**Waterbird Conservation Council**

**Annual Meeting**

**January 11-13, 2005; San Jose, COSTA RICA**

**Transcript of Discussions**

**Discussion following State of Council presentation by Jennifer
Wheeler:**

***Members were asked to comment on how the Council was meeting their
expectations with respect to products, influence, involvement,
collaboration and pace of work.***

Paul Schmidt -- accomplishments okay but pace of progress could be
faster

Paul Baicich -- network gaps as illustrated by inactive committees
(resources and conservation action); there is a need for more
involvement to fill in operational and geographic gaps; council is
becoming a place where people come for expertise on waterbirds but the
council is limited in its capacity to deliver.

Jennifer Wheeler thought: Woiuld a stronger, separate U.S. caucus help?

Paul Klucker -- council shouldn't create programs but provide biological
basis for conservation; strength is in the international role of the
council that provides profile for situations that may otherwise be
marginalized. Council gives credibility, validity, objectives to act
upon, and a common view. Profile is beginning to increase in different
fora (e.g. NABCI council is more engaged in waterbird issues). Agrees is
shaky on "tactical" approaches and ability to respond; but has given
waterbirds more air-time with NABCI Canada. Suggests gaps be filled with
governments and NGOs.

Ian Davidson-- council has a big mandate/huge challenge in the
geographic scope of the initiative; need to bring on new human resources
to represent the core of the Neotropical region (70% of waterbirds are
found south of Mexico) to be effective; need to spend more time on
waterbird focus and the role the council plays with respect to other
related wetland programs/initiatives. Likes the
membership/representation as it is, but worried about the resource
issues. Not only do we need to seek funds, we need to identify specific
resourcing needs.

Ghisselle Alvarado-- need to ensure a clear council structure with
specific roles defined; then work on the multiplier effect, using
specific projects. She expects increased responsibilities for council
members.

Kathy Parsons -- suggests we keep resources (the waterbirds) in mind:
what are the effects on species if actions are taken or not taken --
e.g. focus on priority species. Believes advocacy/conservation action
very important, allows us to tackle urgent needs. We should revisit
workplans from previous year to self grade. Believes our premise (the
existing committees) is sound; just lacking leadership.

Humberto Berlanga -- he represents NABCI Mexico and expects of himself
to bring the word from this group to Mexican partners; link and connect
with the work of NABCI-Mexico; and include waterbird needs in his own
work. Thinks a key issue is how to develop synergy with other groups,
like NABCI Mexico.

Don Paul -- we all share the same values, but we need to base our
expectations on the needs of our partners -- committee is expanding and
new partners will bring new needs so workplans and expectations will
evolve. Views our plan and our Council as a "yellow pages" -- a source
of information and services for partners. We should take differing
priorities into consideration; need to identify and dispel false
expectations (plan document may cause false expectations e.g. that there
are resources are available) -- new partners need to understand what
they will receive from the waterbirds planning community and what they
won't.

Lisa Sorenson -- Expresses what a Caribbean partner might think:
Urgently needs support to affect land use (e,g; development pressures in
wetlands are currently not challenged). Advocacy in crisis situations is
an important service.

Rosabel Miro -- Reminds us the Council is voluntary. Vision of group is
ambitious -- could rethink; we have enough people to manage the roles of
the different committees -- may need to reorganize efforts. Also,
Council must respond to the guidance emerging from "Advancing" project.

Xico Vega -- need bigger involvement from governments especially in
Latin America; also need to bring other partners.

Paul Schmidt -- Requests some wrap up.

Kathy Parsons -- Believes there are some fundamental questions
remaining: Initiative may not be a program, but we could be: a platform
for supporting conservation; an influence pedaling entity in the larger
conservation world; or deliverer of projects. Questions what are the
best strategic approaches for bird and habitat conservation? How do we
work with other groups?

Humberto Berlanga -- need to be open in approaches towards delivery
mechanisms and taking advantage of opportunities

Paul Baicich -- vision is not too ambitious -- problem is overextending
ourselves in meeting that vision (target); can be done in small chunks
rather than try to do it all in one action.

Paul Schmidt -- agrees vision is fine; need to focus on individual
accomplishments; look to workplans. Example: could the role of regional
committees/representatives be better defined? Go to regional groups to
provide direction to and get a feeling of needs from different areas of
the hemisphere.

Rosabel Miro -- maybe role of committee is to be a broad overseer of
conservation needs but delivery of conservation happens through
partners.

Humberto Berlanga -- Key role is to ensure the right information
(priorities, collective advice) is in the right hands at the right time.
Make sure that continental conversations happen. Council provides links.
Perhaps we need objectives to ensure that the vision of the council is
met (e.g. with respect to communications what will the council do); it's
a group of experts that are a resource for information and guidance for
waterbird conservation.

Should have covered committees more completely in the introduction.
Their role and workplans. Can't assume information comes through in
reading. New people didn't see that we had tasks/goals. Should have had
an Executive Committee meeting before the meeting (rather than rely on
phone calls/emails!!).

Ghisselle Alvarado -- it might be important to incorporate a biological
reality to the vision for the council. Uses house building analogy to
express that the needs for implementation may require more or less
biological input depending on the needs for different regions.

Carol Lively -- current description of the council is in part very
general and open to interpretation but there have also been some
specific actions defined -- we should review these.

Paul Kluckner -- compares a "program" on bycatch, which involves work
with various agenices, versus "influence" on bycatch, focusing efforts
on a regional level.

Paul Schmidt -- let's capture and resolve this conversation, listing
strengths and weaknesses of various approaches.

Paul Baicich -- points out that "influence" is not a "lazy" approach,
influence is a very effective approach.

Lourdes Mugica -- Points out that in areas with no resources (e.g., no
Internet, slow communications), it is hard to deliver a conservation
message. The challenge is making a conservation message resonate,
creatively crafting an effective message even if it doesn't have
resources directly attached.

**Lunch**

**Synthesis (crafted by Eric and Jennifer during lunch)**

Get from Eric

***More Discussion on synthesis:***

Ian Davidson -- The "Advancing" project is not a project of the Council.

Kathy Parsons --Yes, it really is.

Don Paul --Views that full Council should move towards an "influence"
role; but that individual committee's efforts may be more on projects,
depending on the goals. May vary through time.

Humberto Berlanga -- Issue is the level of project. Believes "promoting"
is a better word that "influencing" -- Council must specify why we want
to interact with other groups; must outline major concerns.

Paul Schmidt --Believes action item of the Council must be to Ask Others
how we are doing.

Notes to self: Membership is a committee function/not a full council.

Continued discussion of the role of the Council largely centred on the
differences between direct implementation and higher facilitation or
influence of conservation actions. No clear conclusions were indicated.

**Discussion following Membership Committee Report presented by Kathy
Parsons: *Members were asked to comment on the principles and approaches
to peopling the Council.***

Humberto Berlanga -- many LAC countries are often limited in the number
of people that can contribute so the goals of the committee maybe should
be considered a model of the best case but that reality may dictate
something smaller.

Kathy Parsons -- Clarifies that the time period for reaching membership
vision would be quite long. Regional groups are a way of finding
strategic appointments. Idea is to be as inclusive as possible but at
very least we should be strategic in approaching new members (e.g. reps
may be wetland specialists rather than waterbird folk)

Paul Baicich -- there should be an articulated policy of populating
committees with non-council members to facilitate getting the work done.
Committees acting as "minor leagues."

Paul Schmidt -- large council may be problematic (sixty plus
representatives) but it's hard to be inclusive without the potential for
a monster council. Effective use of the Executive Committee will play an
increasingly important role; allow nimble agenda, requires decision
making.

Paul Kluckner -- Rethinking practicalities of recruiting folks that are
peripheral to waterbirds (e.g. generic bird biologist or wetland habitat
specialist, fund raising) \-- could reach out to these people with
tangential roles rather than bringing them on the council. Agrees that
Council will have a role that extends along a spectrum; but believes
priority issues should drive the membership. Example, the ability of new
members to influence decision makers should be considered. E.g. if
long-line bycatch is determined to be a priority then someone from the
inside the industry might be a valuable person to bring onto a
committee, if not onto the Council.

Don Paul -- likes Paul Baicich's view of committees being the way to
involve people.

Paul Baicich -- a large committee of engaged people is okay -- a large
committee of people in place just to represent a country is bad, if
they're not engaged.

Humberto Berlanga -- ensure that each issue is addressed by qualified
people regardless of their background: an open-ended approach -- would
bring in people with specific skills to work on specific issues. Council
would have a core group; but conversations/meetings would be open, to
draw in whoever was relevant.

Stephen Brown -- concerns about the slow pace of bringing in new Council
members.

Paul Schmidt -- do we have a rolling admission?

Paul Baicich -- is there a procedure for bringing in new people?

Kathy Parsons -- yes procedure has been developed but new recruits have
not been approached for quite a while: at last annual meeting (Nassau)
group agreed that until priorities have been identified and policy
documents are in place, no new slates.

Steven Brown -- what would happen if sixty people showed up? Fear of
this may be keeping us from recruiting new people that are needed right
now. In short term we should be inviting people to participate.

Eric Mellink: Avoid fast tracks.

Ghisselle Alvarado: Asks Committee Chairs: what works about your
committees? What doesn't? Getting at what membership is effective.

Rosabel Miro: Council needs to prioritize its goals in order to select
right membership.

General: The time needed to complete the development of the process to
bring on new members was discussed in relation to bringing on new
members sooner rather than later (e.g. to bring the US Forest Service
and the Society for the Study and Conservation of Caribbean Birds on
board right away). It was agreed that no shortcuts should be taken but
that completing the process is needed and should be done as quickly as
possible. (prioritize organizations and have new members by April 1). To
further this conversation, the decision was made to have a membership
meeting at breakfast the following morning, to continue to revise
workplan. Do you remember anything from breakfast? Remember was
evolving..... On solution was that Committee chairs get automatic
Executive membership, regardless if on Council (kind of like Captain
Rank when commanding a vessel...

**Discussion following Technical Services Committee report presented by
Kathy Parsons: *Members were asked to comment on the approaches and
tasks of the committee, as well as how this committee, lacking a Chair,
might move forward.***

Jen: Marshbirds! Tell Regional Leads, Tell USFWS and Flyway, Tell all of
Tech Services!

Jennifer Wheeler -- on committee leadership: Melanie Steinkamp has
retired from the Chair position. Bruce Peterjohn is known to have a
continuing interest in assisting in the monitoring framework, and would
probably co-chair this task; however, he does not have the capacity to
lead on the overall Committee.

Humberto Berlanga -- points out the Mexican species status assessment;
in conjunction with PIF, lumped Mexican BCRs into regions. Considered AI
to indicate relative importance to continental populations. Pulling
together database -- U.S. behind in this respect as it has divided into
bird groups for its assessments

Rob Clay -- points out that for the whole of a species range, BirdLife
develops the IUCN Red List. Observes that when waterbird assessments
take on a global perspective, the results will converge. Warns against
getting bogged down in endless assessment; also urges focus on what is
helpful to the regions. For Central America, Rob is cobbling together an
assessment from other assessments.

Kathy Parsons -- Technical Services has not tackled the issue of "going
hemispheric" yet; because of lack of population information, may end up
with a IUCN habitat-based approach.

Humberto Berlanga -- Important distinction between presenting something
as recommendations and plans.

Don Paul -- discussing the Monitoring Framework, points out that IMW is
currently undertaking a rigorous CBM approach to aquatic birds following
IMW's Waterbird Plan (author Gary Ivey) recommendations. Wants to avoid
conflict with regional versus continental framework.

Stephen Brown -- thinks there is a pressing need for a monitoring
framework.

Humberto Berlanga -- Much to consider when implementing a monitoring
program (beyond planning what's technically needed).

Kathy Parsons -- vision of monitoring framework would be to focus on the
highest needs, point to protocols, "tie the world together," giving
guidance not implementation steps.

General -- Technical Services committee meets together after full
meeting adjourns. Discussing the primary need for the monitoring
framework, Garry Donaldson expresses a willingness to lead a task force
to complete this task (use of the term "task force" emphasizes the
finite nature of the framework task. Also, though Garry would lead, the
approach is that portions could be assigned to other individuals by
taxonomic group (e.g., secretive marshbirds vs seabirds vs wader
colonies, etc.) and perhaps the portions would be completed at different
times. Vernon Byrd, and possibly Francie Cuthbert, would be approached
to be a Committee Chair, to address the other tasks of the Technical
Services Committee and to serve on the Council Executive.

Jen: Someone revisiting seabirds -- PSG coming up...?

Boreal?

Marshbird meeting coming up...:

**Discussion following Reports on Planning and Implemention of Waterbird
Conservation at the sub-continental scale. *Members were encouraged to
ask questions and discuss the role of the Council in supporting
regional-scale conservation approaches.***

***After Rob Clay's presentation on "Advancing a Range-wide Approach to
Waterbird Conservation at Priority Sites Throughout the Neotropics":***

General Discussion: Involved caution towards the planning process but
that products should tend towards a movement towards specific
conservation actions (Ian Davidson and Kathy Parsons). Paul Kluckner
expressed some concern over the large number of data deficient species
and suggested that there should be some mechanism to explicitly state
what level of confidence is associated with individual species
assessments.

***After Veronica Anadon, Lourdes Mugica and Lisa Sorenson
presentation:***

At breakfast: Lisa to take a look at organizing the Caribbean "plan"

General Discussion: Focused on the appropriateness of South American,
Central American, Caribbean work being addressed under one committee
along with other regions (Regional Planning and Implementation
Committee) rather than under a separate committee (International
Committee).

Kathy Parsons highlighted the importance of sharing information and
ideas among regions and forming connections to facilitate this. Regional
groups should also be communicating to the council their needs that can
be addressed by the council

Paul Schmidt: need to have a firm workplan...

Group thought/my thought? Need to Show how regional plans have "yielded"
benefits.

Me: Write the Central American country authors.

Jennifer Wheeler: Regional plans are the best place to articulate
project opportunities.

Guy Foulks: Reiterated NMBCA as a source of funding.

I point out (to myself): there are GEF, RSPB, Dutch funders too

Don Paul: After hearing about Caribbean WIWD reaffirms importance of
outreach and education.

Garry Donaldson: Points out links to Shorebird Sister Schools Program.

Lisa Sorenson -- Point made that Council can be a means by which regions
learn or acquire tools from one another. Has a session in her workshops
called "Things I've stolen from other thieves"

Don Paul: Each regional working group should have a sense of voice and
connection to Council and the big picture. A Regional Committee should
satisfy each region's need to connect.

Ian Davidson: Concerns that the current set up skews conversations
towards North America needs

General Discussion: Conversation heads back to membership and
requirements for Council members to be regional liaisons

Send Montserrat's Wetland Guide to Veronica

Verbal presentations on Canadian regional work by Garry Donaldson and
Paul Kluckner:

-   review of the status of planning in different regions of Canada:
    status of planning in each region and how each is moving towards
    implementation (or not)

-   marshbird monitoring -- people are paying more attention to it.

-   birds oiled at sea -- role of new legislation in protecting
    waterbirds from oil pollution

-   "good" conversations with partners about seabird needs seem to be
    happening

Verbal presentation on U.S. regional work by Jennifer Wheeler:

-   Most regional reports are in the process of completion; regional
    "conversations" are occurring, and priorities are being identified.

-   In many cases, regional planning efforts are communicating
    priorities to Joint Ventures for implementation of habitat-based
    activities. Some Joint Ventures provide arguments that going
    "all-bird" has helped them increase their overall ability to deliver
    habitat.

-   State agency biologists and directors can play a role in the
    planning and influence of waterbird conservation, especially with
    State comprehensive wildlife action plans in place.

-   The cohesion of working groups varies (some are actual entities,
    others are communication networks, others are just an idea).

***After Jennifer Wheeler's presentation:***

George Finney -- Asked if in these regional plans, are there linkages
formed between the bird conservation advocates with agencies responsible
for marine areas like NOAA and agencies/industry associated with
fisheries issues?

Jennifer Wheeler -- Answered that regions with marine components
recognize this and propose to link with NOAA and industry (usually in a
joint venture type approach, e.g., California Current and Atlantic Coast
JV). Unfortunately, funding and political will are unclear.

Kathy Parsons -- Is a co-lead on the Mid-Atlantic/New England/Maritimes
Plan, which provides a series of mini proposals for projects to address
needs like policy development, research, etc. At least ten projects are
centred on pelagic areas and all indicate the necessary partners (need
to be contacted but haven't yet.)

***After Humberto Berlanga's presentation:***

Eric Mellink -- Reports that efforts in Mexico are uneven: variety of
field projects by NGOs. Not much involvement from academia. No field
staff in Government.

XicoVega -- Stated he wants a project that develops a technical
assessment (TALK TO XICO ABOUT TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT VERSUS PLAN)

Humberto Berlanga -- Council's role could be to facilitate analysis of
Mexico's species status assessment versus the overall continental
assessment.

**Discussion following Reports on International Committee's Role and
Leveraging Waterbird Interests through Integration. *After the break-out
reports on discussions regarding hemispheric integration, the steps to
achieving better integration were visited. ***

Get Exercise outcomes?

General Discussion: The International Committee's tasks associated with
supporting Latin America and the Caribbean could be merged into those of
the Regional Planning and Implementation Committee. The task of
integration viewed as a very high priority. However, the Council would
not seem to have the membership capacity to support a separate committee
dedicated to this effort. In 2005, the Council proposed that this task
be taken on as an *ad hoc* effort by the Executive Committee; given that
no movement was made on this effort last year, there were concerns about
attempting the same approach. A decision regarding how to approach the
integration task was left up to the Executive (for discussion Friday).

**Discussion following Communications Committee report presented by Paul
Baicich.**

Talking Points were made available in the preparatory reading packet.

Ian Davidson -- notes that some of the supporting information for the
talking points seemed to be biased to the North American perspective.
Paul asked for assistance in improving this

Kathy -- asking for clarity: Is it a priority task to communicate the
work of the Council? Or the work associated with waterbirds generally?

Don: Wonders if a "flagship" education program is a good idea. Also
notes possibilities to piggyback on Shorebird Sister Schools Program.

Request from Lisa/Caribbean -- Could committee create a communications
product for regional needs? Not so much the Version 2 report, but a
synopsis of how the Council/initiative works.

Paul Baicich reiterates request of the Council: Use the Listserv!

**Discussion about Inactive Resources Committee**

***The Vision and Workplan previously crafted for the Resources
Committee was reviewed. Because the committee has had no Chair in over a
year, the discussion revisited the importance of the Resource Committee
tasks and the need and feasibility for a committee.***

Lots of discussion:

Eric Mellink -- Original workplan had fairly elaborate roles and
responsibilities for the resources committee.

Don Paul -- Some of the workplan seems like "advocacy" -- should be part
of another committee.

Kathy Parsons -- Differing views of advocacy...influencing the
[release]{.underline} of funds versus influencing policy.

Debbie Hahn: What about interaction regarding State Wildlife Grants? Is
that a Resources Committee task?

Kathy and Jennifer -- Possible answer: a regional or national
conversation.

Paul Baicich: no conflict regarding advocacy and fund-raising
influencing the availability of funds is advocacy; tapping those funds
is resources. Thinks we need a group of people focused on the task of
setting priorities to guide projects. And even if fund-raising is a
combined effort, there needs to be a committee to route this effort
through.

Ian Davidson: Resourcing should be a full-Council combined effort.

Paul Baicich: But a committee is needed to route priority needs to
possible sources.

Eric Mellink -- Points out that the Council has accomplished tasks
without new funding. Perhaps resources is about priorities and not
always about new money.

Kathy Parsons -- Notes that suggest workplan less ambitious (more on
operational and Council needs) than general needs of waterbird
conservation.

Xico Vega: Why not have the Council be a forum for developing
Council-level grants (like the Neotrop project?)

Jennifer Wheeler -- There is a rolling, continual grants cycle. So could
do this anytime. Do we want big flagship projects, such as WHRSN took on
in the mid 80s, or NAWMP? These agreed-upon high profile projects were
visible, real work that was "fun and exciting"

Paul Kluckner -- don't need a committee. Been inactive. Chasing bits of
money ineffective.

Paul Baicich -- vigourously disagrees. Need active, living group to
direct funds. Neotrop is our flagship. Committees should bring specific
showcase projects and ideas. Resources committee could be used to direct
to funds, foundations, grants etc. Desperately need a fund-raising arm.

Ian Davidson -- didn't need a Resources Committee for the Neotrop
project.

Paul Baicich -- true, but we want to replicate this again and again.

Kathy Parsons -- Agrees with Paul Baicich, an operational Resources
Committee would have made for a better lineup of Council successes...
Exec can't just absorb.

Lourdes -- Very important. Fund raising, even for small projects, can
have a real impact...real projects. Funds mean capacity, mean a
long-term cure..

Jennifer- are we lacking Development Professionals on the Council?

Guy Foulks-- No, don't need a leader with Development skills. Just need
someone who can facilitate those who can tap in, track opportunities.

Lisa -- Agrees with Guy. Someone who can push regions, propose
possibilityes.

Loourdes Muguca -- Similar to how David Wege works in the Caribbean.

Ghisselle -- Thinks we need to be more aggressive. Committees need to
state objectives and forward their resource needs.

Eric Mellink -- Important to think on a large scale...a showcase
project. Also, to provide assistance and backup to regions, need
capacity, someone to serve as a contact for Latin America.

Don Paul -- Need to decide ("fish or cut bait") and find a savvy person
to lead the committee.

Kathy Parsons -- Regions vary greatly in their needs; Council could
provide endorsements of proposals for working groups. Council would not
direct funds, but serve as a nexus.

Carol Lively -- From a newcomer's view, the council doesn't appear to
have a clear vision of where it's going yet; the complicated council
structure isn't working and is bogging down the council and progress.
She suggested that the council choose three key tasks that they can take
on through the next year.

Xico Vega -- Clear idea of Council's role is to help Council members do
what they want/need to do.

Rosabel Miro -- Thinks tasks must be divided: Prioritize needs vs.
finding funds.

Eric Mellink -- What should we expect of ourselves for the next year.

Debbie Hahn -- Notes that NABCI recently sat down to consider a year's
workplan.

Kathy Parsons -- The committee workplans do that; but can the Council
provide the Service of helping fund the workplans?

Paul Baicich -- "We make plans, God laughs" re-emphasizing the need for
a focused resources committee and one that helps set funding priorities.

George Finney -- Suggested that the current council make-up isn't right
to handle the tasks outlined for the resources committee so instead of
having a committee the Council should seek advice from within partner
organizations where the expertise exists in-house. Perhaps pursue
forming a panel of advisors.

Paul Kluckner -- The role of this committee should really be taken on by
the Council as a whole and that the resources committee is not feasible.

Ian Davidson -- Agreed to both above concepts and suggested that if the
Council came up with a large project designed to meet Council
objectives, he could he would provide access to the fundraising machine
of BirdLife to help.

Don Paul -- indicated that a good focus for a large project might be a
seabird effort to address some of the conservation issues that have been
expressed throughout this meeting.

Ian Davidson -- On the other hand, since there is no such large project
and restoring the committee was not be feasible at this time, he
volunteered to assemble a suite of significant funding opportunities for
waterbird and wetland conservation work in the Americas, as well as a
list of individuals which might act as advisors to Council members
pursuing funding for specific projects. It would not be a formal
committee.

Jennifer Wheeler -- Can help by pulling in what other initiatives (e.g.,
U.S. Shorebirds) have done.

Kathy Parsons -- Thanks Ian for the offer. Notes that Membership
Committee understands that individuals who are "visionary" in regards to
resource acquisition should be targeted in future recruitment efforts.

**Discussion about Inactive Conservation Action Committee**

***The Vision and Workplan previously crafted for the Conservation
Action Committee was reviewed. Again, the discussion revisited the
importance of the Committee's tasks and the need and feasibility for a
committee.***

George Finney -- The current workplan describes a mixture of strategic
development and advocacy. In terms of advocacy, there is potential for
conflict of interest for government members. If capacity is a problem,
perhaps tackle priority tasks as a task force: e.g., largest need for
attention by the Council is to review the conservation needs for
seabirds and act on priorities. Do intelligence gathering and strategic
development.

Paul Baicich -- Noted that Communications Committee can bring forward
issues; a Conservation Action committee is needed for policy and
advocacy. And disappointed to see working on Neotrop and NAWCA
fund-raising at the bottom of the list.

Jennifer Wheeler -- Notes that we need to remember to think beyond
Washington D.C.-centered policy.

Paul Kluckner -- Felt that this committee very important and the role of
government is significant.

Lisa Sorenson -- Feels that this committee is project-oriented;
described that the WIWD project had the same process of identifying key
issues, then action on them. Too much time is spent planning while
opportunities to affect conservation are missed.

Paul Schmidt -- Change the name to Policy Committee? Likens this to when
the nascent NAWMP group took on Farm Bill. He noted that he saw his role
as a "listener" to what the waterbird community is saying.

Garry Donaldson -- noted that Waterbird Society and other scientific
societies have conservation action committees that could be tapped.

Jennifer Wheeler -- AOU is re-establishing its conservation action
committee and has contacted Waterbird Council to collaborate on priority
issues -- there is an opportunity to link to and engage the Waterbird
Society and Pacific Seabird Group.

Kathy Parsons -- Recalls the effort to engage professional societies,
and the Waterbird Society Conservation Committee's agenda is to marshal
science expertise around critical issues. Notes Craig Harrison's role on
PSG Conservation Committee.

Suggests name be Critical Issues committee?

Paul Schmidt -- Regardless of name, group must hone down issues to those
most critical for the full Council to get behind.

Paul Baicich -- Wants government participation, fact sheets, sign-on
letters and more money!

Paul Kluckner -- notes that sign on letters raise the issue of conflict
of interest.

Debbie Hahn -- Reminds us that the Bird Conservation Funding Coalition
covers the fun-raising part.

Paul Schmidt -- The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act people
at USFWS are considering developing an advisory committee -- the
Council, perhaps this group should consider contributing to this.

Paul Kluckner: Overall committee is dormant but top priority issues
could be covered by an interested group that may expand to become a full
committee over time. He is willing to facilitate a conference call with
currently indicated members of the Conservation Committee -- to resolve
the direction and current capacity of the interested group and perhaps
identify a few priorities for the Council to pursue over the short and
long term (e.g. seabird issues). Ultimately, Executive has key
responsibility. Committee name changed to ***Policy and Critical Issues
Committee*** to better clarify its role.

**More discussion on how the Council would approach the tasks of
integration, and more generally, on how the Council operates:**

Paul Schmidt \-- Wants a clearer way for the Council to make decisions.

Paul Baicich -- thinks concensus is the tyrrany of the minority.
Important topics need a focus group to discuss.

Paul Schmidt -- Integration tasks don't warrant a committee; should be
an ad-hoc group of the Executive, pursuing strategic engagement at a
high level.

Counterpoint by ? -- Integration is ultimately local. The nature of
integration varies (e.g, the U.S. versus Mexican approaches to
splintering into initiatives).

Don Paul -- Need to get out of the U.S. model. Driven by hunting and
fishing...then non-game...then integration with other wildlife (e.g.,
herptiles, butterflies). This splintering becomes competitive and
requires individuals to provide a driving force. Latin America less
complex -- hopefully this breaks down agency skirmishes. Should learn
from that approach.

Kathy Parsons -- Sees the order of importance in Council work as
follows: First invest heavily in the health of the working groups; then
focus on cross-regional integration. Simultaneously, partner with other
hemispheric initiatives.

Debbie Hahn -- From a State perspective, where should integration
happen?

Kathy Parsons -- Regional.

Humberto Berlanga -- Not seeing a lot of Latin American participation.
The structure of all these committees and groups is too much. What
specific activities should be doing. We are caught between being purely
opportunistic and over-planning. Need to streamline, engage individuals,
be programmatic and adaptive. Right now, too hard to explain the
structure and the opportunities for the rest of the continent. Where is
the clear statement of where we are going to be in 2 months, 2 years, 5
years?

Carol Lively -- Suggestions a commitment from each member: Involvement
in Regional Group; Commitment to Bring Resources; Participation in
continental-scale Dialogues.

**Additional Discussion During Executive Committee Breakout**

Generally, re-affirm that council is maturing. Want input, so that the
best part of meetings can be carried forward to future meetings.
Committee Wrap-ups will re-affirm our priorities for 2006. Understanding
specific tasks will create excitement and buy-in. However, need to make
a better effort to engage ALL members, especially Latin Americans. Want
to hear their concerns. Want to do better with bi-lingual needs.

**Presentation on the Latin American Viewpoint from Humberto Berlanga,
representing all the Latin American participants, and subsequent
discussion.**

Members from Latin America (via Humberto Berlanga) expressed a sense
that the Council comes off as too complex. Many of the Latin American
contributors feel that the manner in which the council operates reflects
its origins in US/Canada. Some of the terminology with respect to NA
conservation structures is too foreign for LAC contributors to relate to
and therefore their contributions are limited. Language is also a
problem and they asked that Spanish translation would be very helpful in
increasing the level of comprehension and participation. As a region,
LAC contributors would like to play a greater role in setting agenda
items for Council meetings. LAC contributors would like to see projects
develop that lead to meeting long term objectives -- perhaps using a
more simplified approach that sheds some of the complexity that exists
in North America should be considered.

General comments were sympathetic to the needs of LAC participants.
Specific ideas were forwarded about stopping conversations for
clarification (Paul Baicich); establishing other norms of conduct
including translation of all written materials (Ian Davidson); creating
subcouncils by geographic region, like WHRSN (Stephen); providing an
orientation to new members (Rosabel); having materials presented more
graphically, with progress clearly indicated (Rosabel). The Executive
Committee committed to doing the homework to make operations effective
for all members.

**During Paul Schmidt's Wrap-up of Regional Planning and Implementation
Committee Workplan**

Don Paul is willing to take on being a co-Chair, on the condition that a
co-Chair with a stronger Latin American connection be identified. Ian
Davidson expressed a willingness, as there is no longer to be an
"International Committee."

Humberto Berlanga and Debbie Hahn -- expressed an interest in joining
the committee. It may be that certain committee members may want to
depart the committee.

Jennifer Wheeler -- noted that some re-working of the tasks might help
with clarity. In particular, the task involving supporting
regional-scale efforts in Mexico needs input from the Mexican
participants.

Kathy Parsons --The task associated with reviewing species
prioritization is more appropriate for the Technical Services Committee.

**During Paul Baicich's Wrap-up of Communications Committee Workplan**

Lisa Sorenson confirmed her interest as a new member.

The desire for all materials, including website, available in both
English and Spanish was reiterated.

Garry Donaldson offered the services of Environment Canada for
translation of shorter documents.

Paul Kluckner proposed the creation of a short piece for the WHMSI
meeting, occurring in San Jose the following week.

Eric Mellink requested an organized presence at the 4th North American
Ornithological Conference in early October.

**During Paul Kluckner's Wrap-up of Policy and Critical Issues Committee
Workplan**

Another example of a task for this group would be deciding what exactly
is critical: a local extinction versus a global one.

Paul Kluckner -- offering a path forward..

Paul Schmidt -- Reminds us about the opportunity for "influence" in the
formation of the Neotrop Act Advisory Committee.

Don Paul -- Re-affirms importance of offshore issues, and if so, the
necessity of engaging the coastal regions.

**Suggestions for Next Annual Meeting**

Executive should meet every day -- and report on outcomes

Print out all the proposed workplans

Consider a professional facilitator as well as a professional translator

Be on Time: Stick to the Agenda (otherwise a slippery slope of everyone
being later and later)

More graphic or visual presentations -- that emphasis and re-affirm top
priority activities

Have breakouts...perhaps on the second day, and not-concurrent

Reminder:

Committees need to be prepared in advance as well as planning to resolve
issues in breakout once at the meeting (especially since not all of
committees can make the meeting)

Note, however, that the annual meeting may be a key opportunity to
resolve plans and tasks.

More presentations on actual projects (e.g., "showcases") to keep up
excitement and learning.

Carol's specific idea:

Have every member put in writing their roles and expectations. Provide
very specific questionnaire.

**Discussion on 2007 Location for Annual Meeting**

Council approach for the annual meeting was reviewed: the Council meets
on an annual basis, independently from any conferences, in the first
half of January. At previous annual meetings, it was felt that choice of
location should be based in part on increasing participation from
partners south of the U.S., as well as provide benefits to the local
host.

Two offers were discussed, Playa Ceuta (Sinaloa), Mexico (by Xico Vega)
and Quito, Ecuador (by Ian Davidson). In discussion, it was determined
that Quito accommodations are more expensive (\~US\$60/day) thans Ceuta
(\~\$US25) but there is easy access to Quito from major cities; probably
cheaper and more direct than Ceuta (through Mazatlan). Also, Birdlife
International staff would be available to assist with meeting needs.
Finally, since Ceuta will be dedicated a WHSRN site in 2008\...it might
be good timing to defer that location another year. Quito was favored as
the location for the 2007 Annual Meeting.

Paul Baicich remarked that decisions on location should involve more
than a quick decision at the annual meeting...more formal vetting
through Executive.