B. Experience and expertise are shared This objective aims to improve the effectiveness of management by sharing experience and expertise on key topics. C. Acceptance of management is increased The public opinion concerning goose management can be highly polarised and often represents an obstacle to rational and cost-effective management measures. Creating a better acceptance can thus contribute to the de-escalation of the conflict. D. Relevant national legislation is harmonised Implementation of a dynamic management framework requires frequent update of hunting regulations and derogations regulations in the of monitoring data. E. Sufficient resources are secured on long-term basis Adaptive management of the population is not possible without long-term funding to maintain the capacity for monitoring, assessment and implementation. Table 3 sets out the actions for each means and process objective together with their priorities, time scale and responsible organisations. Table 3. Framework for action FOs Means/Process objectives Actions Priority Time scale Organisations responsible I V VII A network of safe key sites is maintained and managed throughout the population’s range 1.1 Provide adequate protection and management to key of international importance under Article 4(2) of the Birds Directive in the EU and other relevant instruments in other Range States throughout the range of the population and maintain them in good ecological status Essential Short / Rolling National authorities 1.2 Promote goose-based at selected key sites Medium Medium National authorities, NGOs II III IV are kept away from sensitive areas 2.1 Take key sites for geese into account in land use planning and growing of sensitive crops High Immediate / Rolling National authorities tourism
2.2. Provide accommodation areas to reduce risks and conflicts at sensitive areas through e.g. subsidies Medium Medium/ Rolling National authorities 2.3 Apply scaring and land management techniques to reduce the attractiveness of sensitive areas, monitoring the implications of such local displacement for conflicts at wider scale High Short / Rolling National authorities, Airports II III IV Conflicts and risks in sensitive areas are managed 3.1. Reduce risk by goose migration to air safety through operational measures such as radar surveillance High Short / Rolling National authorities, Airport authorities 3.2 Establish an internationally coordinated programme to assess agricultural damage including monitoring and assessment protocols High Short National authorities 3.3 Liaise with farmers affected by goose damages to reduce agricultural conflicts High / Rolling National authorities I II V VI VII The population is kept between minimum and maximum targets 4.1 Establish hierarchical population targets at flyway, management unit and national levels iteratively to ensure national targets are consistent with the flyway targets and with legal requirements at all levels Essential AEWA EGM IWG 4.2 Establish an internationally coordinated population management programme (including both hunting and, if necessary, killing under derogations) for the transboundary management units encompassing monitoring, assessment and decision-making protocols Essential AEWA EGM IWG
4.3 Improve effectiveness of population control measures through experimenting with different timing and methods and better understanding the relative efficacy of lethal versus non-lethal scaring techniques High Medium Research institutes, National authorities, National hunting federation 4.4 Promote best practices of goose hunting including timing to minimize damage and significant disturbance to other species Medium Medium / Rolling National authorities, National hunting federations 4.5 Maintain low crippling rates High Medium / Rolling National authorities, National hunting federations 4.6 Develop hunting techniques to further reduce crippling Medium Long / Rolling Research institutes, National hunting federations All A. Knowledge is available to support goose management through a shared knowledge-base A.1 Produce and update periodically spatially explicit population size estimates based on agreed international monitoring Essential / Rolling AEWA EGMP DC A.2 Maintain an annually updated bag statistics database including harvested by any means Essential Ongoing / Rolling AEWA EGMP DC A.3 Maintain a spatially explicit database on goose damage to agriculture, other flora and fauna and risk to air safety Essential Medium / Rolling National authorities with periodic reporting to the AEWA EGMP DC
A.4 Collect demographic (mortality, reproduction, differential migration and connectivity) data from an agreed representative sampling framework across the range High / Rolling AEWA EGMP DC A.5 Analyse the impact of various agricultural policy scenarios and measures (Nitrate Directive, measures, various production incentives including biofuels) on goose populations and on goose damage High Long National authorities, Research institutes A.6 Assess the role of predators (e.g. Eagle Haliaeetus albicilla, Red Fox Vulpes vulpes) in regulating goose populations Medium Long Research institutes All B. Experience and expertise are shared B.1 Produce best practice on establishing refuge areas (size, management, subsidies) Medium Short AEWA Secretariat with EC DG ENV and EU Member States B.2 Provide guidance on conflict resolution and how to make this consistent with the European legal framework, including the Common Agricultural Policy High AEWA Secretariat with EC DG ENV and EU Member States B.3 Create a toolbox for decisions in relation to determining significant damage (including metrics, benchmarking, verification, monitoring, various management techniques to prevent damage, compensation) High Short AEWA Secretariat with EC DG ENV and EU Member States B.4 Provide guidance on Medium Medium AEWA environmental
implementation of population management protocols at national level Secretariat with EC DG ENV B.5 Share experience concerning methods to prevent damage to agriculture and risks to human health, air safety as well as to other flora and fauna Medium Medium AEWA Secretariat with EC DG ENV and EU Member States All C. Acceptance of goose management is increased C.1 Develop and implement a communication strategy and plan Medium Short / Rolling AEWA Secretariat, National authorities All D. Relevant national legislation is harmonised D.1 Range States review their national legislation in the light of the framework legal guidance document developed under the EGMP High National authorities All E. Sufficient resources secured on E.1 Range States contribute on a regular basis to the budget of the EGMP Essential Ongoing / Rolling National authorities E.2 National and regional governments secure the necessary for the implementation of the actions at national and levels Essential Rolling National authorities ANNEX 1 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT Distribution throughout the annual cycle Individuals from the NW/SW European population of Greylag Goose breed mainly in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium (Nilsson et al. 1999). Traditionally, Finnish breeding Greylag Geese have been assigned to the Central European population. However, ring recoveries show that birds caught in western Finland belong to the NW/SW flyway and birds from the Gulf of Finland region belong to the Central flyway (Saurola et al. 2013). Additionally, it is suggested that there is an exchange between individuals of the NW/SW European population and the Central European population from other geographical areas (British or Black Sea populations) (Calderon et al. 1991; ONCFS 2014).
Grazing of lake vegetation (effects on reed vegetation) increasing Denmark (L), Germany (L, R), Belgium (L) Netherlands (R), Sweden (R), Spain (Doñana), Finland (L) negative but stable local effect in Belgium; depending on federal state in Germany no effect France no information Norway Grazing of lake vegetation (effects on breeding birds) increasing Sweden (R), Netherlands (L), Finland (L) no effect Belgium, France, Germany, Spain (Doñana) no information Denmark, Norway, Grazing of swards (effects on breeding meadow birds) increasing Netherlands (L), Sweden (R), Finland (L) no effect Belgium, France, Germany, Spain (Doñana) no information Denmark, Norway Grazing of swards (effects on terrestrial ecosystem) increasing Netherlands (R), Belgium (L), Finland (L) negative but stable local effect in Belgium no effect France, Germany, Spain (Doñana) no information Denmark, Sweden, Norway Grazing of swards (effects on vegetation composition) increasing Netherlands (R), Belgium (L), Finland (L) negative but stable local effect in Belgium no effect France, Germany, Spain (Doñana) no information Denmark, Sweden, Norway