unep gef portfolio outlook and evolution · pdf filefacility coordination (unep/dgef)...

THE EXPERIENCE OF UNEP GEF AND PARTNERS IN FLYWAY CONSERVATION

UNEP GEF PORTFOLIO

OUTLOOK AND EVOLUTION

BIODIVERSITY ISSUE PAPER BD/001

Copyright © 2009, United Nations Environment Programme - Division of Global Environment

Facility Coordination (UNEP/DGEF)

Disclaimers:

The content and views expressed in this publication do not necessarily refl ect the views or policies of

the contributory organizations or the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and neither do

they imply any endorsement.

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression

of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP concerning the legal status of any country, territory or

city or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers and boundaries.

Mention of an entity or product in this publication does not imply the endorsement of UNEP.

Credits:

Copyright of all maps, photos and illustrations as specifi ed individually.

Reproduction:

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profi t

purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgment of the source

is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a

source.

No use of this publication may be made for resale or any other commercial purpose whatsoever without

prior permission in writing from UNEP. Applications for such permission, with a statement of purpose

and intent of the reproduction, should be addressed to the Division of Communications and Public

Information (DCPI), UNEP, P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi 00100, Kenya.

The use of information from this publication concerning proprietary products for publicity or advertising

is not permitted.

Produced by:

United Nations Environment Programme

Division of Global Environment Facility Coordination

Biodiversity & Natural Resources Unit

P.O. Box 30552 (00100)

Nairobi, Kenya

Visit us on the web:

www.unep.org

Suggested citation:The Experience of UNEP GEF and

Partners in Flyway Conservation,

2009. UNEP GEF Portfolio Outlook

and Evolution. Biodiversity Issue Paper

BD/001. UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya.

Publisher:UNEP / DGEF

Lead authors and editors: Edoardo Zandri & Crawford Prentice

Contributing authors: Leon Bennun, Gerard Boere, Tim

Dodman, Max Zieren, Jonathan

Barnard, Ward Hagemeijer, Camillo

Ponziani, James Harris, Taej Mundkur,

Claire Mirande, Umberto Gallo-Orsi,

Bert Lenten, Sergey Dereliev, Florian

Keil, Douglas Hykle, Francisco Rilla,

Nick Davidson

Contributing agencies:UNEP / GEF

UNOPS

International Crane Foundation

Convention on Migratory Species

African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement

Ramsar Convention on Wetlands

BirdLife International

Wetlands International

Layout & design:

Camillo Ponziani

For additional information

please visit:

www.unep.org

www.wingsoverwetlands.org

www.scwp.info

Printed on recycled, acid-free

paper

CONTENTS

FOREWORD p.6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY p.7

DEFINITIONS AND SCOPE p.9

ACHIEVEMENTS IN GEF 3 & 4 p.9

INTERNATIONAL ENABLING p.13

ENVIRONMENT

MAIN LESSONS LEARNED p.14

THE COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE p.30

OF UNEP

OUTLINE OF POSSIBLE NEW p.30

GEF INITIATIVES

ANNEX I: LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS p.33

ANNEX II: RELEVANT BACKGROUND p.34

DOCUMENTS

© J

on

ath

an

Ba

rn

ar

d,

Bir

dL

ife

In

te

rn

atio

na

l (

Ha

de

jia

-N

gu

ru

We

tla

nd

s)

© T

am

er

Yil

ma

z (

Su

ns

et i

n B

ur

du

r,

Tu

rk

ey

)

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway ConservationBiodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation

AEWA African-Eurasian Waterbird AgreementCMS Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild AnimalsCOP Conference of the PartiesCSN Critical Site NetworkEA Executing AgencyEAAFP East Asian - Australasian Flyway PartnershipFAO Food and Agriculture OrganizationFWG Flyway Working GroupGEF Global Environment Facility

GIS Geographical Information System IA Implementing Agency ICF International Crane Foundation

IIT International Implementation Tasks IT Information Technology LULUCF Land Use, Land Use Change and Forests

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MEA Multi-lateral Environmental Agreements

MOP Meeting of the PartiesMOU Memorandum of UnderstandingMTE Mid-Term Evaluation

NEA National Executing AgencyNGO Non Governmental OrganisationPIR Project Implementation Report

RAF Resource Allocation FrameworkSCWP Siberian Crane Wetland ProjectSMART Specifi c Measurable Achievable Realistic and Time-boundTOR Terms of ReferenceUN United NationsUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNOPS United Nations Offi ce for Project ServicesUN-REDD United Nations programme for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation

and Degradation USA United States of America

UNEP WCMC World Conservation Monitoring CentreWHSRN Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve NetworkWOW Wings Over Wetlands (UNEP/GEF African-Eurasian Flyways Project)

PARTNERS AND DONORS

Biodiversity Issue Paper BD/001: The Experience of UNEP GEF and Partners in Flyway Conservation

Page 5

The drafting of this issue paper has been a highly participatory and collaborative process, in which many partners and donors have been engaged.

groups as well as to trans-boundary conservation issues in general.

The two projects are rather different, and comple-mentary, in their scope and emphasis. The African-Eurasian Flyways Project (‘Wings over Wetlands’, or WOW) covers a wide range of countries, with a strong focus on developing regional tools with broad applicability. The Siberian Crane Wetland Project (SCWP) covers four countries along two main fl yways, showing how more focused fl yway efforts – still spanning large distances but involv-ing smaller numbers of countries and bird species – can achieve outcomes that may be diffi cult for more complex and diverse projects. The results of both projects provide valuable lessons on the way forward with fl yway conservation initiatives.

Important new conservation tools are being generated by both projects. The “Critical Site Network Tool” contributes to improving our con-servation planning capacity at the local, national

Two major regional initiatives1 focusing on the fl yway-level conservation of migratory birds and their habitats are currently being successfully implemented by UNEP GEF in collaboration with a wide range of partners, all of whom have contributed to the development of this paper.2 These initiatives cover over 122 countries, with direct fi eld activities at more than 28 sites span-ning 16 countries. We draw upon lessons learned so far in the design and implementation of these two innovative projects, not only as a basis for the consolidation of experiences, but also for the expansion of this important area of biodiversity and habitat conservation work. Notwithstanding the focus on fl yways and migratory birds, there are some important lessons learned that are quite relevant also to other migratory species

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Namely: the UNEP/GEF “Siberian Crane Wetland” Project and the UNEP/GEF “African-Eurasian Flyways” Project.

2. A third GEF Flyways project – the “Migratory Soaring Birds” project is executed by BirdLife International through UNDP. This is not formally part

of this review, but lessons from staff engaged in both this project and WOW are included where appropriate.

3. Voice printing is a technique where individual birds can be identifi ed by their unique vocal patterns without having to catch and band them. It

has been tested on Red Crowned and Siberian Cranes.

© C

am

illo

Po

nz

ian

i (

Na

mg

a-

Ko

ko

ro

u C

om

ple

x,

Nig

er

)

© G

áb

or

Sim

ay

(F

er

ru

gin

ou

s D

uc

k)

Page 7

strengthened among key stakeholders, as a result of this and other recent efforts supported by the UNEP GEF: a good sign and a reason for optimism on the validity and potential of the fl yway conser-vation approach.

The way ahead is complex, and challenges are increasingly diffi cult in the face of climate change and increased human-induced pressures on our planet.

Our direction is also increasingly clear, and new “fl yway” projects are already on the drawing board for possible future funding by GEF and other donors, on the basis of our recent experience.

It is our hope that these initiatives will lead to further investments in the wise-use of wetland resources and to better conservation of migratory waterbirds worldwide.

Maryam Niamir-Fuller

GEF Executive Coordinator and Director

Division of Global Environment Facility Coordination

United Nations Environment Programme

The “Flyway Approach” has become a key concept guiding the development of international initiatives for fl yway-scale conservation covering many dif-ferent migratory bird species in many parts of the world.

For the past several years, these international ef-forts to conserve migratory waterbirds have been given an unprecedented boost through the WOW Project and the Siberian Crane Wetland Project.

Both have become a model internationally for fl y-way initiatives in other regions showing how “The Flyway Approach” can be put into practice. These projects are a unique example of the broad part-nerships that characterise UNEP’s support to multi-national efforts in the conservation of biodiversity and natural resources

The UNEP GEF team is committed to continue to support this approach, and the commendable efforts of all stakeholders in fl yway conservation. We look forward to avenues for consolidating and expanding the scope of this and other recent successful fl yway conservation initiatives in our UNEP GEF project portfolio. We are also glad to note that existing fl yway conservation partnerships are being

FOREWORD

Page 6


© P

atr

ick

Nij

hu

is

implemented in close collaboration with major in-ternational NGOs such as Wetlands International, BirdLife International, and the International Crane Foundation, as well as the UNEP/WCMC. The innovative nature and management complex-ity of these multi-country and multi-stakeholder projects required a significant degree of adaptive management and patience, especially at their outset. In Section 5, some lessons learned are summarised, and some improved management measures are proposed. These lessons aim at fa-cilitating the design, approval and implementation of new GEF flyway-level conservation initiatives, to be consolidated and expanded possibly even on a broader scale. In particular, section 5.1 covers emerging lessons related to the technical design and implementation of projects on flyways and migratory species. These focus on:

Section 5.2 covers important emerging lessons with respect to project preparation, management, monitoring and evaluation. These issues appear to be common and relevant also to most other multi-country projects, and are therefore clustered into this section. Section 6 outlines the comparative advantage of UNEP in terms of facilitating this type of multi-country initiatives. Section 7 provides a prelimi-nary outlook at proposed new initiatives in the field of flyway-level conservation for possible GEF support from 2010, resulting from initial consultation with some of the partner organisations involved.

and flyway levels. A modular “Flyway Training Kit” is now available and specifically designed to improve the capacity to understand and ap-ply flyway-level conservation concepts. A wide range of conservation strategies for migratory waterbirds is also being effectively demonstrated at 28 field sites. Important targeted research on technologies such as satellite telemetry and voice-printing3, and regional training activities on top-ics such as data management, help ensure sound collection, maintenance and sharing of information across flyways. At the regional level, strong net-works are being created among project sites and between countries along the same flyways. Although regional planning and cooperation is an important pre-requisite for effective flyway con-servation, field practice experience during both projects showed that this can only be achieved if local programmes cater for the existing shared interests of multiple stakeholders at the national and site levels: for example in managing water resources which sustain wetland ecosystem services for both waterbirds as well as economic functions such as fisheries, agriculture or hydro-power supply. This is even more important in the face of the impacts of climate change on these systems and services. Promoting flyway conservation from a combination of local, regional or trans-boundary perspectives, with emphasis on multiple conser-vation and socio-economic benefits rather than purely on bird conservation needs, has demon-strated greater chances of success especially in terms of engaging politicians and decision makers in conservation-oriented decisions. The tangible activities and results of both projects have contributed greatly to our understanding of flyway-level conservation in all participating countries, and have generated political support for this approach. Significant interest has also been generated beyond the areas covered by these two “pilot” GEF projects. These results provide an excellent basis for the consolidation and expan-sion of flyway-level conservation work on a global scale, within the framework of the relevant Multi-lateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) (includ-ing CMS, AEWA, Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, and the Convention on Biological Diversity) as well as strategic alliances such as the East Asian - Australasian Flyway Partnership (EAAFP) or the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN). These activities are also being

Flyways have been defined as “the entire range of a migratory bird species (or groups of related species or distinct populations of a single species) through which it moves on an annual basis from the breeding grounds to non-breeding areas, in-cluding intermediate resting and feeding places as well as the area within which the birds migrate”.4 Flyway-level conservation initiatives treated in this paper are focusing exclusively on UNEP/GEF projects striving to cover the entire flyway of one or more species or populations of migratory birds. This paper also includes input, where applicable, from Executing Agency staff engaged in both the UNEP/GEF WOW and SCWP projects, as well as the UNDP/GEF “Migratory Soaring Birds” Project; however this last project is currently only in its early stages of implementation, so it is premature to fully evaluate the lessons at this stage and as such this project is not formally included in this review.

2. DEFINITIONS & SCOPE 3. ACHIEVEMENTS IN GEF3 & GEF4

Two important and complex GEF-funded regional scale interventions in the field of flyway conser-vation are currently being implemented by UNEP GEF. Both projects are at an advanced stage of implementation at the time of writing, and are generating important outputs. Their main achieve-ments include:

a. Broader cooperation established: both projects under review have clearly demonstrated the importance and the potential effectiveness of a hybrid partnership model for reaching important trans-boundary conservation objectives. Partners include the Secretariats of several Multi-lateral Environmental Agreements and existing international partnerships (such as the East Asian - Austral-asian Flyway Partnership), various UN agencies, national governments as well as international and national NGOs.

b. Improved enabling environment: the proj-ects facilitated the creation of new MEAs and actively contributed towards consolidating and implementing existing ones5, through practical


Page 8 Page 9

• Removing barriers and creating incentives to developing

multi-national flyway conservation initiatives;

• Emphasising regional-level activities as they generate

important and globally-relevant outputs;

• Developing well inter-connected flyway conservation

activities at the site and national levels;

• Fostering support at the national level by taking into

account the common issues and interests of stakeholder

groups;

• Dedicating specific attention to factors affecting key

sites at national and local levels that can threaten the

integrity of entire flyways;

• Assigning proper value (and budget) to communication

outputs.

4. Boere, G.C. & Stroud, D.A. 2006. The flyway concept: what it is and what it isn’t. Waterbirds around the world. Eds. G.C. Boere,

C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK. pp. 40.

5. Particular reference is made to the CMS (and relevant international MOUs under the CMS umbrella), AEWA, Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, as

well as the newly established East Asian - Australasian Flyway Partnership.

©T

im F

aa

se

n -

ww

w.w

ild

ph

oto

.nl

(P

lata

lea

le

uc

or

od

ia)

information has also benefi ted planning and con-servation action.

d. Improved national capacity for fl yway conservation: the capability of the national agencies responsible for coordinating national pro-grammes concerning migratory waterbird monitor-ing and conservation and associated international cooperation including participation in related MEAs has been signifi cantly strengthened through these projects.

e. New tools for capacity building: the fi rst comprehensive multi-lingual “Flyway Training Kit7” was developed in collaboration with over 40 training institutions across the African-Eurasian region and implementation has started.

f. Raised awareness: signifi cantly increased through websites, publications, presentations by all the wide range of stakeholders concerned with the conservation of migratory waterbirds across

demonstration of the fl yway approach;

c. Improved science base: the innovative “Criti-cal Site Network Tool” of the WOW project provides a basis for more effective fl yway-level conserva-tion planning in the African-Eurasian region6. The fi rst draft of this tool is available and a public launch is planned for 2010.

Signifi cant advances have been made in our knowledge of waterbird fl yways in West/Central and Eastern Asia through surveys, monitoring and satellite tracking research. Studies and plans con-cerning the water supplies needed to maintain or restore appropriate hydrological regimes, wetland ecosystem functions including support for biodi-versity (especially migratory waterbirds) as well as the needs of local communities have guided local resource managers in taking appropriate decisions. These efforts have been supported by the development of GIS-based information man-agement at different scales. Improved sharing of

6. Throughout the document the term “African-Eurasian region” is intended as the area covered under the African Eurasian Waterbird Agreement

(AEWA), covering 118 countries (www.unep-aewa.org).

7. UNEP GEF Wings over Wetlands “The fl yway approach to the conservation and wise use of waterbirds and wetlands: a Training Kit” (2009, in

press.).


the 118 countries of the African-Eurasian Region, largely overlapping with the 11 range states for the Siberian Crane. Examples include the World Migratory Bird Day (www.worldmigratorybirdday.org), the Crane Day celebrations that continue to gain momentum, now covering 100+ sites in nine countries, and an inter-fl yway environmental edu-cation programme that has been initiated among Russia (Yakutia), China and USA supported by multi-lingual websites.

g. Best practice examples: hands-on demon-stration activities implemented at 28 sites spanning 16 countries at sites of global importance for the conservation of migratory waterbirds and their habitats with, in most cases, approaches catering for the interests of multiple stakeholders.


Page 10 Page 11

(Clockwise from top)

Figure 1: Map of the AEWA region (Source: UNEP/

AEWA)

Figure 2: Migration routes of the Siberian Crane

(Source: International Crane Foundation)

Figure 3: The eight broad fl yways of waders / shore

birds (Source: International Wader Study Group. A

more detailed evaluation by Brown et al. 2001 distinguishes

fi ve shorebird fl yways in North America: Pacifi c-Asiatic,

Intermountain West, Central, Mississippi, and Atlantic)

©T

im F

aa

se

n -

ww

w.w

ild

ph

oto

.nl

(N

um

en

ius

ph

ae

op

us

)

© A

bb

a M

ah

mo

ud

ou

(N

am

ga

-K

ok

or

ou

Co

mp

lex

)

tives. For instance, through SCWP a new site network has been established in West/Central Asia under the CMS MoU on the Siberian Crane which could lead the way towards the develop-ment of a wider waterbird site network for the Central Asian Flyway. This progress is also

The role of GEF-funded projects and most recent deliberations by relevant MEAs

These GEF-funded initiatives have provided an invaluable opportunity to demonstrate the in-novative “fl yway conservation approach”. Both UNEP GEF Flyways Projects have played a crucial role in strengthening the relevant international MEAs and strategic partnerships under whose umbrella they are implemented. The achieve-ments and issues raised through both projects are stimulating increased political and scientifi c discussions on the fl yway approach at the local, national, regional and global levels.

As a result, the role of relevant MEAs (i.e. AEWA, Ramsar, CMS etc.) focusing on fl y-way conservation has also been signifi cantly strengthened in recent years. This impact of GEF support is demonstrated by increased MEA membership, increased delivery of implementa-tion priorities with relation to the fl yway ap-proach, and increasingly active participation of member countries in fl yway conservation initia-

4. INTERNATIONAL ENABLING ENVIRONMENT

PrOJeCT geF Ia regIONaL SCOPe geF BUDgeT (US$) CO-FINaNCINg

STaTUS eXeCUTINg ParTNerS

The “Siberian Crane Wetland” Project

(GEF ID 1097)

UNEP 4 countries 10,350,000 (12,358,000)

Ongoing; Phase I

Complet-ed; Phase II Closing in

2009.PIR rating 2008: “S”

UNEP/CMS, International

Crane Foundation (ICF)

Objective: to secure the ecological integrity of a network of globally important wetlands that are of critical importance for migra-tory waterbirds and other wetland biodiversity, using the globally threatened Siberian Crane as a fl agship species. The project focuses on the conservation of the international network of wetlands upon which the Siberian Crane depends throughout its migration cycle, together with a wide range of other wetland biodiversity. As of September 2009, twelve of these wetlands are Ramsar sites and nominations for four more are in preparation.

Area: fl yways used by populations of Siberian Cranes in Western/Central Asia and in East Asia targeting16 key wetland sites lo-cated in China, Iran, Kazakhstan and Russia.

Key Achievements: (a) measures for conservation of key � yway wetlands in place, including: legal protection, management plans, stakeholder participation mechanisms, monitoring programs for waterbirds, water, and vegetation, targeted research aimed at addressing key threats, assessment of water needs to maintain key sites and provision of environmental fl ows in regional water plans, increased professional capacity, public awareness and education programs, and alternative livelihoods projects; (b) national-level measures for conservation of fl yway wetlands and migratory waterbirds in place in all four countries, with well developed fl yway monitoring within Kazakhstan, eastern China and eastern Russia; and (c) international arrangements for � yway network conservation established under the framework of CMS and the EAAFP and strengthened capacity for coordination of fl yway conservation programmes.

The “African-Eur-asian Flyways” Project (GEF ID

1258)

UNEP 18 countries (and the 118 UNEP/AEWA Range States)

6,350,000 (6,765,000)

Ongoing Closing in

2010PIR Rating 2008: “S”

UNOPS, Wetlands International, Bird-Life International,

UNEP/AEWA, Ram-sar Convention on

Wetlands

Expected Outcomes: enhanced conservation of migratory waterbirds and their critical sites in the African-Eurasian fl yways. Activities will be strategic and catalytic in nature addressing the fl yway-scale causes of site degradation and related species decline

Area: Activities will benefi t all 118 countries in the AEWA range (African Eurasian Waterbird Agreement). Demonstration projects are implemented in 12 countries. Sub-regional coordination activities are active in 6 countries.

Key Achievements: (1) The network of sites of critical importance to migratory waterbirds will be identifi ed and existing data / information resources improved and linked to create an innovative “Critical Site Network tool” (CSN) for � yway planning and management in all 118 AEWA range states. (2) The fi rst multi-lingual Flyway Training Programme developed and tailored to four sub-regions, providing the basis for individual and institutional capacity development. (3) stakeholder communications improved, enhancing coordination and cooperation in the fl yways between and within governments, research institutions and NGOs, and (4) best practice management showcased at demonstration projects in 12 countries, illustrating approaches and techniques for how to implement an array of wetland management activities in diff erent environmental and social contexts. These include: participatory management planning, ecotourism, education and awareness, control of invasive/alien species, waterbird monitoring and research, and capacity building..

The following short comparative table outlines the two UNEP GEF projects’ main features, implementation status and key achievements.

Page 12 Page 13


© C

ra

wfo

rd

Pr

en

tic

e (

Ba

nd

ing

Sib

er

ian

Cr

an

e c

hic

k)

© G

áb

or

Sim

ay

(C

om

mo

n R

ed

sh

an

k)

© G

áb

or

Sim

ay

(B

lac

k-

win

ge

d S

til

t)

or multi-country projects such as these flyways projects. Unsurprisingly, based on their experience with other projects during GEF 4, the recipient coun-tries prefer to use their allocations towards priori-ties within the country. Countries have therefore often hesitated to join multi-country GEF projects, raising concerns about the overheads and costs for the regional or global component activities, largely based on doubts regarding the benefits of

this approach. These perceptions made it difficult to support the necessary regional-level manage-ment, activities and advisory inputs to address international concerns that do not always fully coincide with single country needs. From a technical perspective, the GEF has histori-cally not placed much emphasis on species-targeted conservation projects, but has rather focused on projects with an integrated ecosystem manage-ment approach. The latter approach however posed particular challenges to the design of projects on migratory species, which straddle a wide range of biogeographic zones, habitats and field contexts. Notwithstanding the above constraints, both fly-way projects under review have proven that it is possible to gain the full support and commitment of multiple governments and local stakeholder groups alike. This support was mainly achieved through partnership building and awareness rais-ing, emphasising the regional-scale inter-linkages between (wetland) sites and their key wildlife, their common management issues, and the shared interests found with stakeholders (such as on water needs). At the government level, these projects also created a somewhat competitive environment in terms of countries’ commitments under an MEA (e.g., in terms of establishing more Ramsar sites). The support and guidance provided by these GEF projects on species (e.g., the Si-berian Crane), and site and flyway management under these MEAs, has also greatly assisted in mobilising the right level of attention by central and local governments. These species-targeted projects (or groups of spe-cies such as migratory waterbirds) have in effect provided a clear and tangible common subject for discussions and action to protect species, as well as the habitats and water resources which they depend upon. Cross-country learning approaches and dialogue supported by the two GEF projects have further strengthened the understanding and action on regional flyways and as such generated more global environmental benefits, than if this would have been conducted in a single-country environment.

11. This was also the case with the UNDP/GEF “Migratory Soaring Birds” project: despite the EAs prior experience with GEF projects.

Some important lessons are emerging from the first GEF-funded flyway projects implemented to date, providing a basis for the design of new GEF initiatives. These lessons are summarised below, grouped under two main categories: (1) issues specifically related to the technical design and implementation of projects on flyways and migra-tory species, and (2) issues that may also be ap-plicable to most other multi-country projects. 5.1 Technical design and implementation of projects on flyways and migratory species 5.1.1. Barriers to developing multi-national flyway conservation initiatives must be removed, and incentives created New and complex technical approaches were con-ceptualised for both projects under review, always involving an important and very broad consulta-tive process. Much of this was enabled through the financial support available through GEF Project Preparation (PDF-B) funds for national and region-al stakeholder consultations, which are now more limited under the current funding rules of the GEF. The NGOs involved as Executing Agencies already had significant relevant prior experience in multi-country programmes on migratory birds. However the multi-level administrative complexity to the GEF and UN Implementing Agencies, with specific project design and implementation frameworks, added quite a significant, new and sometimes too inflexible set of requirements. This complexity entailed even longer project development periods than for normal GEF projects of equivalent size11. Also the Resource Allocation Framework (RAF) ap-proach followed under GEF 4 for biodiversity proj-ects presented an obstacle to developing regional

5. MAIN LESSONS LEARNED

8. “A Bird’s Eye View on Flyways” (2009), A brief tour by the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory species of Wild Animals

UNEP / CMS secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 68 pages.

9. One of these sites (Naurzum) was also listed as part of the new World Heritage Site Saryaka - Steppe and Lakes of Northern Kazakhstan in July

2008.

10. Some of these deliberations were also largely based on declarations developed at important international conferences on migratory birds, such

as i.e. the Odessa declaration (1996) and the Edinburgh Declaration (2004).

Page 14 Page 15


reflected in the first publication by the CMS on major global flyways8, offering an insight on fly-way involvement worldwide, the recently concluded CMS MoU on Birds of Prey and the CMS COP9 resolution 9.2 on the formation of a specific inter-national “working group” on flyways. The two projects have also significantly supported enhanced national implementation capacity for international cooperation of waterbird flyway con-servation commitments, notably under the Ram-sar Convention’s guidelines on International Coop-eration, adopted in 1999 (COP7, Resolution VII.19 Guidelines for international cooperation under the Ramsar Convention: http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_vii.19e.pdf). Additionally, through support of the GEF-projects, various new wetlands have been identified, docu-mented and formally designated on the List of Wetlands of International Importance of the Ram-sar Convention. Examples include all four SCWP sites in Kazakhstan9, and the first trans-bound-ary Ramsar Site ever nominated in Africa, the “Seloum-Niumi Complex” located at the border between Senegal and the Gambia (through the WOW Project). Member countries of all concerned MEAs have recently formally underscored the importance of consolidating and expanding flyway-level conser-vation efforts for migratory birds and the habitats they depend upon. Recent MEA deliberations are to a large extent the direct result of the increased level of awareness and positive outcomes of the first flyway-level projects being implemented by several partners, with GEF support. Some key deliberations resulted from the following MEA or international agreements’ conventions (text in Annexes)10:

• The African Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA MoP 4 – Madagas-

car, September 2008)

• The Convention of Migratory Species (CMS CoP 9 – Italy, December

2008)

o CMS/Resolution 9.2 on Priorities for CMS Agreements (see point on

waterbirds flyways): (http://www.cms.int/bodies/COP/cop9/COP9_Pre_

final_res_rec_en.htm)

• The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar CoP 10 – South Korea,

November 2008)

o Resolution X.22 Promoting international cooperation for the conserva-

tion of waterbird flyways: (http://www.ramsar.org/res/key_res_x_22_e.

pdf)

© S

au

liu

s S

va

za

s (

Fie

ld w

or

k N

em

un

as

Riv

er

De

lta

) ©

Wa

ng

We

n F

en

g (

Ae

ria

l s

ur

ve

y a

t Z

ha

lon

g)

gional and national levels, and ultimately support-ing improved site-level conservation action.

• These projects should design and deliver inno-vative and effective tools applicable at the flyway level (such as e.g., the common flyway training platforms and spatial mapping/conservation plan-ning tool developed in WOW for the African-Eurasian region).

• These new tools should be generated through interactive team work at the global and/or region-al level, with contributions from multi-national and multidisciplinary teams.

• The important link with site-based activities should not, however, be lost in this approach (es-pecially for critical sites). It can be maintained by ensuring that all new tools produced are effective-ly tested through pilot projects within participating countries, including e.g., through expanding the network of critical sites along the flyway, as well as ensuring that the tools are demand-driven. 5.1.3. Develop well inter-connected flyway con-servation activities at the site and national levels The two projects are rather different in their scope and emphasis, with the African-Eurasian Flyways Project covering a wider range of countries but with a stronger focus on developing regional tools with broad applicability. The Siberian Crane Wet-land Project covered four countries along two

explicitly linked to other local-level interventions in other parts of the flyway, resulting in a higher cumulative impact. The regional-level approach was largely tested in the WOW project, where regional-level activi-ties received a substantial share of the budget (though less than local demonstration projects). In itself, facilitating multi-national teams to inter-act and work together along flyways is proving an important basis for generating and strengthening the international networks of conservation practi-tioners that are essential to support flyway level conservation efforts. Good examples arise from multi-national collaborative work on common is-sues (e.g., the development of the “Flyways Train-ing Kit” in the UNEP GEF WOW project, involving over 40 training institutions across the African Eurasian region, or the adoption of common water needs and wetland hydrology studies under the SCWP). In this context, the link to site-level action appears to be more effectively provided by the executing partners’ own networks, that will any-way be directly benefitting from the GEF projects’ regional-level outputs (see also the related section 5.1.3). Recommendations: New GEF flyway initatives should support global and regional/multi-country types of projects, that provide the added value of linking work at sub-re-

The above issues have significant operational implications for GEF 5, and should be addressed by providing a more workable mechanism for the development of regional conservation initiatives on migratory species (and flyways). Recommendations: A set of measures should be put in place to re-move barriers and provide incentives for countries to work together and join resources in addressing trans-boundary and multi-national conservation issues. These measures may, for example, entail:

• The development of a new GEF Biodiversity “Programme” on migratory species and flyways within the GEF Biodiversity Focal Area. This step would entail a specific funding envelope to cover regional or global programme costs, outside the RAF country allocations for specific national ac-tivities. This approach would (a) provide an addi-tional source of funds and a sound programmatic framework for this type of complex multi-national projects, and (b) have the specific aim of encour-aging, simplifying and fast-tracking the review and approval processes for these GEF interventions.

• Species (or groups of species) targeted conser-vation programmes can be effective and should be promoted, as long as they are designed to ad-dress the underlying economic and environmental issues, as well as to focus on the shared interests and concerns of stakeholder groups.

• A simplification and reduction of requirements in terms of country endorsements, co-financing commitments and supporting documentation that would also facilitate the project design and ap-proval process.

• Encourage relevant MEAs (i.e., CMS, AEWA and Ramsar Convention) to endorse such projects through their Standing Commitees on behalf of, and with the mandate from, all signatory govern-ments. This would significantly reduce the red tape burden and fast-track the project develop-ment phase.

• Allowing more flexibility on the definition of budgets and workplans at the project design and preparation stages (see also section 5.2.1), deferring detailed definition to the next stage, when the actual project implementation team and Steering Committee are in place.

5.1.2. Emphasise regional-level activities as they generate important and globally-relevant outputs The key to the success of a flyway approach lies in linking conservation work at local and nation-al level with the international context. The most innovative and globally-relevant contributions of flyway projects are emerging from regional-level activities. The site-level and national-level conservation interventions implemented in the WOW demonstration projects or in the Siberian Crane Wetland Project were of a more tradi-tional nature, while still employing the latest approaches and technology. These activities were influenced by international priority setting, but their information sharing and demonstration potential may have been increased when more

Page 16 Page 17


© Z

ho

u H

aix

ian

g (

Fly

ing

Sib

er

ian

Cr

an

es

) ©

Ke

sk

ko

nn

aa

me

t (

Ha

ap

sa

lu-

No

ar

oo

ts

i B

ay

s,

Es

to

nia

)

© C

ra

wfo

rd

Pr

en

tic

(M

ay

a R

ive

r C

ha

bd

a R

es

ou

rc

e R

es

er

ve

)

terms of policies and related budget allocations for wetland restoration, watershed rehabilitation and ecological water demand considerations in water resource management. This was largely achieved when waterbird and fl yways conservation issues were effectively combined with a dialogue on common issues such as on water use or socio-economic concerns affecting the sustainable use of the wetland sites as the basis for integrated wetland management. These policies and political support have provided the conditions for effective project implementation (e.g., the water manage-ment plans for sites in northeast China) and the delivery of substantial co-fi nancing and associ-ated fi nancing. In contrast, the Russian Ministry of Agriculture’s decision to abandon management of all federal zakazniks (wildlife sanctuaries) under its control was a severe setback for project imple-mentation at project sites in West Siberia. Stron-ger support from the federal Ministry of Natural Resources could have signifi cantly enhanced im-pacts of this project, for example through offi cial approval for the extension of fl yway site networks.

Recommendations:

At the project design stage, greater emphasis should be placed on the following aspects:

• Identify and agree with key stakeholder groups on common concerns and interests, both in the fi eld of ecology/conservation, as well as related socio-economic issues through focusing

• These new initiatives will entail collaborative work at an identifi ed multi-national network of sites comprising for example: increased trans-national collaboration on bird migration fi eld research; harmonization of monitoring protocols along major fl yways; joint application of fl yway conservation planning and management tools (e.g. such as the WOW “Critical Sites Network” tool, combined International Waterbird Census / Important Bird Areas monitoring protocols); joint implementation of fl yway training programmes at the sub-regional/fl yway level; exchange pro-grammes aimed at improving and harmonis-ing policies and conservation approaches; joint awareness and education campaigns, etc. Where this approach has been implemented in both proj-ects under review, great success was achieved in demonstrating the philosophy and practical appli-cation of fl yway-level collaboration.

5.1.4. Do not underestimate the importance of fostering support at the national level by taking into account the common issues and interests of stakeholder groups

At the national level, the enabling environment for project implementation is an important factor for success. For example, within the framework of the Siberian Crane Wetland Project (SCWP) in China, the central government has increasingly recog-nized the importance of environmental protection and biodiversity conservation, manifested in

ages between sites along the same fl yways, (b) focusing the selection of sites on the most criti-cal ones along each fl yway, (c) defi ning the most appropriate type of conservation interventions at each site, and (d) establishing new collaborative approaches between sites at various levels (and strenghthening existing ones) including scientifi c, conservation, communication, legal and policy level interventions. Therefore in some cases, the selection of fi eld sites for project intervention may best be carried out at a later stage -during project implementation- when the fl yway planning tools can generate an optimal range of critical sites and management practices to be tested.

Recommendations:

• Site and national level activities in the frame-work of fl yway-scale initiatives should focus as far as possible on the development, testing and demonstration of widely applicable methodologies and conservation tools.

• These should be conceived as joint efforts among several countries along a fl yway (closer to the experience of the Siberian Crane Wetland Project), and include the development and appli-cation phases of innovative fl yway-conservation approaches and tools shared by several countries.

main fl yways and, in this respect, showed how a more focused fl yway effort – still spanning large distances but involving smaller numbers of countries and bird species – can achieve tangible outcomes that may be diffi cult for more complex and diverse projects involving larger numbers of countries. Both show the way forward with fl yway projects, as complementary and valuable ap-proaches.

The site-based demonstration projects repre-sented an important component of both fl yway projects under review (particularly for the SCWP, where approximately 80% of budget was allocated for site or national level activities). These activi-ties provided good examples of site-based con-servation work at sites of global importance for migratory birds, and provided an opportunity for testing new studies and management approaches for adoption elsewhere along the fl yway (e.g. on wetlands’ hydrology, community-participation ap-proaches, trans-bounday management of protect-ed areas, etc.). They therefore certainly contrib-uted to the conservation of globally important habitats and species and the integrity of fl yways.

In future projects, the evolving fl yway conser-vation approach will provide a more effective framework for (a) creating improved inter-link-

Page 18 Page 19


© G

áb

or

Sim

ay

(W

oo

d S

an

dp

ipe

r)

© S

au

liu

s S

va

za

s

© C

am

illo

Po

nz

ian

i (

Ad

en

La

go

on

s,

Ye

me

n)

national-level GEF projects developed under a cohesive programmatic framework, and inter-linked with one or more international-level proj-ects, (b) help provide the necessary incentive for participating countries (ref. Lesson 1) to engage in trans-boundary conservation efforts and (c) provide an appropriate framework for a greater cumulative impact of GEF interventions on a global scale. 5.1.6. Assign proper value (and budget) to com-munication outputs The presentation, dissemination and discussion of project results provided a significant boost to most of the MEAs related to flyway conservation (namely CMS and AEWA as well as the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands). However the project

entire basin; or wetlands in Songnen Plain of northeast China, essential staging areas at mid-point on the flyway that face the common threat of water shortage due to diversion and drought. Targeted research at appropriate sites can also inform about flyway level issues. For instance, col-lection and testing of dead birds at Yancheng – a key wintering area in Eastern China – could pro-vide valuable information about the levels of toxic chemicals being carried by migratory birds. In such instances, careful consideration should be given to including targeted interventions address-ing these sub-regional or site-based threats to the flyway. The flyway dimension adds leverage to the resolution of such issues. The SCWP also had significant positive results from national level flyway monitoring, informa-tion sharing, and exchange. This effort proved of particular importance in large countries (such as China and Russia) that have long and very impor-tant flyway segments encompassed within their own boundaries (which, for China, include both breeding and non-breeding or wintering areas for numerous significant bird populations). There-fore flyway-level activities are needed also at the national level, especially in large countries with significant internal flyways, ideally in combination with site activities. Recommendations: Interventions at critical flyway sites can have an international significance that goes well beyond their local setting. Such site and related national activities therefore have an important role to play in regional/global initiatives, helping to find work-able solutions to common problems that can then be scaled up by national governments.

• Such interventions could either be framed as part of flyway level projects, or included as part of national level projects, in the context of a flyway conservation approach.

• If the latter course is followed, they should ideally be supported by a more synergistic ap-proach to the programming of GEF interventions that takes into account flyway-level thinking.

• In this respect, it would be desirable to adopt a new GEF “Programmatic Approach” on migra-tory species and flyways within the GEF Biodi-versity Focal Area. This change would (a) open up avenues for launching several local and/or

on key ecosystem services like water supply and regulation, fodder and fisheries production, hunt-ing resources, etc. Project objectives and out-comes should cater to these ‘common-grounds’ through an ecosystem approach and not just the species conservation aspects, which would be too hard to sell.

• At project design, develop flexible implementa-tion arrangements that provide a suitable frame-work to enhance and foster national ownership and government support for projects.

• During project implementation (especially at the start up stage and following any changes in National Executing Agency (NEA) organization or staffing), emphasis should be placed on ensuring constant communication, information and out-reach efforts with all relevant government bodies, to improve understanding of project objectives and foster government support (ref. also lesson 5.2.3).

• Greater flexibility in determining GEF national executing agencies (e.g., including sub-regional and/or local government bodies and NGOs) would allow for the development of more effective part-nerships for project implementation. Within very large countries, this would allow interventions to be more precisely targeted at specific regions, especially where a fair degree of autonomy exists within regional government, and where ownership of the project may be stronger locally than at the central level.

• The involvement of NGOs as executing agen-cies (or partners) where possible would often strengthen delivery, for example where the rel-evant government agencies have limited staff resources or technical capacity, or where civil society involvement is an important prerequisite for the sustainability of project outcomes (for in-stance in the case of community co-management of flyway sites). 5.1.5. The integrity of entire flyways can be threatened by factors affecting key sites requiring specific attention at national and local levels Experience during SCWP indicated that certain critical sites or clusters of sites may face threats that jeopardize the integrity of the flyway itself. Examples are Poyang Lake Basin, the main win-tering ground for cranes and many other migra-tory waterbirds in southern China, where a dam proposal could radically alter the ecology of the


Page 20 Page 21

© T

am

er

Yil

ma

z ©

We

tla

nd

s I

nte

rn

atio

na

l (

Bir

dw

atc

hin

g i

n A

zr

aq

, J

or

da

n)

© C

ra

wfo

rd

Pr

en

tic

e (

Tr

ap

pe

rs

As

so

c M

ee

tin

g F

er

ey

do

on

Ke

na

r I

ra

n)

reality-check based on real-life project implemen-tation examples, going beyond the sometimes too diplomatic and generic wording adopted in project documentation and TORs. This exercise should allow agreement and timely implementation of any necessary adjustments to the management set-up of the project, and lay the foundations for an effective project “Inception Workshop”. This important process aims at minimising the risk of misunderstandings and different interpretations by implementing partners, while adequately pre-paring the ground for smooth implementation and maximising synergies among the wide range of partners involved. 5.2.3. MONITORING & EVALUATION (M&E): Revise Logical Framework and M&E plans at the project outset

The significant delay between project design and actual implementation start-up results in logframes and M&E plans that inevitably need substantial revision at project outset and during the project lifetime (see also sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2). Identifying appropriate and SMART indica-tors for the outcomes of such large and complex projects was also extremely complicated, and sometimes required innovative approaches. The complex structure of flyway projects requires a streamlined approach to logframe design and indicators. Project documents included extremely elaborate logframes that attempted to cover everything, and in doing so became unusable.

5.2.2. MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS: Conduct a full “reality check” at project start-up

The institutional and political complexity of this new multi-stakeholder approach has required a significant initial phase of set-up and testing of the institutional and implementation arrange-ments at the national and regional levels. The complex set-up agreed at project design stages often requires careful review and re-discussion at project outset based on realities on the ground Recommendations: • The GEF Implementing Agency (IA – UNEP in the two projects under review) should be proac-tive in supporting the critical role of the Executing Agencies (EA) and liaising closely with the wider partnership necessary for effective flyways con-servation, especially during the first year of proj-ect implementation.

• The IA should convene a dedicated meeting at project outset (i.e., when the project team is recruited and in place) to clarify and illustrate institutional and implementation arrangements, lines of reporting, and roles and responsibilities of all parties. At this stage the IA should be working closely with the international EA and all project partners in the review and clarification of the proj-ect implementation set-up, of the complex mana-gerial, administrative and reporting requirements for GEF projects. The team should conduct a

dissemination of communication materials includ-ing website, publications, audio-visual products and press events as well as organising study tours to demonstration sites for groups of journalists.

• Therefore communications should always be considered as an integral part of the main GEF budget for projects of this type, and should not be left relying entirely on co-financing that may or may not entirely materialise.

5.2 Management issues that are also relevant for most multi-country projects 5.2.1 PROJECT DESIGN: Mitigate the impact of lengthy project design phases by revising project strategy and approach at project start-up The design and GEF approval phase took an ex-cessively long time for both12 projects (i.e., 3 to 5 years from concept to start of implementation). As a result, some components needed substantial re-design at the start of the project, to reflect the changed context and situation. Some important co-financing and promising partnership opportuni-ties were lost, whilst the devaluation of the dollar significantly impacted the overall project budget. Even with a simpler and faster design and ap-proval phase (see section 5.1.1 above), project development is likely to be relatively lengthy, so an initial review of project design needs to be built in. Recommendations: The timely review and update of project logical frameworks and structure at project outset should become a mandatory task for the project manage-ment team13, and:

• The review should be implemented not later than six months from the moment the project management team is in place.

• Funding for external facilitation should be allo-cated for this process as part of the budget.

• The team should look at and review the baselines, indicators, and targets in view of the evolved situa-tion, and modify workplans and budgets accordingly.

• The revised logframe, workplan and budgets should be endorsed by the Steering I and adopted thereafter for project management and reporting.

resources allocated to communication and out-reach efforts - to develop and cover most critical elements of a communication strategy - were in most cases underestimated at project design. Recommendations: The importance of allocating sufficient resources for communications in projects of this nature (to reach audiences including multi-country stake-holders and donors) cannot be overemphasised. This emphasis should include: • Hiring experienced communications staff to work closely with the project management and technical teams, so as to facilitate the establish-ment and maintenance of links with mass media through activities such as the development and

12. the UNDP GEF “Migratory Soaring Birds” project shared the same experience.

13. the Project Management Team is here intended as the staff hired by the Executing Agency to manage the project. This team is therefore

normally put in place only upon actual project start, when all preparations are completed and contracts between the GEF Implementing Agency

(UNEP in this case) and the Executing Agencies (i.e. International Crane Foundation for the SCWP and UNOPS for WOW) are in place

Page 22 Page 23


© A

lex

an

de

r S

or

ok

in (

Cr

an

e C

ele

br

atio

n)

© G

áb

or

Sim

ay

(B

itte

rn

)

© G

áb

or

Sim

ay

(W

hit

efr

on

ts

)

agreement with UNEP, to address the lack of specifi c implementation guidelines. This manual was progressively updated and elaborated during the course of project implementation, and was used for other UNEP/GEF projects.

Language barriers (including the understand-ing of technical terms and related jargon) can also be signifi cant in multinational projects, even though there are regional tendencies towards one or two major languages.

Recommendations:

The capacity of Executing Partners can and should be gradually improved through experience (as happened in both fl yways projects under review), and:

• This factor should be taken into account in the design stages, and subsequently allowing a slow and careful start-up period, including a manda-tory “inception phase” of at least 6 months for multi-country projects.

• This approach should be clearly refl ected in the project workplan and through budget allocations that are suffi cient to enable solid management systems within the Executing Agencies (it is sug-gested to raise the current 10% cap on EA man-agement fees in GEF project budgets to at least 15%).

• Suffi cient fi nancial resources for staff time on purely managerial, administrative and reporting tasks must be allocated by the Executing Agency and its implementing partners.

• It should not be assumed that implementation will proceed smoothly and at full speed, as of day one. In such complex, partnership projects, an adequate and fl exible inception phase should create the right conditions to ensure smooth project start-up.

• At project outset, the IA should dedicate par-ticular attention and suffi cient resources to providing and explaining simple and clear opera-tional guidelines, and to establishing open communication mechanisms with all the execut-ing partners, including development of an effi -cient Steering Committee.

Projects should include suffi cient resources in the design phase and be prepared to support the strengthening of capacity to implement large UN-GEF projects in partner organisations.

Though project preparation involves capacity as-sessments, the complexity of administrative and management procedures with such multi-country GEF-funded UN projects often challenges EAs as projects start. As a consequence, the additional management capacity and staff time (as opposed to technical tasks) required for the successful management of such UN projects is often under-estimated. The 10% project management fee available to Eas under current GEF rules is largely inadequate to support good management systems and practices. Such under-resourcing of partners’ management capacity may also have signifi cant negative effects on the implementation of project technical tasks. For example, the Executing Agency for the Siberian Crane Wetland Project (SCWP) developed a Project Operations Manual14 in

Recommendations:

The development of a really workable, stream-lined logframe that tracks the main outcomes is an important point for project design and M&E.

• A mandatory and well-costed initial revision of the M&E plan should also be enshrined in the project document. This revision should focus on re-assessing the current baselines, actualising indicators, and re-defi ning realistic targets to ac-count for the changed situation and time elapsed between project conceptualization and design /approval.

• Incorporate specifi c resources for M&E consultants/facilitators in the project budget, instead of leav-ing this important task to the project management teams.

5.2.4. Ensure that there are suffi cient fi nancial and human resources for adequate project management in partner organisations

14. And in an adapted form in the UNDP/GEF “Migratory Soaring Birds” project

Page 24 Page 25


© T

am

er

Yil

ma

z

© Y

ur

i M

ar

kin

(K

un

ov

at w

etla

nd

s)

© W

u (

Re

d C

ro

wn

ed

Cr

an

es

) ©

Sa

uli

us

Sv

az

as

© C

ra

wfo

rd

Pr

en

tic

e (

Fe

re

yd

oo

n K

en

ar

, I

ra

n)

Executing Agencies. However, in some cases these were not accepted by countries due to issues with autonomy, and this led to sometimes suboptimal staff capacity, requiring various management corrections in the national project coordination units later through the project. However, in the case of WOW, the direct management functions assigned to UNOPS staff may have had higher value if (a) combined with sufficient resources for project management in the lead NGOs and (b) more explicitly combined with capacity-building on management aspects, so as to facilitate project implementation and maximise the immediate and long-term benefits for partners involved. Both ap-proaches required a significant lead-time at proj-ect outset to set adequate management arrange-ments in place, and this need should be taken into consideration during project design.

• There is a general expectation that international projects will be undertaken in one major language (English in the case of the two projects under review). However, allowance should be made for the two-way translation of materials as part of normal project operations. This adjustment is particularly necessary in the African-Eurasian and Pacific regions (where language diversity is high), or where national contacts need to work with local colleagues associated with demonstration sites and other activities. This process means extra time and cost, especially where written documents require translation, which should be incorporated into project workplans and budgets. There is also

• Operational guidelines (i.e., such as the project Operations Manual developed within the SCWP) should be made available by the GEF Implementing Agencies at the outset of new projects, simplified and fine tuned to the conditions and needs of each particular project and supported by a basic orien-tation/training workshop.

• Other materials (e.g., templates and examples of project management documents from other projects) should be made available in appropriate languages via a resources website.

• Quality-based selection criteria should be ap-plied in choosing the lead Executing Agencies. The Executing Agency teams (at every level) must include staff with demonstrated project manage-ment skills and experience. Assuming that this is the case may often be wrong and can lead to significant management problems during imple-mentation. In the African-Eurasian Flyways Project (WOW) this issue was addressed by in-volving UNOPS as the Executing Agency, with UN staff placed within the lead NGO. Although expen-sive and complex (i.e., requiring significant initial clarification of the respective TORs and mandates between the EA and executing partners), this ap-proach provided important direct management sup-port and coordination functions for the lead NGOs and for all the wide range of partners involved in technical delivery. For the Siberian Crane Wetland Project (SCWP), quality-based staff selection criteria were discussed and agreed with National

Page 26


the issue that much of the available literature on advanced conservation subjects (e.g., guidelines produced by MEAs and international NGOs) is only available in a few major languages. International projects can make a significant contribution by supporting the translation of such materials into additional languages. This support would certainly be welcomed by the related MEAs. 5.2.5. Set-up an active and balanced Steering Committee early on

Involvement of a wide range of stakeholders, with sometimes differing agendas and priorities, adds significantly to the complexity of project imple-mentation. A well-balanced and closely engaged Steering Committee (SC) is essential for such multi-stakeholder and multi-donor inititives. De-pending on circumstances, it may also be use-ful to have sub-governance structures such as a smaller Executive Committee to support more rapid decision-making or a Technical Review Panel to conduct peer /technical review of plans and es-sential outputs. Recommendations: • The GEF Implementing Agency (IA) should take a proactive role and lead responsibility for facili-tating and overseeing the timely establishment of a balanced Steering Committee within the first six months of the project.

• The critical choice of the Chairperson of the SC should be taken by consensus among all partners and facilitated by the GEF Implementing Agency, so as to ensure that the SC provides a neutral forum for discussion, where the views and expec-tations of all partners in the project may be heard and discussed openly and on a regular basis (with at least annual face-to-face meetings combined with periodic tele-conferences if required), in order to provide timely guidance and feedback to the project implementation team.

• While project management is not its job, the Steering Committee may need to be quite ‘hands-on’ in detecting and tracking problems, and pro-viding support and guidance in resolving them. Where logistics make this difficult, setting up smaller, subsidiary structures, such as an Execu-tive Committee or Technical Review Panel, may be a workable approach, but this must be handled carefully so as not to risk undermining the Steer-ing Committee’s overall governance functions.

Page 27

© L

ale

Ak

ta

y (

En

vir

on

me

nta

l E

du

ca

tio

n a

t L

ak

e B

ur

du

r)

© J

on

ath

an

Ba

rn

ar

d,

Bir

dL

ife

In

te

rn

atio

na

l (

Ha

de

jia

-N

gu

ru

We

tla

nd

s)

© T

am

er

Yil

ma

z

• Allowing more generous estimates for procure-ment, staffing and contracting, and/or the adop-tion of a “contingency” budget line to provide a buffer for currency fluctuations.

• Systematically allowing for annual increases of project running costs over the project period, or

• Striving towards a currency balance between GEF funds (provided in USD) and cash co-financ-ing in other major currencies (e.g., the Euro), so as to balance the risk of currency fluctuation. 5.2.7. Envisage realistic overall project manage-ment costs Actual overall project management costs appear to be systematically underestimated at project design stage. This tendency has a serious nega-tive impact on the smooth implementation of projects: apparent savings on management costs that are set at project design can later negatively affect the quality and timeliness of delivery of the entire project intervention. In particular, regional or multi-country projects such as the ones un-der review have significantly greater manage-ment costs than do less complex projects. This specific characteristic of multi-coutry initiatives was not adequately accounted for at the project design stage. See also section 5.2.4 on ensuring adequate management budget within the project Executing Agencies.

• The establishment of a simple e-mail forum for individual projects is a low cost mechanism for facilitating discussion and sharing of information between SC members and partners, as well as fa-cilitating informed decision-making among Steer-ing Commitees. 5.2.6. Mitigate the impact of currency fluctuations at project design stage The value of the US dollar can fluctuate signifi-cantly (in some cases up to 40%) between design and start-up phases. This issue applies to most large development projects of this nature, which may be affected to a variable degree. In the case of the WOW project, currency fluctuations had a negative impact and required significant revisions of budgets and workplans throughout project implementation. Therefore, where possible, ad-equate mitigation measures should be put in place at the project design stage. Recommendations: A pragmatic and multi-pronged approach is rec-ommended, which may entail:

• Adopting a basket of currencies as a basis for budget estimations, or defining the project budget on the basis of the currency in which most project expenditure is likely to be incurred.

Page 28


Page 29

and co-funding from multiple sources into one activity) should be avoided altogether or at the very least avoided for core activities that are considered critical for project success.

• If possible, assign co-financing to activities that do not impact on critical tasks, and hence do not seriously jeopardise the overall chances of success of the project, as a strategy to minimise negative effects, should pledged funds not materialise.

Recommendations:

• A more comprehensive and realistic estimate of actual management costs should be accepted by the GEF, taking into account the complex needs of multi-level and multi-country initiatives, and pos-sible currency fluctuations.

• Prior consultation with the relevant Human Resources teams of the Executing Agency is es-sential to allow a better estimation of actual staff costs.

• Annual inflationary increases of management costs should be enshrined in the budgeting pro-cess and some flexibility allowed to reflect chang-es in management costs through annual budget revisions. 5.2.8. During project design, mitigate the potential impact of failing to secure anticipated co-financing In some cases, essential core activities were neg-atively affected throughout the project duration by the uncertainty of co-financing, or by co-funding commitments that did not materialise within the project life span. Recommendations:

• Complex and inter-mixed financing arrangement ratios for specific activities (combining GEF funds

© M

ar

ko

Va

lke

r (

So

uth

er

n D

un

lin

)

© C

ra

wfo

rd

Pr

en

tic

e (

Ch

ab

da

, Y

ak

utia

) ©

Jim

Ha

rr

is (

Stu

de

nt c

am

p X

ian

gh

ai

Na

tio

na

l N

atu

re

Re

se

rv

e)

goals through emerging and shared themes such as climate change adaptation and securing the fl ow of environmental services to sustain wetland ecosystem functions and to support local devel-opment needs.

• Assisting members of the East Asian – Austral-asian Flyway Partnership (EAAFP) to implement collaborative regional projects that will contribute towards realizing the goals of the fl yway partner-ship; diverse concepts already formulated include, for example, (1) support for a network of wetland sites engaged in sustaining livelihoods linked to waterbird conservation, (2) a similar network ap-proach involving multiple sites along the fl yway using the cranes as fl agships for environmental education programmes (these two concepts might well be linked), and (3) assessment of climate change risks for a set of sites along the fl yway, with development of adaptation responses. See http://www.eaafl yway.net/documents/East-Asian-project-concepts.pdf for a compiled package of

• Consolidating achievements in the African-Eurasian region (through the AEWA and the CMS Raptor MoU), and in regions outside AEWA such as Central and East Asia (through the Central Asian Flyway initiative and possibly the West/Central Asian Site Network for Siberian Cranes and other Waterbirds – under the CMS MoU on the Siberian Crane).

• Transferring approaches, know-how and new scientifi c and training tools on fl yway conserva-tion from the African-Eurasian and Siberian Crane Wetland Projects (and, at a later stage, the Mi-gratory Soaring Birds project) into other regions including (a) the East Asian – Australasian and Pacifi c Region, (b) the Central Asian Region, (c) the Americas16, and (d) the Antarctic Region.

• Developing a new regional (or multi-country) project in the transboundary region of NE China, SE Russia and NE Mongolia, as a follow-up to the Siberian Crane Wetland project, emphasizing the benefi ts of achieving fl yway wetland conservation

15. The third: the “Migratory Soaring Birds” project is implemented through UNDP.

16. The interest for the new WOW fl yway conservation tools within these other regions is already high. For example the WOW Critical Site Network

Tool is being developed with an engine that would allow application in each of the other fl yways mentioned.

UNEP is the GEF Implementing Agency with direct involvement in two out of three15 major Flyways projects implemented so far with GEF support, as discussed in this paper. The African-Eurasian Flyways Project is by far the most complex fl yway conservation initiative funded by GEF to date, and it is being successfully implemented (according to the independent MTE report). In addition:

• Most relevant MEAs supporting fl yway conser-vation lie within the UNEP family (e.g., CMS and AEWA) and/or work closely with UNEP on interna-tional conservation issues (i.e., Ramsar Conven-tion).

• The UNEP/WCMC is providing critical underlying IT/GIS elements of fl yway-level initiatives, and it is also part of the UNEP family.

• Technical capacity, and multi-stakeholder part-nerships have now been established with key fl yway conservation partners, MEAs, UN agencies and international conservation NGOs active at a global level, as well as with national governments and local/regional NGOs.

• Important lessons were learned during design and implementation stages in GEF 4, and are be-ing internalised by UNEP GEF and partners in view of future interventions.

The combination of the above elements provides a sound platform for the development of new fl yway conservation initatives by the UNEP GEF team and partners in view of GEF5.

6. THE COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE OF UNEP

7. OUTLINE OF POSSIBLE NEW GEF INITIATIVES

Consultation on possible new GEF initiatives is ongoing with a wide range of partners, some of which were invited to contribute to this paper. This consultation is already generating some initial concepts for new fl yway conservation projects, at the regional and global level. These projects may include:

(a) Consolidating achievements in the same regions, and sharing experience and new fl yway conservation tools with other regions. These new projects may focus on:

Page 30 Page 31


© J

on

ath

an

Ba

rn

ar

d,

Bir

dL

ife

In

te

rn

atio

na

l (

Ha

de

jia

-N

gu

ru

We

tla

nd

s)

© L

ale

Ak

ta

y (

En

vir

on

me

nt E

du

ca

tio

n)

© C

ra

wfo

rd

Pr

en

tic

e

© T

őg

ye

Já

no

s (

Bih

ar

ug

ra

Fis

hp

on

ds

)

© b

igs

to

ck

ph

oto

.co

m

Name TITLe OrgaNIzaTION e-maIL

Bert Lenten Executive Secretary UNEP/AEWA [email protected]

Camillo Ponziani Operations Manager - UNEP/GEF African-Eurasian Flyways Project or “WOW”

UNOPS [email protected]

Claire Mirande Project Director – UNEP/GEF Siberian Crane Wetland Project


[email protected]

Crawford Prentice International Technical Advisor – UNEP/GEF Siberian Crane Wetland Project


[email protected]

Douglas Hykle Senior CMS Advisor UNEP CMS [email protected]

Edoardo Zandri Task Manager Biodiversity & Natural Resources

UNEP GEF [email protected]

Florian Keil Information Officer UNEP/AEWA [email protected]

Francisco Rilla Information and Capacity Building Officer UNEP CMS [email protected]

Gerard Boere Senior Advisor to UNEP/CMS, Chairman of the WOW Project Steering Committee

Independent [email protected]

James Harris Vice President International Crane Foundation

[email protected]

Jonathan Barnard Senior Programme Manager BirdLife International [email protected]

Leon Bennun Director of Science, Policy and Information BirdLife International [email protected]

Max Zieren Task Manager and Regional Coordinator Asia Pacific

UNEP GEF [email protected]

Nick Davidson Deputy Secretary General Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention on

Wetlands

[email protected]

Sergey Dereliev Technical Officer UNEP/AEWA [email protected]

Taej Mundkur Flyway Programme Manager Wetlands International [email protected]

Tim Dodman Associate Expert Wetlands International [email protected]

Umberto Gallo-Orsi WOW Project Coordinator Wetlands International [email protected]

Ward Hagemejer Head of Programme and Strategy - Biodiver-sity and Ecological Networks

Wetlands International [email protected]

EAAFP project concepts.

• Assisting international NGOs to nurture a portfolio of new flyway initiatives anchored to AEWA’s Stra-tegic Plan and International Implementation Tasks (IIT). (b) Developing new Global Initiatives under the umbrella of the CMS, with a possible focus on:

• Facilitating the gradual integration, sharing of experiences and tools, and harmonisation of ap-proaches among all different regions and partners involved in flyway conservation at a global scale, allowing for specific and individual adaptations to regional needs.

• Supporting the new CMS “Flyway Working Group” and feeding it with experience from ongoing suc-cessful flyways projects. The FWG will be an impor-tant forum to assist the process. It will scientifically underpin and help to rationalise and streamline the framework for all existing and planned flyway con-servation agreements and initiatives worldwide.

• Enhancing awareness raising, training and education efforts to support flyway conservation as outlined in the CMS Flyways brochure – supporting the wider implementation of the BirdLife Interna-tional Global Flyways Programme and continued delivery and application of Wetland International’s “Flyway Training Kits” (initiated through the UNEP/GEF African-Eurasian Flyways project).

• Expanding and consolidating the broad multi-stakeholder partnerships that were successful-ly developed prior to and during both flyways proj-ects under review, and entailing several MEAs and International Partnerships (i.e. the EAAFP) teaming up with UN agencies, International NGOs as well as National Governments, creating an unusually broad and very effective constituency. Linkages with other UNEP/GEF focal areas and themes:

Significant potential links exist or are emerging, with several other focal areas and themes of GEF and UNEP interventions. These themes include, but may not be limited to Ecosystem Services, UN-REDD, LULUCF, Climate Change and Adaptation: • Sustaining ecosystem services during conditions of water scarcity and climate change in a regional or transboundary context, as a basis for increasing the resilience of local communities and wildlife, including migratory birds, to water stress and climate change

These initiatives would address the direct and indirect drivers that are causing the degradation of migratory bird populations, their habitats, and key ecosystem services, with a strong focus on resolving immediate and long term impacts of wa-ter scarcity through environmental flow provision and promoting more sustainable use of water and natural resources. • The economic value of migratory birds (particu-larly waterbirds) in the framework of sustainable uses including regulated hunting.

• Assessment of hunting legislation and practices in Western/Central Asia and implementation of a regional education and awareness programme on hunting in the Central Asian Flyway.

• Improving global monitoring and analytical ca-pacity on migratory birds’ seasonal movements, as indicators of climate change, as well as to im-prove our level of preparedness and active early warning systems for major outbreaks of diseases such as avian influenza (established links with FAO)

• Re-assessing identified networks of Critical Sites for migratory species in the light of predicted climate change impacts, and recommending how to strengthen these networks in the context of national climate change adaptation plans.

Page 32 Page 33


ANNEX I: LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

© G

áb

or

Sim

ay

(E

ide

rs

)

The drafting of this issue paper has been a highly participatory process, in which many people have been engaged. It has brought together some of the leading conservation agencies, experts and practitioners in the field of bird conservation to discuss experiences and lessons from ongoing flyway-themed initiatives currently being implemented by UNEP. The following table provides contact details of all authors and contributors to this document.

Prepared by: Gerard Boere, Tim Dodman and Crawford Prentice Able, K.P. 1999. Gatherings of Angels. Migrating birds and their ecology. Cornell University Press. 193 pp.

ACIA. 2004. Impacts of a Warming Arctic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Alerstam, T. 1990. Bird Migration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK. 420 pp.

Asia-Pacific Migratory Waterbird Conservation Committee. 2001. Asia-Pacific Migratory Waterbird Conservation Strategy: 2001-2005. Wetlands International - Asia Pacific. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 67pp.

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

Bennett, G. 2004. Integrating biodiversity conservation and sustainable use: lessons learned from ecological net-works. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UK. Vi + 55 pp. Bennett, G.& de Wit, P. 2001. The development and application of ecological networks; a review of proposals, plans and programmes. Aid Environment, Amsterdam. 132 pp. BirdLife International 2003. Saving Asia’s Threatened Birds: A Guide for Government and Civil Society. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International BirdLife International 2004a. Important Bird Areas in Asia: key sites for conservation. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International. BirdLife Conservation Series No.13. BirdLife International 2004b. Tracking ocean wanderers: the global distribution of albatrosses and petrels. Results from the Global Procellariiform Tracking Workshop, 1-5 September 2003, Gordon’s Bay, South Africa. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International Boere, G.C. & Rubec, C.D.A. 2002. Conservation Policies and programmes affecting birds. In: Norris and Pain (Ed’s): Conserving Bird Biodiversity, general principles and their application; pp 246-270. Cambridge University Press.

Boere, G.C. & Taylor, D.R. 2004. Climate change, waterbird conservation and international treaties. Ibis 146 (sup-pl.1): 111-119.

Boere, G.C. & Stroud, D.A. 2006. The flyway concept: what it is and it isn’t. In: Waterbirds around the world. Eds. G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, UK. pp. 40-47.

Boere, G.C., Galbraith, C.A. & Stroud, D.A. (eds). 2006. Waterbirds around the world. The Stationary Office, Edin-burgh, UK. 960 pp.

Brainerd, S. 2007. European Charter on Hunting and Biodiversity. Bern Convention document T-PVS (2007) 7 revised, 29 November 2007, Strasbourg, 28 pp.

CAFF 2001. Arctic Flora and Fauna: Status and Conservation. Edita, Helsinki. 272 pp.

CBD & Ramsar Secretariats. 2006. Guidelines for the rapid ecological assessment of biodiversity in inland water, coastal and marine areas. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada, CBD Technical Series no. 22 and the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention, Gland, Switzerland, Ramsar Technical Report no. 1.

Chan, S. 1999. Atlas of key sites for cranes in the North East Asian flyway. Wetlands International Japan, Tokyo, Japan. http://www.wetlands.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=3zc13fSk%2fWQ%3d&tabid=56 CMS 1999. Conservation Measures for the Siberian Crane. CMS Technical Series Publication 1. UNEP/CMS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany.

CMS 2007. Conservation Plan for the Western, Central and Eastern Populations of the Siberian Crane 2007-2010. http://www.cms.int/species/siberian_crane/sib_cnspln.htm Davidson, N., Bryant, D. & Boere, G.C. 1999. Conservation uses of ringing data: flyway networks for waterbirds. Ringing and Migration (1999) 19 (suppl.), S 83-94. Davidson, N.C. & Stroud, D.A. 2006. African-Western Eurasian Flyways: current knowledge, population status and future challenges. Waterbirds around the world. Eds. G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK. pp. 63-73. Delany, S., Scott, D.A., Dodman, T. & Stroud, D.A. (eds.). 2009. An atlas of wader populations in Africa and Western Eurasia. Wetlands International, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Dodman, T. 1997. A Preliminary Waterbird Monitoring Strategy for Africa. Wetlands International Publication No.43. Wetlands International, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Dodman, T. & Diagana, C.H. 2006. Conservation dilemmas for intra-African migratory waterbirds. In: Waterbirds around the world. Eds. G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, UK. pp. 218-223.

Donald, P.F., Sanderson, F.J., Burfield, I.J., Bierman, S.M., Gregory, R.D. & Waliczky, Z. 2007. International Conser-vation Policy Delivers Benefits for Birds in Europe. Science 317: 810-813.

Emerton, L. 2002. Community-Based Incentives For Nature Conservation. IUCN-Eastern Africa Regional Office, Nairobi & Economics Unit.

FAO. 2007. Wild Birds and Avian Influenza: an introduction to applied field research and disease sampling tech-niques. Edited by: D. Whitworth, S.H. Newman, T. Mundkur and P. Harris. FAO Animal Production and Health Manual No.5. Rome.

Finlayson, C.M., Gitay, H., Bellio, M.G., van Dam, R.A. & Taylor, I. 2006. Climate variability and change and other pressures on wetlands and waterbirds: impacts and adaptation. Waterbirds around the world. Eds. G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK. pp. 88-97.

Gill, R,E., Tibbitts, T.L., Douglas, D.C., Handel, C.M., Mulcahy, D.M., Gottschalck, J.C., Warnock, N., McCaffery, B.J., Battley, P.F. & Piersma, T. 2008. Extreme endurance flights by landbirds crossing the Pacific Ocean: ecological cor-ridor rather than barrier? Proc. R. Soc. B, doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.1142, online publication.

Gwinner, E. (ed.) 1990. Bird Migration, physiology and ecophysiology. Springer Verlag Berlin. 435 pp.

Hawkins, A. S. Hanson, R.C., Nelson, H.K. & Reeves, H.M. 1984. Flyways. Pioneering Waterfowl Management in North America. USFWS pub. Dep. Of the Interior, Washington DC.

Hobson, K.A. 2005. Stable isotopes and the determination of avian migratory connectivity and seasonal interactions. Auk 122:1037-1048.

Hötker, H., Lebedeva, E., Tomkovich, P.S., Gromadzka, J., Davidson, N.C., Evans, J., Stroud, D.A. & West, R.B. (eds). 1998. Migration and international conservation of waders. Research and conservation on North Asian, African and European flyways. International Wader Studies 10. 500 pp.

Kam, J. van de, Ens, B., Piersma, T. & Zwarts, L, 2004. Shorebirds. An illustrated behavioural ecology. KNNV Publishers, Utrecht, The Netherlands 368 pages. Kanstrup, N. 2006. Sustainable harvest of waterbirds: a global review. In: Waterbirds around the world. Eds. G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK. pp. 98-106.

Kirby, J.S., Stattersfield, A.J., Butchart, S.H.M., Evans, M.I., Grimmett, R.F.A., Jones, V.R., O’Sullivan, J., Tucker, G.M. & Newton, I. 2008. Key conservation issues for migratory land- and waterbird species on the world’s major flyways. Bird Conserv. Internat. 18: S49-S73.

Langston, R.H.W. and J.D. Pullan. 2004. Effects of wind farms on birds. Nature and Environment Series no. 139; Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, France. Leech, D. 2007. The effect of climate change on birds. BTO. http://www.bto.org/research/advice/ecc/index.htm

Page 34 Page 35


ANNEX II: RELEVANT BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Li, Z.W.D. & Mundkur, T. 2004. Numbers and distribution of waterbirds and wetlands in the Asia-Pacific region. Results of the Asian Waterbird Census: 1997-2001. Wetlands International, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 166 pp. Ly, O.K., Bishop, J.T., Moran, D. & Dansokho, M. 2006. Estimating the value of ecotourism in the Djoudj National Bird Park in Senegal. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Maclean, I.M.D., Rehfisch, M.M., Robinson, R.A. & Delany, S. 2008. The effects of climate change on migratory waterbirds within the African-Eurasian flyways. AEWA Technical Series No. 21. Bonn, Germany. Meine, C.D. and Archibald, G.W (eds). 1996. The Cranes – Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 294 pp. Meltofte, H., Piersma, T., Boyd, H., McCaffery, B., Ganter, B., Golovnyuk, V.V., Graham, K., Gratto-Trevor, C.L., Morri-son, R.I.G., Nol, E., Rösner, H.-U., Schamel, D., Schekkerman, H., Soloviev, M.Y., Tomkovich, P.S., Tracy, D.M., Tulp, I. & Wennerberg, L. 2007. Effects of climate variation on the breeding ecology of arctic shorebirds. Meddelelser om Gronland Bioscience 59. Copenhagen, Danish Polar Center.48 pp. Miyabayashi, Y., and Mundkur, T. 1999. Atlas of Key Sites for Anatidae in the East Asian Flyway. Wetlands International – Japan, Tokyo, and Wetlands International Asia – Pacific, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 148 pp.

Moreau, R.E. 1972. The Palearctic-African Bird Migration System. Academic Press, London. Moser, M., Prentice, C. & van Vessem, J. 1993. Waterfowl and Wetland Conservation in the 1990s – a global perspective. Proc. IWRB Symp., St Petersburg Beach, Florida, USA. IWRB Spec. Publ. No. 26, Slimbridge, UK.

Mundkur, T. 2006. Successes and challenges of promoting conservation of migratory waterbirds and wetlands in the Asia-Pacific region: nine years of a regional strategy. Waterbirds around the world. Eds. G.C. Boere, C.A. Gal-braith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK. pp. 81-87. Available at http://www.jncc.gov.uk/PDF/ pub07_waterbirds_part2.2.5.pdf

Natural History Museum 2007. Atlas of Bird Migration. The Natural History Museum, London.

Newton, I. 2003. The Speciation and Biogeography of Birds. Academic Press/Elsevier. London. 668 pp.

Newton, I. 2004. Population limitation in migrants. Ibis 146: 197-226

Newton, I. 2008. The Migration Ecology of Birds. Academic Press/Elsevier, London. 976 pp.

O’Connell, M.J., Huiskes, A.H.L., Loonen, M.L., Madsen, J., Klaassen, M. & Rounsevell, M. 2006. Developing an inte-grated approach to understanding the effects of climate change and other environmental alterations at a flyway level. In: Waterbirds around the world. Eds. G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK. pp. 385-397.

Piersma, T. 1987. Hop, skip or jump? Constraints in migration of arctic waders by feeding, fattening and flight speed. Limosa 60: 185-194.

Piersma, T. 2006. Migration in the balance: tight ecological margins and the changing fortunes of shorebird popula-tions. Waterbirds around the world. Eds. G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK. pp. 74-80. http://www.jncc.gov.uk/PDF/pub07_waterbirds_part2.2.4.pdf

Piersma, T. & Lindstöm, A. 2004. Migrating shorebirds as integrative sentinels of global environmental change. Ibis 146 (Suppl.1), 61–69.

Prentice, C., Mirande, C., Ilyashenko, E. & Harris, J. 2006. Flyway site network development in Asia: wetland con-servation using the Siberian Crane Grus leucogeranus as a flagship species. Waterbirds around the world. Eds.G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK. pp. 690-696.

Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2007. Ramsar handbooks for the wise use of wetlands, 3rd edition. Ramsar Con-vention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland. Robinson, R.A., Learmouth, J.A., Hutson, A.M., MacLeod, C.D., Sparks, T.H., Leech, D.I., Pierce, G.J., Rehfische, M.M. and Crick, H.Q.P. 2005. Climate change and migratory species. British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford, U.K..Salathé, T. (ed.) 1991. Conserving migratory birds. ICBP, Cambridge.

Page 36


Sanderson, F.J., Donald, P.F., Pain, D.J., Burfield, I.J. & van Bommel, F.P.J. 2006. Long-term population declines in Afro-Palearctic migrant birds. Biol. Conserv. 131:93–105.

Scott, D.A. 1998. Global Overview of the Conservation of Migratory Arctic Breeding Birds outside the Arctic. Wet-lands International Publication No.45; CAFF Technical Report No.4. CAFF, Iceland. 132 pp.

Scott, D.A. & Rose, P.M. 1996. Atlas of Anatidae Populations in Africa and Western Eurasia. Wetlands International Publication No.41, Wetlands International, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Schmidt, P.R. 2006. North American flyway management: a century of experience in the United States. In: Water-birds around the world. Eds G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationary Office, Edinburgh, UK. p. 60-62.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2004. Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustain-able Use of Biodiversity (CBD Guidelines) Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 21 pp.

Straw, P. 2005. Status and Conservation of Shorebirds in the East Asian – Australasian Flyway; Proceedings of the Australasian Shorebirds Conference 13-15 December 2003, Canberra, Australia. Wetlands International Global \Series 18, International Wader Studies 17. Sydney, Australia. 197pp.

Stroud, D.A., Boere, G.C., Galbraith, C.A. & Thompson, D. 2006a. Waterbird conservation in a new millennium – where from and where to? Waterbirds around the world. Eds. G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Statio-nery Office, Edinburgh, UK. Pp. 29-39.

Sustainable Hunting Project 2007. Guidelines for Moving Towards Sustainable Hunting of Migratory Birds in the Mediterranean Countries of North Africa and the Middle East. Sustainable Hunting Project, BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK.

Sutherland, W.J., Newton, I. & Green, R.E. (eds). 2004. Bird Ecology and Conservation: A Handbook of Tech-niques. Techniques in Ecology and Conservation Series, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Underhill, L.G., Tree, A.J., Oschadleus, H.D. & Parker, V. 1999. Review of Ringing Recoveries of Waterbirds in Southern Africa. Avian demography Unit, University of Cape Town, South Africa. 119 pp.

UNEP/AEWA. 2008. Migratory Waterbirds and Climate Change: Effects within the African-Eurasian Flyways. UNEP/AEWA, Bonn.

UNEP/AEWA 2004. Non-toxic shot: A path towards sustainable use of the waterbird resource. UNEP/AEWA Techni-cal Series No. 3, Bonn, Germany.

UNEP/CMS 2009. A Bird’s eye view on flyways. A brief tour by the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. UNEP/CMS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany.

Veen, J., Yurlov, A.K., Delany, S.N., Mihantiev, A.I., Selivanova, M.A. & Boere, G.C. 2005. An Atlas of movements of Southwest Siberian waterbirds. Wetlands International, Wageningen, The Netherlands. http://www.wetlands.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=fjmT2I7Hn14%3d&tabid=56Wernham C.V., Toms M.P., Marchant J.H., Clark J.A., Siriwardena G.M. & Baillie S.R. (eds.) 2002. The Migration Atlas: movements of the birds of Britain and Ireland. Poyser, London.

Wetlands International 2006. Waterbird Population Estimates – Fourth Edition. Wetlands International, Wagenin-gen, The Netherlands. http://www.wetlands.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=WIL4sin9T%2fY%3d&tabid=56

Winden, J. van der, 2002. The odyssey of the Black Tern Chlidonias niger: migration ecology in Europe and Africa. Ardea 90(3): 421-435.

Wohl, K.D. 2006. The Arctic – origin of flyways. Waterbirds around the world. Eds. G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, UK. pp. 120-123. http://www.jncc.gov.uk/PDF/pub07_waterbirds_part2.2.10.pdf

Zwarts, Leo, Rob G. Bijlsma, Jan van der Kamp & Eddy Wymenga 2009. Living on the edge; wetlands and birds in a changing Sahel. KNNV Publisher Zeist, The Netherlands. 564 pp.

Page 37

United Nations Environment ProgrammeDivision of Global Environment Facility Coordination

Biodiversity & Natural Resources UnitP.O. Box 30552 (00100)

Nairobi, Kenya

w w w . u n e p . o r g

unep gef portfolio outlook and evolution · pdf filefacility coordination (unep/dgef)...

Documents