Common use of LISTING OF NEW SPECIES Clause in Contracts

LISTING OF NEW SPECIES. 14.1 Chile presented the proposal of adding the Pink-footed Shearwater, Puffinus creatopus, to Annex 1 of the Agreement (AC7 Doc 24). Chile noted the main marine threats faced by the Pink-footed Xxxxxxxxxx and other arguments as described in AC7 Doc 24. Chile also thanked the PaCS and SB Working Groups for considering this document. The Chilean delegate remarked that Chile gave priority to the creation of this document and highlighted the assistance of Xx Xxxxx Xxxxxx (Instituto de Fomento Pesquero, Chile), Mr Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx (Subsecretaría de Pesca, Chile), Xx Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx (Oikonos, Chile), Xx Xxxxxx Xxxxx (Isntituto Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx), Xx Xxxxx Xxxxx (Xxxxxxx, USA) and Mr Xxx Xxxxxx (Canadian Wildlife Service). 14.2 Ecuador introduced the proposal to include the Galapagos Petrel Pterodroma phaeopygia on Annex 1 of the Agreement (AC7 Doc 25). Ecuador encouraged the AC to review the information provided and recommended that the Fifth Meeting of the Parties (MoP5) include the species on Annex I of the Agreement. 14.3 Convenors of PCSWG and SBWG reported that both groups discussed the proposed nominations and considered that the Pink-footed Shearwater ranked highly using the criteria in AC3 Doc 18, and strongly supported the inclusion of this species in the Agreement. However, both WGs expressed reservations about the inclusion of the Galapagos Petrel. Convenors noted that this species does not score highly under the criteria in AC3 Doc 18, and more research is needed to confirm possible interactions with fishing fleets. 14.4 The Vice-convenor of PCSWG, Xx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx, noted some other general issues discussed by the WG in relation to the criteria for inclusion of new species as presented in the PCSWG Report, such as the ability of the Agreement to provide meaningful action for the species’ conservation. He also noted the concern expressed by the Secretariat in respect to the inclusion of too many species, given the limited amount of resources available. 14.5 The Convenor of SBWG also noted that the incorporation of too many species into the Agreement could be detrimental to the capacity of the Agreement to do its work. 14.6 The Secretariat presented AC7 Doc 20 Rev 1 on the process for evaluating and listing species on Annex 1. The Secretariat proposed formalising the process followed for the four species most recently added to the Annex, and formally endorsing the criteria for choosing candidate species previously presented in AC3 Doc 18. The criteria for selecting candidates has been developed by Xxxxxx and Xxxxx in 2006 (AC2 Doc 21) and further refined in 2007 (AC3 Doc 18) but no more revisions were made since then and the Working Groups have agreed to re-examine the selection criteria during the intersessional period. The Secretariat also remarked that the text of the Agreement does not require nominations to have the support of the Working Groups or of the Advisory Committee and that the AC might wish to recommend to the next Meeting of Parties that this requirement be endorsed by the MoP. 14.7 Medmaravis acknowledged the work of the PaCSWG, as reported in AC7 Doc 12. Medmaravis welcomed the consideration made by the WG of the Yelkouan Shearwater (Vulnerable under IUCN criteria) as a potentially strong candidate for listing in Annex 1. Medmaravis therefore called on France and/or Spain to lead a process to nominate Puffinus yelkouan for ACAP listing. Medmaravis strongly believes that despite current legal protection at national and EU level, the development and implementation of an ACAP Action Plan for the conservation of the Yelkouan Shearwater could make all the difference for reversing its current negative trend. 14.8 Document AC7 Inf 04, tabled by Medmaravis and BirdLife International, also proposes consideration of the listing of Scopoli’s Shearwater Calonectris diomedea in Annex 1. This is a Mediterranean endemic taxon whose taxonomic status is currently under review following its raising to species rank by various authorities. As a species, this taxon might deserve globally- threatened status given the high level of bycatch of Scopoli’s Shearwater in several fisheries and Medmaravis called on the relevant ACAP Parties to consider this as a future candidate for listing by ACAP. 14.9 Spain supported the proposal in respect of X. xxxxxxxx but noted that as this species may not breed within its territory, France might want to lead on this nomination instead. 14.10 France noted that these two species rank as high priority for inclusion in ACAP in the AC3 document (AC3 Doc 18) but indicated that at this stage, it has no formal instructions from its government regarding this. 14.11 France also supported the revision of the criteria for the inclusion of new species in the Agreement for a defined list of potential candidate species taking particularly into account the real effectiveness of ACAP in providing conservation measures through international cooperation. France further noted that this criterion is of a particular importance for listing species in CMS appendix, particularly in Appendix 2. 14.12 CMS noted that some of the criteria for inclusion on Annex 1 (e.g.

LISTING OF NEW SPECIES. 14.1 Chile presented the proposal of adding the Pink-footed Shearwater, Puffinus creatopus, to Annex 1 of the Agreement (AC7 15.1 The Chair introduced AC8 Doc 24). Chile noted the main marine threats faced 24 Rev 2 prepared by the Pink-footed Xxxxxxxxxx Secretariat and other arguments as described in AC7 Doc 24. Chile also thanked the PaCS Advisory Committee Officials, proposing criteria to guide the process of listing and SB Working Groups for considering this document. The Chilean delegate remarked that Chile gave priority to the creation of this document and highlighted the assistance of Xx Xxxxx Xxxxxx (Instituto de Fomento Pesquero, Chile), Mr Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx (Subsecretaría de Pesca, Chile), Xx Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx (Oikonos, Chile), Xx Xxxxxx Xxxxx (Isntituto Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx), Xx Xxxxx Xxxxx (Xxxxxxx, USA) and Mr Xxx Xxxxxx (Canadian Wildlife Service). 14.2 Ecuador introduced the proposal to include the Galapagos Petrel Pterodroma phaeopygia delisting species on Annex 1 of the Agreement Agreement. Criteria originally tabled were amended following inputs from Working Group reports (AC7 see AC8 Doc 25)11 and AC8 Doc 12 Rev 1) where the value of having established criteria to provide an independent tool to assess the merit of a species being listed relative to other species was agreed. 15.2 The Advisory Committee recognized that the criteria should provide a tool when considering species nominations, not preclude the listing of species which have scored less than the cut-off mark (lowest scoring species currently on Annex 1 of the Agreement) if a comprehensive justification can be presented for the listing. Ecuador encouraged It was recognized that there is merit in further developing criteria on delisting species that is primarily based on the AC listing criteria, noting however that it is not proposed that any of the species currently listed on Annex 1 be considered for removal at this point. 15.3 Argentina reflected that delisting species which have improved their conservation status (for example downlisted to Least Concern) would be premature as those species could be a useful reference to analyse whether the reasons for these improvements may have been related to actions taken under ACAP. 15.4 In addition to the intersessional review of taxonomy by the TWG proposed at PaCSWG2, the SBWG6 agreed that it would be timely to review the information provided at-sea threats scores, and recommended where appropriate the scores for the ‘migratory’ criterion (see para 12.1.3 xxx) in 12.1). 15.5 Australia indicated that any changes to the Fifth Meeting taxonomy for albatrosses and petrels listed on Annex 1 to ACAP would necessarily trigger a review of the Parties (MoP5) include the species on Annex I listing of the Agreement. 14.3 Convenors affected species. This is because taxonomic changes leading to con-specific outcomes may potentially alter the distribution of PCSWG listed species potentially affecting one or more Parties, particularly concerning conservation of seabirds within their respective jurisdictions and SBWG reported that both groups discussed the proposed nominations in managing their respective domestic and considered that the Pink-footed Shearwater ranked highly using the criteria in AC3 Doc 18, and strongly supported the inclusion of this species in the Agreement. However, both WGs expressed reservations about the inclusion of the Galapagos Petrel. Convenors noted that this species does not score highly under the criteria in AC3 Doc 18, and more research is needed to confirm possible interactions with distant water fishing fleets. 14.4 15.6 The Vice-convenor of PCSWG, Xx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx, noted some other general issues discussed by Advisory Committee decided to task the WG in relation to the criteria for inclusion of new species as presented in the PCSWG Report, such as the ability TWG with an intersessional review of the Agreement taxonomic lists available for Procellariiformes as outlined in AC8 Doc 24 Rev 2 and to provide meaningful action for advise MoP5 to adopt the species’ conservation. He also noted the concern expressed by the Secretariat in respect proposed criteria to the inclusion of too many species, given the limited amount of resources available. 14.5 The Convenor of SBWG also noted that the incorporation of too many species into the Agreement could be detrimental to the capacity of the Agreement to do its work. 14.6 The Secretariat presented AC7 Doc 20 Rev 1 on the process for evaluating and listing species on Annex 1. The Secretariat proposed formalising the process followed for the four species most recently added to the Annex, and formally endorsing the criteria for choosing candidate species previously presented in AC3 Doc 18. The criteria for selecting candidates has been developed by Xxxxxx and Xxxxx in 2006 (AC2 Doc 21) and further refined in 2007 (AC3 Doc 18) but no more revisions were made since then and the Working Groups have agreed to re-examine the selection criteria during the intersessional period. The Secretariat also remarked that the text of the Agreement does not require nominations to have the support of the Working Groups or of the Advisory Committee and that the AC might wish to recommend to the next Meeting of Parties that this requirement be endorsed by the MoP. 14.7 Medmaravis acknowledged the work of the PaCSWG, as reported in AC7 Doc 12. Medmaravis welcomed the consideration made by the WG of the Yelkouan Shearwater (Vulnerable under IUCN criteria) as a potentially strong candidate for listing in Annex 1. Medmaravis therefore called on France and/or Spain to lead a process to nominate Puffinus yelkouan for ACAP listing. Medmaravis strongly believes that despite current legal protection at national and EU level, the development and implementation of an ACAP Action Plan for the conservation of the Yelkouan Shearwater could make all the difference for reversing its current negative trend. 14.8 Document AC7 Inf 04, tabled by Medmaravis and BirdLife International, also proposes consideration of guide the listing of Scopoli’s Shearwater Calonectris diomedea in Annex 1. This is a Mediterranean endemic taxon whose taxonomic status is currently under review following its raising to species rank by various authorities. As a new species, this taxon might deserve globally- threatened status given the high level of bycatch of Scopoli’s Shearwater in several fisheries and Medmaravis called on the relevant ACAP Parties to consider this as a future candidate for listing by ACAP. 14.9 Spain supported the proposal in respect of X. xxxxxxxx but noted that as this species may not breed within its territory, France might want to lead on this nomination instead. 14.10 France noted that these two species rank as high priority for inclusion in ACAP in the AC3 document (AC3 Doc 18) but indicated that at this stage, it has no formal instructions from its government regarding this. 14.11 France also supported the revision of the criteria for the inclusion of new species in the Agreement for a defined list of potential candidate species taking particularly into account the real effectiveness of ACAP in providing conservation measures through international cooperation. France further noted that this criterion is of a particular importance for listing species in CMS appendix, particularly in Appendix 2. 14.12 CMS noted that some of the criteria for inclusion on Annex 1 (e.g.

LISTING OF NEW SPECIES. 14.1 Chile 16.1 The Vice-Chair introduced paper (AC3 Doc 18), proposing an objective procedure for selecting candidate species for inclusion in Annex 1 of the Agreement. This paper is a revision of the paper presented at AC2 (AC2 Doc 21). At AC2 it was noted that some of the proposal criteria were not exclusive of adding each other and that this could result in some double counting of some values. This issue is addressed in the Pinkrevised paper as well as giving greater weight to ‘at sea’ threats. 16.2 Using the proposed methodology two groups of birds appeared as strong candidates for inclusion in Annex 1; the three North Pacific albatrosses Phoebastria spp. and three Mediterranean shearwaters of the genera Calonectris and Puffinus. Four southern hemisphere-footed Shearwaterbreeding shearwaters Puffinus spp. scored relatively highly, Puffinus creatopusand so might also be considered as candidate species for listing in the future. All ACAP species scored highly, giving credence to the scoring system. 16.3 As a first priority, the Committee discussed the merit of listing the three northern species of albatrosses and the process to be followed. The Committee agreed that the addition of the three North Pacific albatrosses Phoebastria spp. to Annex 1 of the Agreement (AC7 Doc 24). Chile noted the main marine threats faced should be progressed by the PinkSecretariat preparing a discussion paper intersessionally, for the next meeting of the Advisory Committee. If support was then forthcoming, the Advisory Committee would seek a Party or Parties to submit a proposal to the Third Session of the Meeting of Parties in 2009 to list the three albatrosses on Annex 1. On this occasion, the supporting document should include three species assessments, following the format developed by the Status and Trends Working Group, although the Committee noted that species assessments were not a pre-footed Xxxxxxxxxx requisite to such proposals. Available species action and recovery plans and other arguments relevant documentation of the conservation status for the three North Pacific albatrosses should be appended to these assessments. 16.4 Several Parties, including South Africa and the United Kingdom, offered to help the Secretariat with this task, as described in AC7 Doc 24. Chile also thanked did the PaCS and SB Working Groups for considering this documentConvenor of the STWG. The Chilean delegate remarked that Chile gave priority United States also offered to contribute to the creation of this document process, e.g. by making species plans and highlighted other relevant documentation available to the assistance of Xx Xxxxx Xxxxxx (Instituto de Fomento PesqueroSecretariat, Chile), Mr Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx (Subsecretaría de Pesca, Chile), Xx Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx (Oikonos, Chile), Xx Xxxxxx Xxxxx (Isntituto Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx), Xx Xxxxx Xxxxx (Xxxxxxx, USA) and as needed. Mr Xxx Xxxxxx (offered to help with similar Canadian Wildlife Service)plans. 14.2 Ecuador introduced 16.5 As a related activity, it was agreed that the proposal Secretariat should approach the breeding Range States for the three North Pacific albatrosses, to include the Galapagos Petrel Pterodroma phaeopygia on Annex 1 inform them of the Agreement (AC7 Doc 25). Ecuador encouraged the AC to review the information provided and recommended that the Fifth Meeting desire of the Parties (MoP5) include ACAP Advisory Committee to consider a proposal for the species on Annex I of the Agreementnew species’ listings at its next meeting in 2008 and to invite their comments. 14.3 Convenors of PCSWG and SBWG reported that both groups discussed the proposed nominations and considered 16.6 For further consideration, Chile noted that the Pink-footed Shearwater ranked highly using the criteria in AC3 Doc 18, and strongly supported the inclusion of this species in the Agreement. However, both WGs expressed reservations about the inclusion shearwater Puffinus creatopus has been listed on Appendix 1 of the Galapagos Petrel. Convenors noted CMS and that domestic legislation had been enacted to protect this species does not score highly under the criteria in AC3 Doc 18, and more research is needed to confirm possible interactions with fishing fleetsspecies. 14.4 The Vice-convenor of PCSWG, Xx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx, noted some other general issues discussed by the WG in relation to the criteria for inclusion of new species as presented in the PCSWG Report, such as the ability of the Agreement to provide meaningful action for the species’ conservation. He also noted the concern expressed by the Secretariat in respect to the inclusion of too many species, given the limited amount of resources available. 14.5 The Convenor of SBWG also 16.7 Peru noted that the incorporation of too many species into Peruvian diving petrel Pelecanoides garnotii had a declining population trend and that it had been categorised as Endangered by IUCN. It had only two breeding sites in Peru, which were located very close to each other. 16.8 Given its current capacity and focus, the Agreement could be detrimental to Committee recommended prioritising the capacity listing of the Agreement three North Pacific albatrosses at this stage 16.9 The Committee agreed to do its work. 14.6 The Secretariat presented AC7 Doc 20 Rev 1 on further consider the process for evaluating and listing species on Annex 1. The Secretariat proposed formalising the process followed for the four species most recently added to the Annex, and formally endorsing the criteria for choosing candidate species previously presented in AC3 Doc 18. The criteria for selecting candidates has been developed by Xxxxxx and Xxxxx in 2006 (AC2 Doc 21) and further refined in 2007 (AC3 Doc 18) but no more revisions were made since then and the Working Groups have agreed to re-examine the selection criteria during the intersessional period. The Secretariat also remarked that the text of the Agreement does not require nominations to have the support of the Working Groups or of the Advisory Committee and that the AC might wish to recommend to the next Meeting of Parties that this requirement be endorsed by the MoP. 14.7 Medmaravis acknowledged the work of the PaCSWG, as reported in AC7 Doc 12. Medmaravis welcomed the consideration made by the WG of the Yelkouan Shearwater (Vulnerable under IUCN criteria) as a potentially strong candidate for listing in Annex 1. Medmaravis therefore called on France and/or Spain to lead a process to nominate Puffinus yelkouan for ACAP listing. Medmaravis strongly believes that despite current legal protection at national and EU level, the development and implementation of an ACAP Action Plan for the conservation of the Yelkouan Shearwater could make all the difference for reversing its current negative trend. 14.8 Document AC7 Inf 04, tabled by Medmaravis and BirdLife International, also proposes consideration of the listing of Scopoli’s Shearwater Calonectris diomedea in Annex 1. This is a Mediterranean endemic taxon whose taxonomic status is currently under review following its raising to species rank by various authorities. As a species, this taxon might deserve globally- threatened status given the high level of bycatch of Scopoli’s Shearwater in several fisheries and Medmaravis called on the relevant ACAP Parties to consider this as a future candidate for listing by ACAP. 14.9 Spain supported the proposal in respect of X. xxxxxxxx but noted that as this species may not breed within its territory, France might want to lead on this nomination instead. 14.10 France noted that these two species rank as high priority for inclusion in ACAP in the AC3 document (AC3 Doc 18) but indicated that at this stage, it has no formal instructions from its government regarding this. 14.11 France also supported the revision of the criteria for the inclusion of new species in the Agreement for a defined list of potential candidate species taking particularly into account the real effectiveness of ACAP in providing conservation measures through international cooperation. France further noted that this criterion is of a particular importance for listing species in CMS appendix, particularly in Appendix 2at its next meeting. 14.12 CMS noted that some of the criteria for inclusion on Annex 1 (e.g.

LISTING OF NEW SPECIES. 14.1 Chile presented the proposal of 19.1 Spain proposed adding the Pink-footed Shearwater, Balearic Shearwater Puffinus creatopus, mauretanicus to Annex 1 of the Agreement (AC7 AC6 Doc 2431). Chile Spain noted that the main marine threats faced Balearic Shearwater breeds only in its Balearic Islands, is globally Critically Endangered, has been listed in Appendix I of the CMS, and that an international action plan, prepared by the Pink-footed Xxxxxxxxxx BirdLife International Spanish partner, SEO/BirdLife, for the European Commission was published in 2011 (AC6 Inf 04). Spain also noted that an ACAP Species Assessment for the shearwater had been prepared with support from the ACAP Secretariat, showing that the species was threatened by both introduced predators and other arguments as described in AC7 Doc 24. Chile also thanked domestic animals at its breeding sites and by demersal longline fisheries and changed discharge procedures from trawl fisheries at sea, both threats which were considered to be deleteriously affecting adult survival. 19.2 The Advisory Committee noted that the PaCS joint Meeting of the Breeding Sites and SB Status and Trends Working Groups has considered the proposed nomination and had considered the shearwater was a strong candidate for considering listing, noting that this document. The Chilean delegate remarked that Chile gave priority to view had been previously endorsed by the creation Agreement (AC3 Doc 18; Listing of this document and highlighted the assistance of Xx Xxxxx Xxxxxx (Instituto de Fomento Pesquero, Chile), Mr Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx (Subsecretaría de Pesca, Chile), Xx Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx (Oikonos, Chile), Xx Xxxxxx Xxxxx (Isntituto Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx), Xx Xxxxx Xxxxx (Xxxxxxx, USA) and Mr Xxx Xxxxxx (Canadian Wildlife ServiceNew Species). 14.2 Ecuador introduced 19.3 A question was asked over the taxonomic status of the Balearic Shearwater, with the suggestion that the matter be referred to the ACAP Taxonomy Working Group. It was noted that the action plan includes a taxonomic consideration and that further genetic studies were being conducted. 19.4 France, the CMS and Birdlife International supported Spain‟s proposal to include nominate the Galapagos Petrel Pterodroma phaeopygia on Annex 1 species to the Agreement. The CMS also stated that it was using the Balearic Shearwater as an indicator species to aid in the selection of marine Important Bird Areas (IBAs) within its range. The Advisory Committee endorsed the proposal, noting that documentation would need to be received by the Secretariat this year in time for a formal nomination to be considered at the next session of the Agreement (AC7 Doc 25). Ecuador encouraged the AC to review the information provided and recommended that the Fifth Meeting of the Parties (MoP5) include the species on Annex I Parties, due to be held in 2012. Such a nomination should take consideration of the Agreementany new taxonomic information that may become available. 14.3 Convenors 19.5 Chile gave notification of PCSWG and SBWG reported that both groups discussed its intention to work towards nominating to the proposed nominations and considered that Agreement the globally Vulnerable Pink-footed Shearwater ranked highly using Puffinus creatopus, a trans-Equatorial migrant endemic species that breeds in Chile. It noted that it was conducting research on the criteria species and that both national and international action plans were in AC3 Doc 18existence. Chile‟s intention to nominate the species was supported by Canada, who noted it is a range state and strongly supported produced a recovery plan in 2008. 19.6 Ecuador informed the inclusion meeting of this species its desire to submit the globally Critically Endangered Galapagos Petrel Pterodroma phaeopygia, endemic to the Galapagos Islands, for consideration for listing in the Agreement, and requested information on the process to be followed. HoweverThe Advisory Committee agreed that nominations should preferably be submitted with action plans and ACAP Species Assessments documents and offered to help with both processes, both WGs expressed reservations about noting that for the inclusion Waved Albatross Action Plan a series of round-table discussions had been held as part of the Galapagos Petrel. Convenors noted that this species does not score highly under the criteria in AC3 Doc 18, and more research is needed to confirm possible interactions with fishing fleetsproduction process. 14.4 The Vice-convenor of PCSWG, Xx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx, noted some other general issues discussed by the WG in 19.7 In relation to AC6 Doc 32, the criteria for inclusion of new species as presented in the PCSWG Report, such as the ability of the Agreement to provide meaningful action for the species’ conservation. He also noted the concern expressed by the Secretariat in respect to the inclusion of too many species, given the limited amount of resources available. 14.5 The Convenor of SBWG also Advisory Committee noted that the incorporation main item of too many species into relevance to ACAP is the Agreement could be detrimental to suggestion by the capacity of the Agreement to do its work. 14.6 The Secretariat presented AC7 Doc 20 Rev 1 on the process for evaluating and listing species on Annex 1. The Secretariat proposed formalising the process followed for the four species most recently added to the Annex, and formally endorsing the criteria for choosing candidate species previously presented in AC3 Doc 18. The criteria for selecting candidates has been developed by Xxxxxx and Xxxxx in 2006 (AC2 Doc 21) and further refined in 2007 (AC3 Doc 18) but no more revisions were made since then CMS Flyways Working Group that ACAP and the Working Groups have agreed to re-examine Convention on Migratory Species discuss “expanding the selection criteria during the intersessional period. The Secretariat also remarked that the text of the Agreement does not require nominations to have the support of the Working Groups or of the Advisory Committee remit and that the AC might wish to recommend to the next Meeting of Parties that this requirement be endorsed by the MoP. 14.7 Medmaravis acknowledged the work of the PaCSWG, as reported in AC7 Doc 12. Medmaravis welcomed the consideration made by the WG of the Yelkouan Shearwater ACAP” to keep developing (Vulnerable under IUCN criteriaand presumably implementing) as “a potentially strong candidate for listing in Annex 1. Medmaravis therefore called on France and/or Spain to lead a process to nominate Puffinus yelkouan for ACAP listing. Medmaravis strongly believes that despite current legal protection at national coherent conservation framework and EU level, the development and implementation of an ACAP Action Plan for the conservation marine bird species not presently covered by ACAP”. 19.8 The Advisory Committee discussed some of the Yelkouan Shearwater could make all the difference for reversing its current negative trend. 14.8 Document AC7 Inf 04, tabled by Medmaravis and BirdLife International, also proposes consideration implications of the listing suggestions and noted the following for consideration by the Meeting of Scopoli’s Shearwater Calonectris diomedea the Parties: a. Implementation of ACAP is still in Annex 1. This is a Mediterranean endemic taxon whose taxonomic status is currently under review following its raising to species rank by various authorities. As a speciesearly stages, this taxon might deserve globally- threatened status given the high level of bycatch of Scopoli’s Shearwater in several fisheries requiring ongoing major efforts and Medmaravis called on the relevant resources from all ACAP Parties to consider this maintain progress; b. Enlarging ACAP to address conservation issues even for only the non-ACAP globally-threatened seabird species would add some 80 species to ACAP and require substantial new resources, even to commence the necessary preparatory work; c. Recent analysis (by BirdLife International) of the conservation priorities for all seabirds identified gadfly petrels (genera Pterodroma and Pseudobulweria), penguins and cormorants as a future candidate the species-groups with the most threatened species, after those included in ACAP; d. Consideration of the expansion of ACAP even to include any or all of these species- groups should include awareness of the large number of breeding Range States, additional to existing ACAP Parties, that would need to be involved; and e. Furthermore, because numerous Action Plans for listing globally-threatened seabird species already exist or are in preparation, including many developed by groups and organisations operating independently of CMS or ACAP; any dialogue on worldwide conservation frameworks and action plans will need to involve many additional stakeholders and constituencies. 14.9 Spain supported 19.9 South Africa advised that the proposal in respect Agreement should at least restrict itself to members of X. xxxxxxxx but the order Procellariiformes and not consider expansion to other species of migratory seabirds. 19.10 The Advisory Committee noted that as this species may not breed within its territoryexisting ACAP Parties, France might want most of whom are also Range States for other globally-threatened seabird species, (including in the above- mentioned groups) indicated that they were supportive, in principle, of the development of collaborative arrangements where these would allow or enhance actions to lead on this nomination insteadimprove the conservation status of such species. 14.10 France noted that these two species rank 19.11 However, any such arrangements, whether involving the expansion of ACAP or the development of new free-standing agreements, should require clear expressions, from at least the main breeding Range States, of their intention to be active collaborators/partners in any new multinational initiatives, including by providing additional resources or opportunities (as high priority for inclusion in ACAP in the AC3 document (AC3 Doc 18appropriate) but indicated that at this stage, it has no formal instructions from its government regarding thisto establish and implement these. 14.11 France also supported 19.12 This interim commentary and advice by the revision ACAP Advisory Committee might usefully be made available to the forthcoming discussion of the criteria CMS of its policy options for the inclusion of new species in the Agreement for a defined list of potential candidate species taking particularly into account the real effectiveness of ACAP in providing conservation measures through international cooperation. France further noted that this criterion is of a particular importance for listing species in CMS appendix, particularly in Appendix 2migratory bird flyways. 14.12 CMS noted that some of the criteria for inclusion on Annex 1 (e.g.