Implementation of Action Plan activities. 5.1. Objective 1 - Maintain a sustainable and stable Pink-footed Goose population and its range Activity Implementation rate
1.1 Overall management of the population is effective across the flyway to maintain a stable and sustainable population at the agreed population target. 100%
1.2 Ensure that the current Adaptive Harvest Management strategy provides clear guidance (e.g. an optimal harvest quota) to achieve the agreed population target. 75%
1.3 Diminish influence of human activities on overall natural migration pattern, behaviour and seasonal distribution of the Pink-footed Goose. 25%
1.4 Key sites for the Pink-footed Goose are afforded appropriate protected area status at national and international levels. 75%
1.5 Key sites for the Pink-footed Goose have management plans that address their conservation requirements. 75%
1.6 No key sites, historically used by Pink-footed Geese in your country, are lost as a result of agricultural, industrial, urban, conservation or other land developments. 75%
1.7 No specific national or regional land use or agricultural policies / practices that have a negative impact / influence the ecological requirements of Pink- footed Geese. 50%
1.8 Measures are being taken to restore and/or rehabilitate Pink-footed Goose roosting and / or feeding habitats. 33%
1.9 Have there been any management actions taken to prevent pink-footed geese breeding on the mainland of Norway? 0%
1.10 Sufficient human and financial resources have been allocated for monitoring, reporting of harvest levels and continued implementation of the Adaptive Harvest Management strategy. 50%
5.2. Objective 2 - Keep agricultural conflicts to an acceptable level
5.3. Objective 3 - Avoid increase in tundra vegetation degradation in the breeding range
Action 3.1 concerns the gathering of sufficient knowledge on the extent and impact of arctic tundra degradation caused by Pink-footed Geese. Norway detailed that a monitoring programme has been established in the western part of Spitsbergen but that information from eastern and northern Svalbard is currently lacking. Average implementation rate: 0%
5.4. Objective 4 - Allow for recreational use that does not jeopardize the population Activity Implementation rate
4.1 The harvest level of Pink-footed Geese is sufficient to achieve the required harvest quota, in order to maintain the population at the agreed target. (Denmark, Norway) 100%*
4.2 The hunting of Pink-footed Geese is sustainable. (Denmark, Norway) 100%
4.3 An ...
Implementation of Action Plan activities. 5.1. Result 1 – Sufficient feeding opportunity available in staging and wintering areas Activity Priority Implementation rate
1.1. Steps have been taken to model habitat requirements for feeding, based on choice of different crops and habitats, intensity of use and the location of feeding areas in relation to roost. High 60%
1.2. Steps have been taken to determine nature and extent of potential conflict with agriculture, by assessing crop damage and predicted agricultural changes in the short and medium-term. (reported by Kazakhstan and Russia as not applicable) High 100%
1.3. An agri-environmental scheme that encourages sympathetic farming for RbG through incentives to adopt appropriate practices has been established. (reported by Kazakhstan and Russia as not applicable) High 100%
1.4. Steps have been taken to hold awareness-raising meetings and training workshops to ensure farmers apply appropriate farming practices for RbGs and to enhance access subsidies. (reported by Kazakhstan and Russia as not applicable) High 67%
1.5. Steps have been taken to directly manage through purchase or long-term lease to create alternative feeding areas for RbGs. (reported by Kazakhstan and Russia as not applicable) Medium 67%
5.2. Result 2 –Impact of development in the wintering and staging areas minimised through strategic planning
Action 2.1 regarding the modelling of the potential impact of proposed windfarms on Red-breasted Geese as a result of collision and loss of feeding areas was ranked as a high priority and was reported as implemented by Bulgaria and Ukraine. Kazakhstan and Russia reported the action as not-applicable, due to the fact that no windfarms are currently being planned in the vicinity of Red-breasted Goose sites. (67%).
Action 2.2 regarding the development of a sensitivity map for Red-breasted Geese, in order to provide an appropriate spatial framework for land-use planning (including the distribution of a GIS-version to developers and authorities) was also ranked as a high priority and was only reported as implemented by Bulgaria. Russia reported this action as not-applicable. Kazakhstan further reported that although a sensitivity map has not yet been developed, a map of IBAs which includes all key Red-breasted Goose stop-over sites in Northern and North-west Kazakhstan has been developed and distributed to land owners/users. (25%).
Action 2.3 regarding the production of a Strategic Environmental Assessment for developments along the Black Sea coast...
Implementation of Action Plan activities. 5.1. Result 1 – Baseline annual survival rate identified and increased by 2022
Action 1.1 regarding the analysis of data from the color-ringing project in Kazakhstan was marked as essential and only applied to Kazakhstan which reported that the activity has been implemented (100%).
Action 1.2 regarding the minimization of loss of Sociable Lapwings due to hunting along the flyways through the creation and efficient enforcement of legislation was also marked as an essential activity, applying to Syria, Iraq, Turkey and Pakistan. As the only responding range state, Turkey reported partial implementation of the activity by the national NGO Doga Dernegi. Full implementation was not achieved as the species has not been prioritized for conservation action nationally (0%).
5.2. Result 2 – Reproductive success is maximized through maintained nest survival rates higher than 35% (5-year rolling mean) and mean chick survival is higher than 0.75 fledged chicks per female (5-year rolling mean)
Action 2.1 to reduce the number of nest trampling incidents during breeding season through improved livestock management, was marked as a high priority activity and applied to Kazakhstan and Russia. Kazakhstan reported not having enough capacity to implement the activity due to the large number of shepherds in Kazakhstan. Russia reported that no studies or activities have been undertaken regarding the reproductive success of Sociable Lapwings in the Russian breeding grounds during the period 2008-2014, due to the fact that there are no permanent breeding sites of the species in the country. Social Lapwings breed in Russia irregularly (not every year) (0%).
Action 2.2 regarding the identification of key breeding sites across the breeding range was also ranked as a high priority and, again, only applied to Kazakhstan and Russia. Kazakhstan reported implementation of the action: a coordinated survey of the entire steppe zone in Kazakhstan was conducted in 2013 to this end. Russia also reported implementation of the action: a new breeding site consisting of five pairs was discovered in Saratov Oblast in 2014 (100%).
5.3. Result 3 – All key sites along the flyways are protected and adequately managed
Implementation of Action Plan activities. 5.1. Result 1 – Mortality rates are reduced Activity Implementation rate
Implementation of Action Plan activities. 5.1. Result 1 – Understanding of current drivers of population decline increased
Actions 1.1 regarding the investigation and assessment of factors impacting on productivity as well as (0%) 1.2 regarding the continued periodical monitoring of the distribution and relative abundance of goose species in west Greenland (0%), were ranked as critical and “other” respectively. Although Greenland was marked as the leading range state, implementation was to follow in cooperation with the range states. Iceland, Ireland and the UK all reported partial implementation. Yes No Partially No information Yes No Partially No information
5.2. Result 2 – Annual productivity maximized
Action 2.1 regarding the attempt to limit and avoid disturbance in the prelude to migration at spring staging areas so as to optimize the condition of potentially breeding geese was marked as a critical priority and applied to all range states. Only the UK reported partial implementation of the action. (0%)
Action 2.2 on the identification and protection of critical sites used in the staging and pre-breeding period was also ranked as critical and applied to Iceland and Greenland, of which Iceland reported implementation of the activity. (50%) Action 2.3 regarding the management of sites used in the pre-breeding period to optimize the quality and quantity of food for potentially breeding geese, was also ranked as critical and applied again to Iceland and Greenland. No range state reported having implemented the action. (0%) Average implementation rate: 17%
5.3. Result 3 – Mortality minimized Activity Priority Implementation rate
3.1. Introduce and/or maintain protection from hunting throughout the year whilst the population has its currently unfavourable status. Critical 25%
3.2. Work through relevant hunter’s organizations to promote knowledge of relevant hunting regulations. Critical 50%
3.3. Quantify the scale of illegal hunting by undertaking X-ray studies of captured birds as opportunities allow. Medium 0%
3.4. Enforce legislation on hunting e.g. especially action against illegal spring shooting. Critical 50%
3.5. Ensure that any wind-farm and similar infrastructure developments where there is collision risk are subject to EIAs. High 75%
Implementation of Action Plan activities. 5.1. Result 1 – Mortality rates are reduced Activity Implementation rate
1.1. Hunting legislation, in principle, affords adequate protection to Lesser White-fronted Geese. 59%
1.2. Sufficient human and financial resources allocated for enforcement of hunting legislation and resources are deployed to control hunting effectively. 23%
1.3. Sufficient human and financial resources have been allocated for identification of the traditional flyway and stop-over sites, and making that flyway safe for the geese. 45%
1.4. Goose hunting has been banned at all key sites for the Lesser White- fronted Goose during the period when they are usually present. Reported as non-applicable by Sweden. 33%
1.5. Adequate no-hunting zones (covering both roosting and feeding sites) have been established at all Lesser White-fronted Goose IBAs, SPAs and Ramsar sites. Reported as non-applicable by Sweden. 29%
1.6. Lure crops have been planted to direct Lesser White-fronted Geese away from areas where hunting pressure is known to be high. 0%
1.7. Efforts have been made to redirect hunting from adults to juveniles where Greater and Lesser White-fronted Geese occur together. (Kazakhstan and Russia) 0%
1.8. Obligatory training for goose hunting as outlined by the Hunting Charter of the Bern Convention (Nov 2007) has been implemented for hunters particularly in Eastern European countries. (signatories to the Bern Convention, European Commission) Reported as non-applicable by four range states 28%
1.9. Information campaign has been carried out to engage local and European hunting organizations and conservation NGOs. (question applies to Norway and the EU Member States) Reported as non-applicable by six range states 25%
5.2. Result 2 – Result 2 – Further habitat loss and degradation is prevented Activity Implementation rate
2.1. All key sites for the Lesser White-fronted Goose have been afforded appropriate protected area status at national and international levels. 32%
2.2. All key sites for the Lesser White-fronted Goose have management plans that address the conservation requirements of the species. 9%
2.3. Habitat quality in the breeding range is being monitored to ensure that anthropogenic pressures - including potential impacts of climate change - are identified as early as possible? (Finland, Norway, Russia and Sweden) 0%
2.4. Measures are being taken to restore and/or rehabilitate Lesser White- fronted Goose roosting and feeding habitat. (Two range states reported the activity as not-...
