Sustainable use and other IUCN concerns featured strongly when the 8 th Conference of Parties to the (UNEP-Administered) Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) met in the Kenyan capital 20-25 November 2005. Under the leadership of Holly Dublin, SSC Chair, and Jean-Christoph Vié no less than eight people represented IUCN. This team size was equalled by IFAW and Kenya and surpassed only by WWF (11), Germany (12) and UK (12). A strong showing by IUCN SSC was appropriate, because CMS is the only global convention to focus on conservation of species (as opposed to issues of trade or biodiversity).

CMS also has particular interest for SUSG, because many migratory species are subject to use. The conservation of migratory species through use is challenging, because it often requires action in areas remote from motivational benefits of harvest. Moreover, when species become rare, harvest can become controversial.

Nevertheless, CMS is basically pragmatic, such that even its Appendix 1 encompasses “traditional subsistence use”. The Secretariat under Rob Hepworth has become skilled at promoting consensual resolutions and instruments, which typically take the form of Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), Agreements and Treaties between groups of range states. Consensus is not always reached rapidly.

Houbara Bustard

An extraordinarily thorough draft Agreement and associated Action Plan on the Asian Houbara Bustard had taken 14 years of effort (mainly by Saudi Arabia with much recent help from United Arab Emirates) to develop with the range states and still required 2½ hours of plenary. Major challenges are to develop satisfactory mechanisms for (i) monitoring populations, (ii) controlling the off-take by hunting and (iii) motivating local people to conserve habitat in breeding areas. (NB. The Chair of SSC has asked SUSG to take on bustard issues within SSC and this was the principal reason for my attendance at the CoP.)

The Houbara agreement will permit hunting only by trained falcons. By tradition, Saker Falcons were trapped on migration and released after hunting prey such as migrating or wintering Houbara. However, as with the Houbara, dissolution of the USSR enabled harvest pressure to build in Saker breeding areas before migration. This problem contributed to a separate Memorandum of Understanding on African and Eurasian Raptors, which had been prepared by the UK and attracted little discussion. Similarly, an MOU on the Conservation, Restoration and Sustainable Use of Saiga Antelope had benefited from much IUCN effort (including by Robin Sharp CB) and was not controversial at the CoP. (NB. Only one of four originally designated range states signed at the CoP, though there is hope that two others may do so shortly, thus bringing the MOU into formal operation. Ed.) This MOU was signed by IUCN, as was an MOU and the IUCN SSC West African Elephant Conservation Strategy with 12 of the 13 Range States of West Africa (a very significant event that had been in process for over seven years and was resoundingly adopted at the Ministerial level).

Defining definitions

The IUCN team was concerned with some issues affecting other species, including issues of whether limited movements of gorillas met the definition of “migratory” in the Convention text and whether or not catch per unit effort provided sound supporting evidence for the purported declines of basking sharks (and hence listing on CMS Appendix 1).

Addis again - guidelines and principles misconceptions

Surprisingly, the greatest controversy concerned a resolution on the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for Sustainable Use. The CMS Secretariat had prepared a resolution that invited “CMS parties to make use of the AAPG as a relevant framework for sustainable use of biodiversity components” and “the governing bodies of Agreements and signatories to MOUs to make use of AAPG in reviewing their operations and mainstream them”, as well as asking the Secretariat in collaboration with the Scientific Council to “explore AAPG with a view to developing specific guidance on sustainable use of species in a trans-boundary context, and report to CBD SBSTTA and the next CMS COP”. The opening presentation of the COP, by the UK Minister for Biodiversity, included the statement “Every conservation effort we make must ensure that people see the economic benefit of protecting their wildlife. The framework provided by the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the sustainable use of biodiversity is an extremely useful tool to achieve these goals.” A side event organised by Kai Wollscheid of ESUSG and CIC with presentations on AAPG by CIC, IUCN, CITES, CMS Secretariat and European Commission was well attended.

However questions at the side event gave evidence of widespread misconception that the AAPG promote consumptive use. Moreover, in the Scientific Council meeting before the COP, international NGOs had raised concerns about the draft resolution, which were repeated when the resolution was presented to plenary. As a result, a working group was convened that involved the states of Australia, Germany, New Zealand, Senegal, South Africa and UK, the EU, and international NGOs including CIC, IUCN, IFAW, WWF and the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society. Initial calls to abandon the resolution were rejected. To avoid parties dissenting in plenary, the final draft focussed simply on recognition of AAPG and instruction of Scientific Council to examine applicability to CMS.

The extent of reservations about AAPG was unexpected in view of the Secretariat’s use of wording similar to recognition of the Principles by CITES the previous year and the welcome given them by IUCN members at the World Conservation Congress in Bangkok in 2004. Moreover delegates at the African and Eurasian Waterfowl Agreement (AEWA) CoP in Senegal had spontaneously adopted a similar resolution the previous month, following a side event on AAPG led by Niels Kanstrup of ESUSG and the Danish Hunters’ Association: AEWA is essentially an agreement to which CMS gave birth. (Even more surprising is that government delegates seem to see no problem in taking up different positions on identical texts in different international meetings. Ed.)

December 2005. Dr Robert Kenward is a Fellow at the UK Centre of Ecology and Hydrology, as well as a Committee Member of ESUSG and the focal point for bustards in SSC. He is at rekeceh.ac.uk

Sustainable, January 2006, contents page