 1981. Monitoring at key sites identified though this project was continued by the Australasian Wader Studies Group (AWSG) Population Monitoring Program (PMP), and continued primarily through volunteer support from the mid-1980s to early 2000s (Wilson 2001; Gosbell and Clemens 2006). Shorebird monitoring shifted under the umbrella of BirdLife Australia’s (then Birds Australia) Shorebirds 2020 (S2020) Program in 2007. Population monitoring surveys are still carried out largely by volunteers, but there is professional support for survey coordination, GIS, education and database maintenance as well as extensive collaboration with various academic institutions to facilitate data analyses and research publications.

In Australia, shorebird monitoring is undertaken at least biannually at most sites (austral summer and winter), although many have more frequent surveys undertaken. Nearly 3500 sites supporting migratory shorebirds have been surveyed around Australia, but only a small proportion of these are regularly monitored and consistently counted in a repeatable manner. This presents difficulties for keeping track of species’ population status, particularly at national or international scales, as there is much variation in count effort among sites, and many sites that are not routinely counted are known or likely to support large numbers of shorebirds (Clemens et al. 2012). This is simply a reflection of the sheer scale of the Australian coastline and the number of observers required to cover such vast areas in a short time period. Therefore, a major shortcoming of data from many regions is that shorebird counts only represent a certain proportion of the number of birds actually present (see Wilson et al. 2011 for a full discussion of errors in shorebird count data).

Shorebirds 2020 aims to monitor the population trends of shorebirds routinely visiting Australia and the data collected informs various conservation actions both here in Australia and throughout the EAA Flyway. Australia is the migration destination for 36 species of arctic breeding shorebirds that escape the Northern winter; Nowhere else in the flyway the populations of these species can be counted as reliably as in Australia. These species’ arctic breeding grounds are inaccessible and at migratory staging sites birds are moving through at such a rate that collecting accurate species counts are almost impossible. Shorebirds 2020 data are therefore critical to assess the impact of the multiple threats on shorebird populations.

Statistics extracted from S2020 in January 2017 reveal the scale of the shorebird monitoring effort. Since the first record on 15 March 1971, the monitoring network has grown to encompass 1 142 215 counts of 44 010 168 shorebirds from 96 621 surveys. Nationally, 3010 count areas are aggregated into 464 shorebird areas for regular reporting.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 7

There are 1437 registered volunteers, with many more helping informally. These local experts determine how the birds use each site, and how best to achieve repeatable counts. S2020 has mapped these count areas nationally. The systematic and regular population monitoring that has been coordinated by the S2020 project since 2007 will continue as part of BirdLife Australia’s new Migratory Shorebird Program. This population monitoring will be critical to assessing the effectiveness of conservation actions undertaken as part of the MS CAP.

1.3.2 Australasian Wader Study Group (AWSG)

As a Special Interest Group of BirdLife Australia, the AWSG has coordinated studies on shorebirds in Australia and throughout their migration routes in the Asia-Pacific since 1981. Along with coordinating the PMP until 2007, AWSG members coordinate a number of monitoring programs through counting, leg-banding, colour flagging, satellite and geolocator tracking, both in Australia and across the EAAF. AWSG also coordinate and participate in a number of scientific studies on shorebirds and regularly publish the results of these studies and other updates from shorebird research and conservation through their official journal, Stilt, and newsletter, Tattler. AWSG provide policy advice on the conservation of shorebirds and their habitat across the EAAF and are an active and founding partner of the EAAFP. The historic and ongoing work of AWSG contributes significantly to the delivery of the objectives in the MS CAP.

1.3.3 Broome Bird Observatory (BBO)

Established in 1988 the Broome Bird Observatory is a research and education facility principally focused on the conservation of the migratory shorebird species that visit Roebuck Bay. Roebuck bay is globally recognised as one of the most important sites for migratory shorebirds in Australia and the flyway. The BBO seeks to engage birdwatchers and the wider community in learning more about migratory shorebirds and their conservation, offering accommodation, camping, tours and training courses. The Observatory also partners with many academic institutions, community groups and government agencies to facilitate research projects, including a regular cannon-netting program for tagging, monitoring and tracking shorebirds with the Global Flyway Network, and also plays an integral role in the annual AWSG north-west Australia Expedition. As part of the implementation of the MS CAP, BBO will play an instrumental role in community engagement, research and conservation priorities.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 8

1.4 Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan (MS CAP)

In recognition of the ongoing decline in many migratory shorebird species and the complexity of effective conservation actions, BirdLife Australia has sought to improve coordination between stakeholders in Australia and, to some extent, across the flyway, through the conservation action planning approach. This Plan will inform the direction of BirdLife Australia’s Migratory Shorebirds Program for the next five years and seek to coordinate the delivery of high priority actions for shorebird conservation in Australia. The Plan also identifies opportunities for Australian stakeholders to improve the protection and management of shorebird habitat across the EAAF. Under the MS CAP, S2020 will continue as Australia’s national monitoring program. This monitoring program will play a critical role in evaluating the effectiveness of conservation actions undertaken as part of the MS CAP.

The planning process for the MS CAP uses the Conservation Action Planning (CAP) framework, The Nature Conservancy’s version of Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation, to help conservation teams to systematically plan, implement and monitor their conservation initiatives in an adaptive management framework. The CAP framework has become widely adopted in Australia for planning large scale conservation projects.

The CAP Framework is organised into a ten-step project management cycle. Steps are used as a guide and will vary under different conditions and between projects. Although presented as a sequential series of steps, the process is rarely followed in a linear fashion. The CAP process is usually undertaken as a series of workshops with relevant stakeholders that are facilitated by a trained CAP coach using Miradi software to guide participants through the development of a first iteration CAP.

The major steps in this process, as outlined in this document, are: 1. Identify people in your project 2. Define project scope and focal conservation targets 3. Assess viability of focal conservation targets 4. Identify critical threats 5. Conduct situation analysis 6. Develop strategies: objectives and actions 7. Establish measures 8. Develop work plans 9. Implement 10. Analyse, learn, adapt, share

See Appendix 3 for further details on these steps.

The first workshop for the MS CAP in April 2016 coincided with the launch of the Australian Government’s Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds (WCP). This Plan was developed in close collaboration with BirdLife Australia and other key stakeholders involved in the MS CAP. Several steps in the CAP process were partly or wholly completed in the preparation of the WCP. The project scope and vision (Step 2), identification of threats (Step 4), and identification of objectives and strategies (Step 6) were all adopted from the WCP. Given the comprehensive list of actions in the WCP that are intended to address the critical threats to migratory shorebirds, Step 5 (Conduct situation analysis) was omitted from this process.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 9

The details of the MS CAP were developed in Miradi, a software program designed by conservation practitioners to implement the Open Standards. This report documents the Migratory Shorebirds first iteration CAP as of September 2017.

The comprehensive MS CAP is stored within Miradi and will be updated within this software as required. This document is intended to capture the broad aims and objectives of the MS CAP and will be updated less frequently.

1.5 Project Vision and Context

The vision for the MS CAP is that healthy and viable populations of migratory shorebirds remain distributed across their range and in a diversity of habitats across Australia, and throughout the East Asian-Australasian Flyway.

In practice this vision will require a migratory shorebirds program that accurately monitors population state and trajectory for all of Australia’s migratory shorebirds, identifies and addresses key threats in Australia, works actively to protect critical shorebirds habitats in Australia through on-ground work, conservation partnerships and policy advice, and advocates effectively to protect migratory shorebirds and critical shorebird habitat throughout the EAAF.

1.6 Focal Species

The focus of this project is the 37 migratory species that regularly and predictably visit Australia during their non-breeding season, and are thus listed under the EPBC Act as “migratory species”:

Asian Dowitcher Grey-tailed Tattler Red Knot Bar-tailed Godwit Latham’s Snipe Red-necked Phalarope Black-tailed Godwit Lesser Sand Plover Red-necked Stint Broad-billed Sandpiper Little Curlew Ruddy Turnstone Common Greenshank Little Ringed Plover Ruff Common Redshank Long-toed Stint Sanderling Common Sandpiper Marsh Sandpiper Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Curlew Sandpiper Oriental Plover Swinhoe’s Snipe Double-banded Plover Oriental Pratincole Terek Sandpiper (Far) Eastern Curlew Pacific Golden Plover Wandering Tattler Great Knot Pacific Golden Plover Whimbrel Greater Sand Plover Pectoral Sandpiper Wood Sandpiper Grey Plover Pin-tailed Sandpiper

While several species have two or more recognised subspecies or distinct populations in the EAAF, it is often difficult to identify different subspecies in the field (e.g. Bar-tailed Godwit ssp. baueri and menzbieri), which makes it very difficult to assign birds at a particular non-breeding site to the “population” level. The MS CAP is therefore intended to be applied at the species level.

1.7 Geographic Scope

The geographic scope of the MS CAP is the EAAF (Figure 1), which encompasses the following countries: • United States of America, State of • Mongolia Alaska (Alaska) • People’s Republic of China (China) • Russian Federation (Russia) • People’s Democratic Republic of Korea

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 10

(North Korea) • People’s Republic of Bangladesh • Republic of Korea (Republic of Korea) (Bangladesh) • Japan • Federation of Malaysia (Malaysia) • Republic of the Philippines • Republic of Singapore (Singapore) (Philippines) • Negara Brunei Darussalam (Brunei) • Socialist Republic of Vietnam • Republic of Indonesia (Indonesia) (Vietnam) • Timor Leste (Timor) • Lao People’s Democratic Republic • Independent State of Papua New (Laos) Guinea (Papua New Guinea) • Kingdom of Thailand (Thailand) • Commonwealth of Australia (Australia) • Kingdom of Cambodia (Cambodia) • New Zealand • Union of Myanmar (Myanmar)

Many Pacific Island nations are situated at the eastern margin of the EAAF and are therefore considered part of the EAAF for the purposes of this MS CAP. The primary focus of the first iteration of the MS CAP is nationally and internationally significant non-breeding and staging sites within Australia and internationally significant staging sites in the Yellow Sea (Figure 1).

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 11

Figure 1. The East Asian-Australasian Flyway

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 12

1.8 Stakeholder Involvement & Project Team

The first iteration of the MS CAP was developed over the course of two workshops (April 2016 and December 2016). The first workshop began developing results chains for some of the high priority actions in the WCP. The second workshop finalised these and began developing work plans for these actions. Both workshops were attended by a range of stakeholders across governments, universities, NGOs and international partners (see Appendix 4 for full list of workshop participants). Following the completion of these workshops, a smaller group of stakeholders were nominated to form the MS CAP Steering Committee to oversee the implementation of the CAP (Appendix 4). It is expected that as work plans are finalised and CAP implementation commences, working groups will be established to assist in coordinating specific actions. The MS CAP Steering Committee membership currently consists of:

i. One (1) Australian Government representative

ii. One (1) state or territory government representative from each state/territory

iii. Three (3) BirdLife Australia representatives

iv. One (1) Australasian Wader Studies Group representative

v. One (1) university academic

vi. One (1) international representative

vii. One (1) member not otherwise represented

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 13

2. CONSERVATION TARGETS

2.1 Lumping conservation targets

The MS CAP aims to ensure healthy and viable populations of all 37 species of migratory shorebirds that regularly visit Australia. It is, however, impractical and resource-intensive to effectively measure the success of activities carried out as part the CAP against 37 individual conservation targets.

For most CAPs, a maximum of eight conservation targets is recommended. For plans such as the MS CAP, this requires targets to be ‘lumped’ together to make it possible to more clearly articulate conservation goals and facilitate clear viability assessments and measures of progress.

Focal conservation targets can be ‘lumped’ together if they:

• co-occur in the landscape • share common ecological processes • share similar critical threats; and • therefore require similar conservation strategies

Following these guidelines, the 37 migratory shorebirds covered by this CAP could be grouped in several ways. The team decided to do so based primarily on co-occurrence in the landscape. Four distinct groups were identified. Population size of the species presented with an asterisk were selected as indicators (see 2.2 Viability of Conservation Targets for more information).

2.1.1 Coastal obligate species

Species mainly found in coastal marine and estuarine habitats Asian Dowitcher Bar- Lesser Sand Plover* tailed Godwit* Broad- Red Knot* billed Sandpiper Red-necked Phalarope Common Redshank Ruddy Turnstone Eastern Curlew* Sanderling Great Knot* Terek Sandpiper Greater Sand Plover Whimbrel Grey Plover Wandering Tattler Grey-tailed Tattler

2.1.2 Habitat Generalists

Species routinely found in both marine and freshwater habitats Black-tailed Godwit Marsh Sandpiper Common Greenshank Pacific Golden Plover Common Sandpiper Pectoral Sandpiper Curlew Sandpiper* Red-necked Stint* Double-banded Plover* Ruff Little Ringed Plover Sharp-tailed Sandpiper

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 14

2.1.3 Inland Species

Freshwater specialists and grassland preferred habitat Little Curlew* Oriental Pratincole* Long-toed Stint* Wood Sandpiper* Oriental Plover*

2.1.4 Snipes

Latham’s Snipe* Pin-tailed Snipe* Swinhoe’s Snipe*

* Species chosen as indicators (see 2.2)

In addition to the four species targets, the team also identified internationally significant sites for migratory shorebirds as a focal conservation target. This target was split into two separate targets to reflect the different stages of shorebirds’ migration: internationally and nationally significant sites in Australia and internationally significant staging sites throughout the rest of the flyway. This iteration of the CAP does not intend to address threats/management at important breeding sites.

2.1.5 Internationally and Nationally Significant Sites in Australia

Following criteria adopted under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, a site is considered internationally important for migratory shorebirds if it regularly supports:

• 1 per cent of the flyway population of a single species or subspecies of migratory shorebird or • 20,000 migratory shorebirds.

In Australia, a site is considered nationally important for migratory shorebirds if it regularly supports:

• 0.1 per cent of the individuals in a population of one species of migratory shorebird or • 2000 migratory shorebirds or • 15 migratory shorebird species (Commonwealth of Australia 2015a).

2.1.6 Internationally significant staging sites

In addition to the above criteria for identifying internationally significant staging sites, the EAAFP recognises the importance of sites along migration routes that support large numbers of birds for a short period of time. As such, a staging site can also be considered internationally significant if it supports at least 0.25% of an individual species’ population counted in one survey.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 15

2.2 Viability of Conservation Targets

A key step in the conservation action planning approach is to identify the health (viability) of conservation targets. That is, the ability of a target to withstand or recover from disturbances or survive under difficult conditions. Identifying the viability of conservation targets provides a framework for:

• defining specific future goals; • assess the current status of the system today; and, • measure your progress towards achieving these goals

Viability is assessed through key ecological attributes and indicators. Key ecological attributes are those attributes of a target considered to be essential for a target to be healthy. If missing or altered, the health of the target will decline. Each key ecological attribute can have multiple indicators as measures of the attribute.

The team identified trends in population size as a key ecological attribute for coastal obligates, habitat generalists, inland species and snipes. Some (or all) species within these groups were then chosen as indicators (species with an asterisk above). These included the population size of all Endangered and Critically Endangered (EPBC Act) species. For coastal obligates and habitat specialists, the population size of one common species was also selected. Double-banded Plover was also selected as an indicator due to their different migration strategy. For inland species and snipes, the population size of every species in these categories was chosen as indicators due to differences in distribution, data deficiencies, and detectability.

Once indicators have been identified, a rating scale is used to determine what constitutes a poor, fair, good and very good rating for a target. The measure assigned to each rating is determined by:

• Very good: Ecologically desirable status; requires little intervention for maintenance. • Good: Within acceptable range of variation; some intervention required for maintenance. • Fair: Outside acceptable range of variation; requires human intervention. • Poor: Restoration increasingly difficult; may result in extirpation of target.

Workshop outputs enabled a first iteration of viability analysis that will be refined through expert elicitation and modified as necessary to reflect adaptive management.

For further detail on viability of MS CAP conservation targets and current ratings attributed to targets and indicators, please contact the project coordinators: [email protected].

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 16

3. MAJOR THREATS

Taken from the Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds.

The revision of the Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds (WCP) included a detailed review of threatening processes relevant to migratory shorebirds in the East Asian – Australasian Flyway. As the MS CAP is by definition an extension of the WCP, focusing on the implementation of the majority of the high and very high priority objectives, the threats have been directly transferred from the WCP to the following section.

In Australia and the EAAF, many of the current threats are linked to the changing availability of wintering, stop-over and breeding habitats (MacKinnon et al. 2012). The loss of key locations at any point on the migratory pathway will have significant consequences for a number of species. Key threats to the migration and survival of Australian migratory shorebirds are identified in this section. The list is not exhaustive, but identifies the main threats that are likely to significantly affect shorebird populations adversely.

In a global review, Sutherland et al. (2012) identify 45 threats facing shorebird populations that can be divided into three categories: natural, current anthropogenic and future issues. The natural issues include volcanoes and cyclones, while current anthropogenic threats encompass climate change, abandonment of rice fields and human disturbance. Likely future issues that could affect shorebird population include micro- plastics, global hydro-security and changes in sedimentation rates.

The review demonstrates the breadth of issues facing shorebirds, ranging from ‘likely but with minor effects’ to ‘unlikely but catastrophic effects causing species extinction’.

3.1 Habitat Loss

3.1.1 Infrastructure / coastal development in Australia

Habitat loss occurring as a result of development is the most significant threat currently affecting Australian migratory shorebirds, both in Australia and throughout the EAAF. It is estimated that since European settlement approximately 50 per cent of Australia’s non-tidal wetlands have been converted to other uses. In some regions the rate of loss has been even higher. On the Swan Coastal Plain of Western Australia 75 per cent of wetlands have been filled or drained. In south-east South Australia 89 per cent has been lost. Urban development in Australia has often involved the draining and filling of wetlands for industrial or commercial use and waste disposal (Lee et al. 2006). Many watercourses in urban areas have been converted to concrete-lined drains resulting in loss of in-stream habitats, fringing wetlands and streamside vegetation.

In Australia, due to the nature of the environment and the distribution of the human population, estuaries and permanent wetlands of the coastal lowlands have experienced most losses, especially in the southern parts of the continent (Lee et al. 2006). Agricultural development and infrastructure has been attributed to the substantial loss of wetlands on the floodplains of inland and coastal rivers. Drainage and conversion of wetlands for agricultural activities has been a major cause of wetland loss worldwide.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 17

3.1.2 Infrastructure /coastal development in staging and stop-over areas, particularly the Yellow Sea

Of particular concern in the EAAF is coastal development and intertidal mudflat ‘reclamation’ in the Yellow Sea region, which is bordered by China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea (Murray et al. 2014). A migratory shorebird’s ability to complete long migration flights depends on the availability of suitable habitat at sites throughout the EAAF that provide adequate food and roosting opportunities to build sufficient energy reserves. The Yellow Sea region is a major staging area for several shorebird species, including significant populations of Great knot (Calidris tenuirostris), that fly between Australia and the east coast of Asia on migration (Barter 2002; Bamford et al. 2008; Iwamura et al. 2013). In a recent study using historical topographical maps, remote sensing and geographical information system (GIS) analysis, Murray et al. (2014) suggest that up to two-thirds (65 per cent) of the tidal flats existing in the Yellow Sea in the 1950s have been lost to development. Losses of such magnitude are likely the key drivers of decreases in biodiversity and ecosystem services in the intertidal zone of the region (MacKinnon et al. 2012). Further reclamation projects are occurring or are in the planning stage in the Yellow Sea region.

3.2 Habitat Modification

Modification of wetland habitats can arise from a range of different activities including fishing or aquaculture, forestry and agricultural practices, mining, changes to hydrology and development near wetlands for housing or industry (Lee et al. 2006; Sutherland et al. 2012). Such activities may result in increased siltation, pollution, weed and pest invasion, all of which can change the ecological character of a shorebird area, potentially leading to deterioration of the quantity and quality of food and other resources available to support migratory shorebirds (Sutherland et al. 2012 and references therein). The notion that migratory shorebirds can continue indefinitely to move to other important habitats as their normal feeding, staging or roosting areas disappear is erroneous. As areas become unsuitable to support migratory shorebirds, remaining habitats will attract more birds, in turn creating overcrowding, competition for food and depletion of food resources, and increased risk of disease transmission.

3.2.1 Chronic Pollution

Shorebird habitats are threatened by the chronic accumulation and concentration of pollutants. Chronic pollution may arise from both local and widespread sources. Migratory shorebirds may be exposed to chronic pollution during their time in Australia and along their migration routes, although the extent and implications of this exposure remains largely unknown. In their feeding areas, shorebirds are most at risk from bioaccumulation of human-made chemicals such as organo-chlorines from herbicides and pesticides and industrial waste. Agricultural, residential and catchment run-off carries excess nutrients, heavy metals, sediments and other pollutants into waterways, and eventually wetlands.

3.2.2 Acute Pollution

Wetlands and intertidal habitats are threatened by acute pollution caused by, for example oil or chemical spillage. Acute pollution generally arises from accidents, such as chemical spills from shipping, road or industrial accidents. Generally, migratory shorebirds are not directly affected by oil spills, but important habitat may be affected for many years through catastrophic loss of marine benthic food sources.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 18

3.2.3 Invasive Species

Introduced plant species such as Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), Ludwigia peruviana, Spartina grass, Salvinia sp. and Mimosa pigra have adversely affected the ecological character and biodiversity of wetlands across Australia; while introduced animals such as pigs (Sus sp.), cane toads (Rhinella marina) and European carp (Cyprinus carpio) are also well known for their destructive impacts on wetland areas. There is also a constant risk of new introductions of exotic pasture, aquarium and garden species, such as Sea spurge (Euphorbia paralias), and exotic marine pests from ballast water and hull transport. Of specific concern for migratory shorebirds is the introduction of exotic marine pests resulting in loss of benthic food sources at important intertidal habitat (Neira et al. 2006). Predation by invasive animals, such as cats (Felix catus) and foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in Australia has not been quantified, but anecdotal evidence suggests some individuals are taken as prey.

Outside Australia, invasive species are negatively affecting coastal habitat, causing local species to be displaced by species accidentally or deliberately introduced from other areas. With an increase in global shipping trade the influx of such species is increasing, especially in the coastal zone. Examples include Spartina grass in China, Zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha), and Tilapia (Tilapia spp.) in wetlands and estuaries and along coasts (MacKinnon et al. 2012).

3.2.4 Altered Hydrological Regimes

Altered hydrological regimes can directly and indirectly threaten migratory shorebird habitats. Water regulation, including extraction of surface and ground water (for example, diversions upstream for human consumption or agricultural use), can lead to significant changes to flow regime, water depth and water temperature. Changes to flows can lead to permanent inundation or drying out of connected wetlands, and changes to the timing, frequency and duration of floods. These changes affect both habitat availability and type (for example, loss of access to mudflats through permanent higher water levels, or a shift from freshwater to salt-tolerant vegetation communities), and the disruption of lifecycles of plants and animals in the food chain of migratory shorebirds.

Reduced recharge of local groundwater that occurs when floodplains are inundated can change the vegetation that occurs at wetland sites, again affecting habitat and food sources.

Water regulation can alter the chemical make-up of wetlands. For example, reduced flushing flows can cause saltwater intrusion or create hyper-saline conditions. Permanent inundation behind locks and weirs can cause freshwater flooding of formerly saline wetlands, as well as pushing salt to the surface through rising groundwater.

3.3 Anthropogenic disturbance

Research suggests that disturbance from human activities has a high energetic cost to shorebirds and may compromise their capacity to build sufficient energy reserves to undertake migration (Goss- Custard et al. 2006; Weston et al. 2012). Disturbance which renders an area unusable is equivalent to habitat loss and can exacerbate population declines. Disturbance is greatest where increasing human populations and development pressures may have an impact on important habitats. Migratory shorebirds are most susceptible to disturbance during daytime roosting and foraging periods. As an example, disturbance of migratory shorebirds in Australia is known to result from aircraft over-flights, industrial operations and construction, artificial lighting, and recreational activities such as fishing, off- road driving on beaches, unleashed dogs and jet-skiing (Weston et al. 2012).

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 19

A recent study by Martin et al. (2014) examined the responses to human presence of an abundant shorebird species in an important coastal migration staging area. Long-term census data were used to assess the relationship between bird abundance and human population density and to determine population trends. In addition, changes in individual bird behaviour in relation to human presence were evaluated by direct observation of a resident shorebird species. The results showed that a rapid increase in the recreational use of the study area in summer dramatically reduced the number of shorebirds and gulls present, limiting the capacity of the site as a post-breeding stop-over area. In addition, the presence of people at the beach significantly reduced the time that resident species spent consuming prey. The study found negative effects of human presence on bird abundance remained constant over the research period, indicating no habituation to human disturbance in any of the studied species. Moreover, although intense human disturbance occurred mainly in summer, the human presence observed was sufficient to have a negative impact on long-term population trends of a resident shorebird species. The authors suggested that the impacts of disturbance detected on shorebirds and gulls may be reversible through management actions that reduce human presence. They suggest minimum distances for any track or walkway from those areas where shorebirds are usually present, particularly during spring and summer, as well as appropriate fencing in the most sensitive areas.

3.4 Climate variability and change

There is strong scientific evidence that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are causing changes to the world’s climate (Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2013). As such, ‘Loss of habitat caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases’ has been declared a Key Threatening Process under the EPBC Act. Such changes have the potential to affect migratory shorebirds and their habitats by reducing the extent of coastal and inland wetlands or through a poleward shift in the range of many species (Chambers et al. 2005; Iwamura et al. 2013). Climate change projections for Australia suggest likely increased temperatures, rising sea levels and an overall drying trend for much of the continent, together with more frequent and/or intense extreme climate events resulting in likely species loss and habitat degradation (Chambers et al. 2005, 2011; Iwamura et al. 2013).

3.5 Harvesting of shorebird prey

Overharvesting of intertidal resources, including fish, molluscs, annelids, sea-cucumber, sea-urchins and seaweeds can lead to decreased productivity and changes in prey distribution and availability (MacKinnon et al 2012). The recent industrialisation of harvesting methods in China has resulted in greater harvests of intertidal flora and fauna with less manual labour required, which is affecting ecosystem processes throughout the intertidal zone. In many important shorebird areas, the intertidal zone is a maze of fishing platforms, traps and nets that not only add to overfishing, but prevent access to shorebird feeding areas by causing human disturbance.

3.6 Fisheries by-catch

Competition for food by fishing activities together with associated disturbance by humans and boats has continued to put pressure on waterbirds along the EAAF (MacKinnon et al. 2012). In addition, fishing nets set for shrimp or fish species, accidentally kill shorebirds if left on intertidal flats at low tide when birds caught in the nets drown when the tide rises. The significance of this threat is presently not quantified and requires further investigation.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 20

3.7 Hunting

Hunting of migratory shorebirds in Australia has been prohibited for several decades. It is unclear if illegal hunting occurs during the annual duck hunting season in certain states. Historically, Latham’s snipe was particularly vulnerable to hunting. The species was formerly hunted legally in all states in eastern Australia. It has been estimated that up to 10 000 birds (including 6000 birds in Victoria and 1000 birds in Tasmania) were killed annually by hunters before bans on shooting were introduced in 1976 (New South Wales), 1983 (Tasmania) and 1984 (Victoria). Shooting is also banned in Queensland and South Australia, but the dates at which bans were introduced are unknown (Naarding 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986). Eastern curlews were also shot for food in Tasmania (Park 1983; Marchant & Higgins 1993) and have been hunted intensively on their breeding grounds in Russia and at stopover points while on migration (Marchant & Higgins 1993).

There have been a number of investigations into hunting activity at international sites, including in the Chang Jiang Estuary, China (Tang & Wang 1991, 1992, 1995; Barter et al. 1997; Ma et al. 1998).

Tang and Wang (1992) estimated that approximately 30,000 shorebirds in 1991 and 9,000 shorebirds in 1992 were captured with clap nets during northward migration. They suggested that the decrease between the two years was due to decreasing hunter numbers, increasing incomes from alternative activities and/or reduction in shorebird habitat due to reclamation. However, a study during the 1996 northward migration showed that hunter numbers had not decreased since 1991 and that the number of shorebirds caught was similar (Barter et al. 1997). Studies during the 2000-2001 period indicate that hunting activity had declined at Chongming Dao, China (Ma et al. 2002).

Wang et al. (1991, 1992) also reported hunting activity in the Yellow River Delta, estimating that 18 000 to 20 000 shorebirds were caught with clap nets during northward migration in 1992 and probably a higher number during southward migration in 1991. However, no hunting was observed in the Delta during surveys in the 1997, 1998 and 1999 northward migration seasons (Barter 2002). With the exception of the Chang Jiang Estuary, no hunting activity has been detected in China during shorebird surveys that covered about one-third of Chinese intertidal areas between 1996 and 2001 (Barter 2002). Hunting also appears to be decreasing in Republic of Korea, with the only reported instance being minor hunting activity in Mangyeung Gang Hagu (Barter 2002).

3.8 Threat analysis

Each of the threats outlined above has been assessed to determine the risk posed to migratory shorebird populations using a risk matrix (Table 1). The risk matrix considers the likelihood of an incident occurring and the consequences of that incident for a specific conservation target. Threats may act differently on different species and populations at different times of year, but the precautionary principle dictates that the threat category is determined by the group at highest risk. Population-wide threats are generally considered to present a higher risk.

Threats were ranked using the Simple Threat Rating Mode in Miradi, which asks team members to rank the threat’s scope, severity and irreversibility. Miradi calculates the summary threat ratings using a rule- based system for combining the scope, severity, and irreversibility criteria.

Scope – Defined spatially as the proportion of the target that can reasonably be expected to be affected by the threat within ten years given the continuation of current circumstances and trends. For individual species this is usually measured as the proportion of the target’s population.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 21

• Very High: The threat is likely to be pervasive in its scope, affecting the target across all or most (71-100%) of its occurrence/population. • High: The threat is likely to be widespread in its scope, affecting the target across much (31- 70%) of its occurrence/population. • Medium: The threat is likely to be restricted in its scope, affecting the target across some (11- 30%) of its occurrence/population. • Low: The threat is likely to be very narrow in its scope, affecting the target across a small proportion (1-10%) of its occurrence/population.

Severity – Within the scope, the level of damage to the target from the threat that can reasonably be expected given the continuation of current circumstances and trends. For species, usually measured as the degree of reduction of the target population within the scope.

• Very high: Within the scope, the threat is likely to destroy or eliminate the target, or reduce its population by 71-100% within ten years or three generations. • High: Within the scope, the threat is likely to seriously degrade/reduce the target, or reduce its population by 31-70% within ten years or three generations. • Medium: Within the scope, the threat is likely to moderately degrade/reduce the target, or reduce its population by 11-30% within ten years or three generations. • Low: Within the scope, the threat is likely to only slightly degrade/reduce the target, or reduce its population by 1-10% within ten years or three generations.

Irreversibility – The degree to which the effects of a threat can be reversed and the target affected by the threat restored.

• Very High: The effects of the threat cannot be reversed and it is very unlikely the target can be restored, and/or it would take more than 100 years to achieve this. • High: The effects of the threat can technically be reversed and the target restored, but it is not practically affordable and/or it would take 21-100 years to achieve this. • Medium: The effects of the threat can be reversed and the target restored with a reasonable commitment of resources and/or within 6-20 years. • Low: The effects of the threat are easily reversible and the target can be easily restored at a relatively low cost and/or within 0-5 years.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 22

Table 1. Risk matrix for threats to migratory shorebirds in the EAAF

Internationally & Coastal Habitat Inland Internationally Threats \ Targets Snipes Nationally Significant Summary Threat Rating Obligates Generalists Species Significant Staging Sites Sites in Australia

Infrastructure / coastal development in High Low Low NA Very High staging and stop-over areas, particularly Very High Very High the Yellow Sea

Low Low Low Low Low Chronic pollution Low Low

Low Low Low Low Low Acute pollution Low Low

Low Low Low Low Medium Hunting Low Low

Low Low Low Low Low Harvesting of shorebird prey Low Low

Medium Low Low Low Medium Fisheries by-catch Medium Medium

Infrastructure / coastal development in High Medium Medium High NA High High Australia

Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Anthropogenic disturbance Medium Medium

High High High High Medium Altered hydrological regimes Medium High

Low Medium Medium Medium Low Invasive species Low Medium

High High High High High Climate variability and change High High

High High High High High Summary Threat Rating High High

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 23

4. CONSERVATION STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS

The following strategies, associated results chains (Appendix 5) and work plans were developed by CAP workshop participants over two workshops. Further refinements and revisions have been made by the project coordinators.

Strategies were taken directly from actions listed under each objective in the WCP:

Objective 1: Protection of important habitats for migratory shorebirds has occurred throughout the EAAF (Protection of important habitat throughout the EAAF)

Objective 2: Wetland habitats in Australia, on which migratory shorebirds depend, are protected and conserved (Protecting wetland habitat in Australia)

Objective 3: Anthropogenic threats to migratory shorebirds in Australia are minimised, or where possible, eliminated (Minimising anthropogenic threats in Australia)

Objective 4: Knowledge gaps in migratory shorebird ecology in Australia are identified and addressed to inform decision makers, land managers and the public (Addressing knowledge gaps in migratory shorebird ecology in Australia)

Strategies from the WCP that have been adopted in the first iteration of the MS CAP are listed in blue.

The majority of the actions (hereafter strategies) adopted from the WCP were rated high or very high. Some strategies were identified by the team as important to the MS CAP or activities/actions that would be addressed under other strategies. These strategies do not have corresponding results chains or work plans. In some cases, these may need to be developed later. Further details for these strategies are found in corresponding footnotes.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 24

Strategy 1b Key Actions 4.1 Objective 1 China Protecting important habitat throughout the East Asian – Identify opportunities to assist in Australasian Flyway the protection and conservation of key sites Targets: Coastal Obligates, Habitat Generalists, Inland Species, Snipes, Internationally Significant Staging Sites Develop engagement strategy to pursue these opportunities

Threats: Coastal development, particularly in the Yellow Sea, Australian Government and BirdLife Climate variability and change, Altered hydrological regimes, Australia develop relationships with Invasive species, Hunting key Chinese stakeholders from government and civil society

Key Delivery Partners: BirdLife Australia, Australian Support training workshops for site managers Government, East Asian-Australasian Flyway Partnership (EAAFP), BirdLife International, Woodside Energy Develop road map for improved conservation and protection of sites Strategies: with Chinese stakeholders

1a: Maintain, and where possible, improve existing Invest in capacity building and international obligations that concern migratory shorebird support for site managers conservation. (VH) Negotiate 2018-2020 CAMBA work plan to include capacity building for 1b: Seek the support of the Chinese and Republic of Korean site managers governments to protect remaining tidal flats in the Yellow Sea. Republic of Korea (VH)

BirdLife and Seocheon County 1c: Make available, via the EAAFP website, Australian engage relevant levels of Republic Government standards and case studies for assessing of Korean government on Geum development proposals that may impact on important Estuary Project migratory shorebird habitats. (M) Support World Heritage nomination through Geum Estuary Project 1d: Support the East Asian— Australasian Flyway Partnership Implementation Strategy.1 (M) Explore options for second site in Republic of Korea Better protection and management of important sites across Support engagement and the EAAF is an essential aspect of successfully halting and awareness campaigns to improve reversing the decline of the 37 migratory shorebirds that public knowledge about shorebird conservation regularly visit Australia. The Yellow Sea is a migration bottleneck in the EAAF and critically important staging Improve information sharing between Republic of Korea and habitat on both northward and southward migration. Australia, such as date exchange on Species with a greater reliance on stop-over sites in the Eastern Curlew and Great Knot. Yellow Sea are experiencing the greatest population declines (Studds et al. 2017).

1 Objective 1d does not have a corresponding results chain or work plan. This objective represents ongoing work by EAAFP Partners (Australian Government and BirdLife Australia) and relevant national partnerships. Where relevant, opportunities should be sought to align the MS CAP with the EAAFP Implementation Strategy.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 25

Coastal reclamation in China and the Republic of Korea is resulting in large scale loss of tidal wetlands in the Yellow Sea (Murray et al. 2014). One of the most dramatic examples was the construction of a 33km seawall in Saemangeum, Republic of Korea, previously one of the most important staging sites for migratory shorebirds in the Yellow Sea, regularly supporting at least 330,000 individuals on northward and southward migration, including approximately 30 per cent of the world’s population of Great Knots (Calidris tenuirostris; Moores et al. 2016). Following the completion of the seawall in 2006, the number of birds using the site have dramatically decreased, with less than 5,000 shorebirds recorded during northward migration in 2014 (Moores et al. 2016). It is most likely that the construction of the seawall caused high mortality rates in migratory shorebirds, with little to no evidence to suggest that the remaining birds successfully relocated to other nearby staging sites (Moores et al. 2016).

There are a number of key sites in China and Republic of Korea where improved protection and management is required. For instance, the Paulson Institute’s Blueprint of Coastal Wetland Conservation and Management in China (2015) identifies 11 coastal wetlands important for migratory waterbirds in China where new nature reserves need to be created or boundaries of reserves need to be expanded. The Geum Estuary in Republic of Korea is now the most important site for migratory shorebirds in Republic of Korea following the construction of the Saemangeum seawall.

Securing the protection and appropriate management of important staging sites in the Yellow Sea requires the support of relevant levels of government in China and Republic of Korea, engagement with local communities, corporate and non-government organisations. Site managers also require appropriate training and support.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 26

4.2 Objective 2 Strategy 2a Key Actions

Protecting wetland habitat in Australia Analyse existing shorebird population data Targets: Coastal Obligates, Habitat Generalists, Inland Identify and prioritise knowledge Species, Snipes, Internationally Significant Sites in Australia gaps

Threats: Coastal development in Australia, Climate Create Directory of Important Habitat for Migratory Shorebirds, including variability and change, Altered hydrological regimes, analysis of threats and protection Harvesting of shorebird prey, anthropogenic disturbance status

Identify priority sites for increased Key Delivery Partners: BirdLife Australia, Australian legal protection Government, State Governments, Local Governments, Lobby for increased legal protection NRMS, Indigenous Groups, Relevant NGOs. at priority sites Strategies: Identify priority sites for development 2a: Identify key areas for shorebird species and improve or revision management plans to improve migratory shorebird legal site protection and management using international, conservation national and state mechanisms. (VH) Engage land managers and local 2b: Update a directory of important habitat for migratory communities in development of 2 management plans shorebirds. (H)

Australian coastal and inland freshwater wetlands host in Support land managers in implementation of management excess of two million visiting migratory shorebirds that plans travel from Arctic regions during the non-breeding season Monitor shorebird populations to to overwinter each year. There are 36 species that arrive assess effectiveness of management around late August and September, reaching ‘staging areas’ in northern Australia. They arrive, from the northern hemisphere breeding grounds after covering distances of up to and over 13,000 kilometres. The birds then disperse across Australia, reaching the south-eastern states by October. Many take advantage of ephemeral wetlands across inland Australia and others spread out along the coastline. Management of terrestrial and aquatic habitats, both on public and private land, is critical to sustaining shorebird populations.

There are a number of internationally and nationally significant wetlands for migratory shorebirds in Australia. The existing Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia lists 118 wetlands of international significance. Similarly, Jaensch (2013) identifies 140 sites of international importance for migratory shorebirds in Australia. With a substantial increase in the number of monitoring sites included in Shorebirds 2020, BirdLife Australia’s current national shorebird population monitoring program, and subsequent increase in amount of contemporary population monitoring data, there are likely to be many additional sites meeting international and national significance criteria. Therefore, there is a need to comprehensively identify and map important habitat in Australia.

Internationally and nationally significant sites in Australia occur across land tenures. These sites enjoy

2 Objective 2b has been identified as a high priority activity in the results chain and workplan for Objective 2a.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 27

varying levels of legal protection and appropriate management. Some sites require lobbying to improve legal protection on public land, or engagement with landholders to improve protection on private land. Other sites require improved management plans that explicitly consider habitat requirements and threat mitigation strategies for migratory shorebirds.

In many cases, the lack of basic guidance or understanding of how to manage shorebird habitat hampers effective conservation and management. Providing technical assistance to landholders and land managers is essential for increasing the priority of shorebird conservation as a management objective. Measuring the effectiveness of improved legal protection and management at sites will be achieved through ongoing regular population monitoring through what is currently the Shorebirds 2020 program.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 28

4.3 Objective 3 Strategy 3a Key Actions

Minimising anthropogenic threats in Australia Identify key sites and user groups where recreational Targets: Coastal Obligates, Habitat Generalists, Inland Species, disturbance is a threatening process for migratory shorebirds Snipes, Internationally Significant Sites in Australia Develop engagement and Threats: Coastal development in Australia, Climate variability education campaign strategies based on an understanding of and change, Altered hydrological regimes, Harvesting of current behaviour and values of shorebird prey, anthropogenic disturbance target communities

Create educational products Key Delivery Partners: BirdLife Australia, Relevant NGOs, Research Institutions, State Governments, Local Governments, Engage local communities in NRMS, Indigenous Groups shorebird conservation to foster a sense of stewardship for Strategies: protecting key sites

3a: Develop and implement a community education and Identify local champions to lead awareness program to reduce the effects of recreational on local engagement and education about the effects of disturbance on migratory shorebirds. (H) recreational disturbance on migratory shorebirds 3b: Investigate the impacts of climate change on migratory shorebird habitat and populations in Australia. (VH) Monitor behavioural change over time.

3c: Investigate the significance of cumulative impacts on migratory shorebird habitat and populations in Australia.3 (VH)

3d: Investigate the impacts of hunting and shorebird prey harvesting on migratory shorebirds in Australia and the EAAF. (M) Strategy 3b Key Actions

3e: Develop and implement guidelines for wetland rehabilitation Support and initiate research on and the creation of artificial wetlands to support populations of the effects of climate change on migratory shorebirds. migratory shorebirds. (H) Identify priority sites for active 3f: Ensure all areas important to migratory shorebirds in management to mitigate the Australia continue to be considered in development assessment effects of climate change processes. (VH) Develop and implement action

plans for climate change In Australia, migratory shorebirds occur across remote and interventions at priority sites urbanised areas, exposing them to a range of anthropogenic disturbances. Human disturbance can result in the Monitor shorebird populations at priority sites to inform abandonment of otherwise high-quality habitat and result in adaptive management high energy costs to shorebirds that can compromise their capacity to build sufficient energy reserves to undertake migration. Increasing public awareness across the social

3 Objective 3c does not have a corresponding results chain or work plan. The group decided a results chain was not necessary. Progressing this action will need to be discussed by the MS CAP Steering Committee.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 29

landscape (urban and rural communities, indigenous Strategy 3e Key Actions communities) of the effects of human disturbance on Develop best practice guidelines migratory shorebirds is essential for achieving greater for the rehabilitation of natural protection of important shorebird habitat in Australia. In wetlands and rehabilitation, particular, there is a need to foster greater understanding management and creation of artificial habitat about how individuals and communities can mitigate the effects of recreational disturbance, such as fishing and off- Lobby for guidelines to be endorsed at national level road driving in coastal areas and inland wetlands.

There is also an urgent need to better understand the Trial implementation of guidelines at pilot site/s (where predicted impacts of climate change on migratory shorebirds existing case studies cannot be in Australia that are likely to present new challenges in identified) conservation and management. Rising sea levels, increased Identify priority sites for temperatures and more frequent extreme weather events restoration or creation have the potential to further limit the availability of suitable Secure funding for national overwintering habitat in Australia. These impacts are also likely program to implement guidelines at priority sites to interact with current threatening processes, such as invasive plants and animals. Priority sites for mitigating the impacts of climate change on migratory shorebirds need to be identified and actions plans developed to ensure sufficient habitat availability and quality is maintained across habitat types in Australia. Strategy 3f Key Actions

Improving management at important shorebird sites in Ensure all levels of government Australia (Objective 2) may also require habitat restoration at have access to high quality mapping of important migratory some sites, such as control of invasive species or mangrove shorebird habitat removal. Developing best practice guidelines for wetland Establish process for ensuring rehabilitation will provide a valuable resource for land maps are updated as needed managers tasked with rehabilitating degraded wetlands. Lobby for mapping to be adopted Historic and ongoing habitat loss in Australia has resulted in at relevant levels of government increased use of artificial habitat by migratory shorebirds, such as salt fields, wastewater treatment and aquaculture Track development proposals at important shorebird sites and ponds, ports and constructed roosts. In Australia, many of advocate for appropriate these sites regularly support nationally or internationally protection where sites are threatened with inappropriate significant numbers of migratory shorebirds. While in some development cases the management of these wetlands for their commercial (or other) purpose provides suitable habitat conditions, there are likely to be opportunities to improve habitat conditions at some sites. In cases where commercial operations have ceased, such as the decommissioning of saltfields, there is also an important need to ensure future management of these artificial wetlands continues to provide high quality habitat for migratory shorebirds. The development of best practice guidelines for the creation, management and rehabilitation of artificial habitat will contribute to ensuring that these sites continue to provide high quality habitat for migratory shorebirds, as well as providing opportunities to create new habitat.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 30

Infrastructure and coastal development in Australia continues to reduce the availability of suitable habitat for migratory shorebirds. Regulatory and legislative protection to prevent developments that cause significant impact on migratory shorebirds varies across different levels of government. Improving the availability and quality of information on important sites for migratory shorebirds (such as access to adequate mapping of shorebird sites) and the adoption of appropriate environmental impact assessment processes for proposed developments at all levels of government are needed to ensure all important areas for migratory shorebirds are considered in the assessment process.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 31

4.4 Objective 4

Addressing knowledge gaps in migratory shorebird ecology in Strategy 4a Key Australia Actions

Desktop analysis of Targets: Coastal Obligates, Habitat Generalists, Inland Species, knowledge gaps Snipes, Internationally Significant Sites in Australia Consultation with experts to prioritise research projects Threats: Coastal development in Australia, Climate variability and change, altered hydrological regimes, Harvesting of shorebird Secure funding for high priority research projects prey, anthropogenic disturbance

Key Delivery Partners: BirdLife Australia, University of Queensland, Relevant NGOs

Strategies:

4a: Identify and prioritise knowledge gaps that are required to Strategies 4b Key support the conservation and management of migratory shorebirds Actions and their habitats. (H) Desktop analysis of

4b: Identify important stop-over and staging areas for migratory historically important staging sites shorebirds in the East Asian— Australasian Flyway. (VH) Review survey data 4c: Survey northern and inland Australia for migratory shorebird populations and identify important habitats. (VH) Publish report on important staging sites 4d: Maintain Shorebirds 2020 as Australia’s national shorebird monitoring programme.4 (H) Expand monitoring to address gaps in survey 4e: Complete a review of the conservation status of all migratory coverage

5 shorebirds in Australia. (VH) Engage local communities to participate in shorebird 4f: Promote conservation of migratory shorebirds through monitoring strategic programmes and educational products. (H)

4g: Promote exchange of shorebird conservation information between governments, NGOS and communities through use of networks, publications and websites.6 (H)

Basic ecological knowledge, such as detailed movements and the distribution of irreplaceable

4 Objective 4d is an ongoing activity. The group decided this does not need a results chain or work plan. Revisions to the status quo for Shorebirds 2020 may be required to assist in the delivery of the MS CAP. 5 Objective 4e is complete (Revision of the East-Asian Australasian Flyway Population Estimates for 37 listed Migratory Shorebird Species) 6 Objective 4g does not have a corresponding results chain or work plan. Opportunities to implement this objective will be sought as part of the implementation of other objectives in the MS CAP.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 32

habitats, are still relatively unknown for the majority Strategies 4c Key Actions of species listed in the plan. Desktop analysis of historically Despite having an active national shorebird population important sites in Australia (northern monitoring program in operation for the past 35 and inland) years, there continue to be significant unknowns Review survey data regarding our understanding of shorebird ecology, Secure funding for monitoring and habitat usage and threats both here in Australia and engagement programs with local throughout the EAA Flyway. Based on monitoring data communities collected over this period, we have been able to show Expand shorebird monitoring to clear population trends/declines in 17 of the 37 address gaps in survey coverage migratory shorebird species which migrate to Engage local communities (including Australia during their non-breeding season. For the Indigenous communities) to participate remaining 20 species, data deficiency is the primary in shorebird monitoring issue, stemming from these species’ highly variable, habitat usage which existing monitoring programs are not set up to capture.

For elusive, cryptic, or solitary species, such as

Latham’s, Pin-tailed and Swinhoe’s Snipes, and species which occur regularly but in low numbers, such as Wandering Tattler and Long-toed Stint our understanding of basic ecology, distribution and habitat usage remains poor. Although many areas important to non-breeding shorebirds in Australia are known, there is still a need to comprehensively identify and map sites and habitats around the country, particularly in northern and inland regions where survey coverage is limited, unstructured or non-existent.

Table 2. Proportion of existing intertidal area that is currently surveyed in each state.

Area of surveyed Area of mapped intertidal Proportion of habitat Region intertidal habitat habitat (km2) counted region (km2) NSW 96 56 58% NT 2214 693 31% QLD (East coast) 1617 1006 62% QLD (Gulf of 1076 410 38% Carpentaria) SA 936 510 55% TAS 87 26 29% VIC 228 221 97% WA 3597 999 28%

The recent update of flyway population estimates identified the amount of intertidal habitat available in each Australian state, and the proportion of available habitat that is routinely surveyed (Hansen et al. 2016; Appendix 1). Even in coastal intertidal areas, only 40% of available habitat is routinely surveyed nationally. No such estimate of surveyed available inland habitats is available and as such remains a major gap in the understanding of species’ habitat usage, particularly in wetter than average years.

The growing and skilled workforce of Indigenous Land and Sea Management organisations (including

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 33

ranger programs based in remote areas with management authority for extensive beach and wetland habitats) presents a valuable opportunity to improve information about migratory shorebirds in remote parts of northern and inland Australia. Partnerships between BirdLife Australia, the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance (NAILSMA), and various Indigenous Land and Sea Ranger groups are already developing to achieve this aim. There are likely to be many unidentified migratory shorebird areas, particularly in northern Australia, that meet nationally and internationally important habitat criteria.

Existing migratory shorebird population estimates were based on data collected between the mid 1980s and 2007 (Bamford et al. 2008), with some species updates incorporated into Waterbird Population Estimates 5 (wpe.wetlands.org) and therefore did not reflect the rapid declines that have occurred in many species. As the population estimates form the basis for threshold-based conservation designations, their accuracy improves conservation management decisions. In late 2016, a revision of the flyway population estimates of the 37 migratory shorebirds species routinely visiting Australia was completed by a team of migratory shorebird experts (Hansen et al. 2016), effectively addressing Objective 4e under the WCP. The next key step in the implementation of the WCP involves the creation of a directory of nationally and internationally important habitat (sites) for migratory shorebirds in Australia. This type of assessment should ideally be reviewed after a five-year period to provide (i) assessment of change in ecological character, including rates of habitat loss and extent of degradation at each site, (ii) incidence and impacts of existing and new threatening processes such as hunting, and (iii) an evaluation of management effectiveness and opportunity to update or adapt the directory considering new information becoming available.

Aside from habitat loss occurring in flyway countries, the specific threats driving the declines of migratory shorebird populations remain largely unknown in Australia and across many other parts of the East Asian-Australasian Flyway, limiting management options and resulting in a multitude of disparate and uncoordinated small-scale management actions.

At sites where shorebird use and threatening processes are known, active management is often required to protect, maintain, enhance or restore foraging and roosting habitats. Management of terrestrial and aquatic shorebird habitats, on both public and private land, is vital to sustain shorebird populations within the East Asian-Australasian Flyway. In Australia, a lack of knowledge and basic guidance on how to manage shorebird habitats hampers effective conservation of existing protected areas, and providing technical assistance to local and regional planning and management agencies could increase the priority of shorebirds as a management objective and ultimately improve and expand available shorebird habitat.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 34

5. IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION

5.1 Work plans

Detailed work plans have been developed for most of the strategies in this iteration of the MS CAP to various stages of completion. These plans identify likely delivery partners for key actions within strategies. These work plans also include the expected duration and timeframe for each action, approximate cost and possible source of funding. Urgent actions or actions that are necessary first steps for implementing a strategy have been prioritised for completing work plans.

It is also envisaged that work plans will be developed with more detail and additional key delivery partners will be identified as each work plan commences. Working groups may also be established to oversee strategies or activities. For example, following the completion of the Directory of Important Habitat for Migratory Shorebirds and the prioritisation of sites in need of improved protection or management (Strategy 2a), a detailed work plan for implementation of specific actions at each of these sites will be required.

Conservation action planning is an adaptive management framework and these work plans will be reviewed by the MS CAP Steering Committee on a regular basis to determine priority actions to be undertaken. The Steering Committee will also assist in identifying and consulting with appropriate delivery partners and securing funding to implement high priority actions (see Appendix 6 for full Terms of Reference for MS CAP Steering Committee).

If you would like more information on current versions of work plans for MS CAP strategies or wish contribute to the implementation of the MS CAP, please contact the project coordinators: [email protected]

5.2 Population monitoring

Regular population monitoring at existing S2020 sites will play a critical role in evaluating the effectiveness of conservation actions undertaken as part of the MS CAP. Under the MS CAP, BirdLife Australia will continue to coordinate Australia’s national monitoring program. This program relies heavily on a network of volunteers who conduct biannual counts at S2020 sites and the input of these data into birdata. This central data repository is critical for ensuring up to date information on population trends, sites of international or national significance and for data analysis to address knowledge gaps in shorebird ecology and conservation.

If you are interested in conducting shorebird monitoring, please contact [email protected]

If you have migratory shorebird survey data that is not entered into the birdata database, please contact the above email address.

BirdLife Australia also holds workshops across the country to train local communities in shorebird identification, monitoring and the use of birdata. Please contact the above email address if you would like to request a workshop.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 35

6. REFERENCES

Bamford, M., Watkins, D., Bancroft, W., Tischler, G., & Wahl, J. (2008) Migratory Shorebirds of the East Asian—Australasian Flyway; Population Estimates and Internationally Important Sites. Wetlands International—Oceania. Canberra, Australia.

Barter, M.A., Qian, F.W., Tang, S.X., Yuan, X. & Tonkinson, D. (1997a) Hunting of waders on Chongming Dao; a declining occupation? Stilt 31: 18-22.

Barter, M.A., Tonkinson, D., Tang, S.X., Yuan, X. & Qian, F.W. (1997b) Wader numbers on Chongming Dao, Yangtze Estuary, China, during early northward migration and the conservation implications. Stilt 30: 7-13.

Barter, M. (2002) Shorebirds of the Yellow Sea: Importance, threats and conservation status. Wetlands International Global Series 9, International Wader Studies 12. Canberra, Australia

Chamber, L.E., Hughes, L., & Weston M.A. (2005) Climate change and its impact on Australia’s avifauna. Emu 105: 1-20.

Chambers. L.E., Deveny, C.A., Congdon, B.C., Dunlop, N., Woehler, E.J., & Dann, P. (2011) Observed and predicted effects of climate on Australian seabirds. Emu 111: 235-257.

Clemens RS, Kendall BE, Guillet J, Fuller RA (2012) Review of Australian shorebird survey data, with notes on their suitability for comprehensive population trend analysis. Stilt 62, 3–17.

Clemens, R.S., Rogers, D.I., Hansen, B.D., Gosbell, K., Minton, C.D.T., Straw, P., Bamford, M., Woehler, E.J., Milton, D.A., Weston, M.A., Venables, B., Weller, D.R., Hassell, C., Rutherford, B., Onton, K., Herrod, A., Studds, C.E., Choi, C.Y., Dhanjal-Adams, K.L., Murray, N.J., Skilleter, G., and Fuller, R.A. 2016. Continental-scale decreases in shorebird populations in Australia. Emu 116: 119-135.

Commonwealth of Australia (2015a) EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.21 – Industry guidelines for avoiding, assessing and mitigating impacts on EPBC Act listed migratory shorebird species. Commonwealth of Australia.

Commonwealth of Australia (2015b) Wildlife conservation plan for migratory shorebirds. Commonwealth of Australia.

Goss-Custard, J.D., Triplet, P., Sueur, F., West, A.D., (2006) Critical thresholds of disturbance by people and raptors in foraging wading birds. Biological Conservation 127: 88-97.

Gosbell, K. and Clemens, R. 2006. Population monitoring in Australia: some insights after 25 years and future directions. Stilt 50, 162–175

Hansen, B.D., Fuller, R.A., Watkins, D., Rogers, D.I., Clemens, R.S., Newman, M., Woehler, E.J. and Weller, D.R. (2016) Revision of the East Asian-Australasian Flyway Population Estimates for 37 listed Migratory Shorebird Species. Unpublished report for the Department of the Environment. BirdLife Australia, Melbourne.

Iwamura, T., Possingham, H.P., Chadès, I., Minton, C., Murray, N.J., Rogers, D.I., Treml, E.A., and Fuller, R.A. (2013) Migratory connectivity magnifies the consequences of habitat loss from sea-level rise for shorebird populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences 280: 20130325.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 36

Jaensch, R (2013) New tools for development of the Flyway Site Network: An integrated and updated list of candidate sites and guidance for prioritisation. Report to Partnership for the East Asian- Australasian Flyway.

Lee, S.Y., Dunn, R.J.K., Young, R.A., Connolly, R.M., Dale, P.E.R., Dehayr, R., Lemckert, C.J., McKinnon, S., Powell, B., Teasdale, P.R., & Welsh, D.T. (2006) Impact of urbanization on coastal wetland structure and function. Austral Ecology 31: 149-163.

MacKinnon, J., Verkuil, Y.I. & Murray, N. (2012) IUCN situation analysis on East and Southeast Asian intertidal habitats, with particular reference to the Yellow Sea (including the Bohai Sea). Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 47. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Marchant, S. & P.J. Higgins, eds. (1993) Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and AntArctic Birds. Volume 2—Raptors to Lapwings. Oxford University Press. Melbourne, Victoria.

Martin, B., Delgado, S., de la Cruz, A., Tirado, S., & Ferrer, M. (2014) Effects of human presence on the long-term trends of migrant and resident shorebirds: evidence of local population declines. Animal Conservation 18:73-81.

Moores, N., Rogers, D.I., Rogers, K. & Hansbro, P.M (2016) Reclamation of tidal flats and shorebird declines in Saemangeum and elsehwhere in the Republic of Korea. Emu 116:136-146.

Murray N.J., Phinn S.R., Clemens R.S., Roelfsema C.M. and Fuller R.A. 2012. Continental scale mapping of tidal flats across East Asia using the Landsat Archive. Remote Sensing, 4, 3417-3426.

Murray, M.J., Clemens, R.S., Phinn, S.R., Possingham, H.P. & Fuller, R.A. (2014) Tracking the rapid loss of tidal wetlands in the Yellow Sea. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12:267-272

Neira, C., Grosholz, E.D., Levin, L.A., & Blake, R. (2006) Mechanisms generating modification of benthos following tidal flat invasion by a Spartina hybrid. Ecological Applications 16:1391-1404.

Studds, C.E., Kendall, B.E., Murray, N.J., Wilson, H.B., Rogers, D.I., Clemens, R.S., Gosbell, K., Hassell, C.J., Jessop, R., Melville, D.S., Milton, D.A., Minton, C.D.T., Possingham, H.P., Riegan, A.C., Straw, P., Woehler, E.J. & Fuller, R.A. (2017) Rapid population decline in migratory shorebirds relying on Yellow Sea tidal mudflats as stopover sites. Nature Communications 8:1-7.

Sutherland, W.J., Alves, J.A., Amano, T., Chang, C.H., Davidson, N.C., Finlayson, C.M., Gill, J.A., Gill, R.E., González, P.M., Gunnarsson, T.G., Kleijn, D., Spray, C.J., Székely, T., & Thompson, D.B.A. (2012) A horizon assessment of current and potential future threats to migratory shorebirds. Ibis 54:663-679.

Tang S.X. & Wang T.H. (1991) A Survey of Hunting Pressure on Waterbirds near Shanghai, March-May 1991. East China Waterbirds Ecology Group Report, June 1991. East China Normal University, Shanghai.

Tang S.X. & Wang T.H. (1992) Assessment of Hunting Pressure on Shorebirds near Shanghai, Phase II (Socio-economic Analysis). East China Waterbirds Ecology Group Report, December 1992. East China Normal University, Shanghai.

Tang, S.X. & Wang, T.H. (1995) Waterbird hunting in East China. Asian Wetland Bureau Publication No.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 37

114, Kuala Lumpur.

Wang, T.H., Tang, S.X. & Ma, J.S. (1991) Survey of shorebirds and coastal wetlands in the Yellow River Delta, Shandong Province. Autumn 1991. East China Waterbird Ecology Group, East China Normal University, Shanghai.

Wang, T.H., Tang, S.X., Sai, D.J. & Fu, R.S. (1992) A survey of coastal wetlands and shorebirds in the Yellow River Delta, Shandong Province. Spring 1992. East China Waterbird Ecology Group, East China Normal University, Shanghai.

Weston, M.A., McLeod, E.M., Blumstein, D.T., & Guay, P.-J. (2012) A review of flight initiation distances and their application to managing disturbance to Australian birds. Emu 112:269-286.

Wilson J.R. (2001) The Australasian Wader Studies Group population monitoring project: where to now? Perspectives from the chair. Stilt 39, 13–26. Wilson H.B., Kendall B.E., Fuller R.A., Milton D.A. and Possingham H.P. 2011. Analyzing Variability and the Rate of Decline of Migratory Shorebirds in Moreton Bay, Australian. Conservation Biology 25, 758–766.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 38

7. APPENDICES

7.1 Appendix 1 – Flyway Population Estimates (Hansen et al. 2016)

Common Name Final population estimate 1% Flyway Population 0.1% Flyway Population Asian Dowitcher 14,000 140 14 Bar-tailed Godwit 325,000 3250 325 Black-tailed Godwit 160,000 1600 160 Broad-billed Sandpiper 30,000 300 30 Common Greenshank 110,000 1100 110 Common Redshank 75,000-150,000 750 75 Common Sandpiper 190,000 1900 190 Curlew Sandpiper 90,000 900 90 Double-banded Plover 19,000 190 19 Far Eastern Curlew 35,000 350 35 Great Knot 425,000 4250 425 Greater Sand Plover 200,000-300,000 2000 200 Grey Plover 80,000 800 80 Grey-tailed Tattler 70,000 700 70 7 Latham's Snipe 30,000 300 30 Lesser Sand Plover 180,000-275,000 1800 180 Little Curlew 110,000 1100 110 Little Ringed Plover 150,000 1500 150 Long-toed Stint 230,000 2300 230 Marsh Sandpiper 130,000 1300 130 Oriental Plover 230,000 2300 230 Oriental Pratincole 2,880,000 28,800 2880 Pacific Golden Plover 120,000 1200 120 Pectoral Sandpiper 1,220,000-1,930,000 12,200 1220 Pin-tailed Snipe 170,000 1700 170 Red Knot 110,000 1100 110 Red-necked Phalarope 250,000 2500 250 Red-necked Stint 475,000 4750 475 Ruddy Turnstone 30,000 300 30 Ruff 25,000-100,000 250 25 Sanderling 30,000 300 30 Sharp-tailed Sandpiper 85,000 850 85 Swinhoe's Snipe 40,000 400 40 Terek Sandpiper 50,000 500 50 Wandering Tattler 10,000-25,000 100 10 Whimbrel 65,000 650 65 Wood Sandpiper 130,000 1300 130

7 Internationally important habitat for Latham’s Snipe in Australia is defined as areas that support at least 18 individuals (see WCP) Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan

39

7.2 Appendix 2 – Shorebirds 2020 Migratory Shorebird Monitoring Areas in Australia

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 40

7.3 Appendix 3 - The Nature Conservancy – CAP Process

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 41

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 42

7.4 Appendix 4 – Migratory Shorebird CAP Participants

Current and previous participants in the Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Planning process.

Name Organisation/Affiliation Chair Samantha Vine BirdLife Australia Vice-Chair Mark Carey Department of Environment and Energy Project Coordinators Dan Weller BirdLife Australia Connie Lee BirdLife Australia Steering Committee Members (includes Chairpersons and Project Coordinators) Doug Watkins Australasian Wader Study Group Richard Fuller University of Queensland Andrea White Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (Vic) Kim Onton Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (WA) Tony Flaherty Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (SA) Rob Hughes/Amelia Selles Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (QLD) Bruce McKinlay Department of Conservation (New Zealand) Workshop Participants Chris Purnell BirdLife Australia Golo Maurer BirdLife Australia Grainne Maguire BirdLife Australia Aleisa Lamanna BirdLife Australia Alison Russel-French Australasian Wader Study Group Ken Gosbell Australasian Wader Study Group Birgita Hansen Australasian Wader Study Group Phil Straw Australasian Wader Study Group Clive Minton Australasian Wader Study Group/Victorian Wader Study Group Geoff Richardson Department of Environment and Energy Sam Dutton Department of Environment and Energy David Papps Department of Environment and Energy Spike Millington East Asian-Australasian Flyway Partnership Secretariat Judit Szabo Louise Duff Conservation Volunteers Australia Rob Clemens University of Queensland Ray Nias Island Conservation David Edwards Queensland Wader Study Group Janet Holmes Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (Vic) Danny Rogers Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (Vic) Stephen Garnett Charles Darwin University Daniel Rogers Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (SA)

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 43

Jo Erskine Hunter Wetlands National Park Will Steele Melbourne Water Christy Davies North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Doug Beckers Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW) Andrew Morrison Port Phillip & Westernport Catchment Management Authority Christine Prietto Ramsar Focal Point James Fitzsimons The Nature Conservancy Denise McCorry Woodside Energy Jarrod Pittson Woodside Energy Ann Jones Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 44

7.5 Appendix 5 – Results Chains & Workplans

7.5.1 Objective 1. Protection of important habitats for migratory shorebirds has occurred throughout the EAAF.

Strategy 1b. Seek support of Chinese and Republic of Korean governments to protect tidal flats in the Yellow Sea.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 45

7.5.2 Objective 2. Wetland habitats in Australia, on which migratory shorebirds depend, are protected and conserved.

Strategy 2a. Identify key areas for shorebird species and improve legal site protection and management using international, national and state mechanisms.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 46

7.5.3 Objective 3. Anthropogenic threats to migratory shorebirds in Australia are minimised or, where possible, eliminated.

Strategy 3a. Develop and implement a community education and awareness program to reduce effects of recreation on migratory shorebirds.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 47

Strategy 3b. Investigate and respond to impacts of climate change on shorebird populations.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 48

Strategy 3e. Develop and implement guidelines for wetland rehabilitation and creation of artificial wetlands to support migratory shorebirds.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 49

Strategy 3f. Ensure all areas important to migratory shorebirds in Australia continue to be considered in development assessment process.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 50

7.5.4 Objective 4. Knowledge gaps in migratory shorebird ecology in Australia are identified and addressed to inform decision makers, land managers and the public.

Strategy 4a. Identify and prioritise knowledge gaps that are required to support the conservation and management of migratory shorebirds and their habitats.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 51

Strategy 4b. Identify important stop-over and staging areas for migratory shorebirds in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 52

Strategy 4c. Survey northern and inland Australia for migratory shorebird populations and identify important habitats.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan 53

7.6 Appendix 6 – MS CAP Steering Committee Terms of Reference

Scope of the Terms of Reference 1. The Terms of Reference apply to the Migratory Shorebird Conservation Steering Committee, unless stated otherwise in the Terms of Reference.

General Functions 2. The Committee provides general policy, operational and financial advice concerning the implementation of the Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan (CAP) to partner organisations involved in the delivery of the MS CAP. 3. It oversees the development and implementation of the CAP work plan. 4. It consults relevant stakeholders and communicates issues, priorities and approaches associated with the implementation of the CAP 5. It provides advice on the membership of any specialised sub-Committees or working groups established to undertake discrete activities, and participate in those sub- Committee or working group meetings where relevant. 6. It monitors and regularly evaluates the performance of the CAP. 7. It provides advice on activities to raise awareness of the CAP.

Representation and Attendance 8. The Committee shall consist of not more than sixteen (16) members, which shall be appointed by consensus. 1. The Committee shall consist of: 1. One (1) Australian Government representative 2. One (1) state or territory government representative from each state/territory 3. Three (3) BirdLife Australia representative 4. One (1) Australasian Wader Studies Group representative 5. One (1) university academic 6. One (1) international representative 7. One (1) member not otherwise represented 9. In performing their role as Steering Committee representatives, the Chair and Vice-Chair, shall accomplish the following duties: 2. Circulate all relevant correspondence received by the Committee to each member 3. Lead consultations among stakeholders to decide on common issues, priorities and approaches. 4. Ensure, to the extent possible, a coordinated flow of information from stakeholders to the Committee and vice versa. 5. Coordinate the compilation of information and the completion of reports on relevant activities to be submitted to meetings of the Committee. 10. Each member of the Steering Committee shall be entitled to be represented at meeting of the Committee by a representative or his or her alternate representative.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan

54

11. Stakeholders not members of the Committee shall be invited to attend meetings where relevant, as an observer without the right to vote.

Officers 12. The members of the Committee shall elect the Chair and Vice-Chair at the first meeting. 13. The Chair shall preside at meetings of the Committee, approve for circulation the provisional agenda, agenda papers and meeting minutes. 14. The Vice-Chair shall assist in the execution of the Chair’s functions, and shall preside at meetings in the absence of the Chair. 15. The host organisation shall provide a secretary for the meetings of the Committee.

Meetings 16. The Committee shall normally meet at least twice every year. 17. Meetings of the Committee shall be called at the request of the Chair or at least three members. 18. The Chair shall determine the time, method (face-to-face or teleconference) and place of meetings. 19. Notice of meetings including the time and method, shall be given at least 30 days in advance of the meeting. 20. The circulation of meeting documents shall occur at least 14 days in advance of meeting. 21. A quorum for a meeting shall consist at least six members of the Committee. No decision shall be taken at a meeting in the absence of a quorum. 22. Decisions of the Committee shall be taken by consensus unless a vote is requested by the Chair or by four members. 23. Decisions of the Committee by voting (pursuant to paragraph 21) shall be taken by a simple majority of the members present. In the case of a tie, the motion shall be considered as rejected. 24. A summary record of each meeting shall be prepared by the secretary and shall be communicated to all Committee members, and to the participants that attended the meeting to which the report refers, within four (4) weeks.

Conflicts of interest 25. Members of the Committee must avoid conflicts of interest. A real or apparent conflict of interest exists where members have a personal, private or professional interest that conflicts or might reasonably be thought to conflict with, or to influence improperly, the discharge of their responsibilities for the work before the Committee. 26. If the Chair of the Committee deems that a real or apparent conflict of interest exists, the relevant member may be asked not to participate in Committee’s business. 27. If members become aware of a real or apparent conflict of interest while acting as a member of the Committee, they must immediately disclose it to the Chair of the Committee. 28. If a member becomes aware of it during a Committee meeting, they must declare it before the relevant discussion begins, preferably at the start of the meeting.

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan

55

29. Members must also ensure that any sensitive or confidential information acquired while a member of the Committee is maintained as confidential information.

Tenure 30. The Committee will operate for a period of five (5) years.

Final Provisions 31. The Committee shall review these Terms of Reference every year, and may be amended by consensus.

Document last updated: April 2019 – S Klose

Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan

56