Common use of Annex 4: References Clause in Contracts

Annex 4: References. The reference list, in alphabetical order following the format given below, should contain only the key documents referred to in the International Species Action Plan text, not general literature on the species. Titles of journals should be given in full. Ideally, information from peer-reviewed sources should be preferred over “grey literature” and personal contributions or comments. This will enhance the credibility and objectivity of the Action Plan. However, not all information needed for Action Plans is officially published. In such cases compilers should judge the available information carefully and responsibly and clearly indicate that the sources used are such in the Action Plan text itself. Much valuable information is, for example, now available through the National Reports provided by Range States to meetings of the various AEWA International Single Species Working Groups. Information stored in institutional databases should also be included in the list of references, with indication of the source and date of access to the database. Example: Aunins, A. 2001a. Changes of lekking activity of Great Snipe during course of night and season in Latvia: recommendations for methods of searching for Great snipe leks and estimating lek size. Putni daba Supplement 1: 13 – 26. Aunins, A. 2001b. Territorial distribution, numbers and habitat selection of Great Snipe in Latvia: historical information and the current situation (1999 - 2001). Putni daba Supplement 1: 4 - 12. BirdLife International. 2000. Threatened Birds of the World. Spain and Cambridge, U.K. Devort, M. 2000. Some methodological aspects of snipe research: The contribution of long-term wing collection and analysis of Common snipe (Gallinago gallinago), ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ (Lymnocryptes minimus) and Great snipe (Gallinago media) to the monitoring of their populations. OMPO Newsletter No 21: 5 – 24. Garvis, G. 2000. The National Action Plan for the Great Snipe (Gallinago media) conservation in Ukraine. In: The National Action Plans for the Globally threatened bird species. Ukrainian Society for the Protection of Birds (USPB). SoftArt Press, Kyiv. pp. 180-189. (in Ukrainian). 1 In the interim, Action Plan compilers are advised to follow the key concepts and approaches presented in the explanatory notes and guidelines under the EU Habitats Directive Article 17. DG Environment. (2017). Reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive: Explanatory notes and guidelines for the period 2013-2018. Brussels: European Commission 2 The Basic Data shall be limited to 1-2 pages. 3 Include the following footnote in relation to Principle Range States: Each Contracting Party to AEWA is equally responsible under the Agreement for all the AEWA species/populations they host as per the obligations set out in the AEWA legal text. All the countries which host a specific species (whether in small or large numbers) are considered Range States for that species. The identification of Principle Range States in AEWA Action Plans, is an approach used to prioritise coordinated international conservation efforts to those countries considered to be crucial for ensuring the favourable conservation status of the species/population in question. It should be noted that, under no circumstances does the identification of Principle Range States in AEWA International Species Action Plans, diminish the legal obligations of potential remaining Range States which are Contracting Parties to AEWA to equally ensure the adequate protection and conservation of the species/populations in question, including through implementation of relevant actions from the respective Species Action Plan.

Annex 4: References. The reference list, in alphabetical order following the format given below, should contain only the key documents referred to in the International Species Action Plan text, not general literature on the species. Titles of journals should be given in full. Ideally, information from peer-reviewed sources should be preferred over “grey literature” and personal contributions or comments. This will enhance the credibility and objectivity of the Action Plan. However, not all information needed for Action Plans is officially published. In such cases compilers should judge the available information carefully and responsibly and clearly indicate that the sources used are such in the Action Plan text itself. Much valuable information is, for example, now available through the National Reports provided by Range States to meetings of the various AEWA International Single Species Working Groups. Information stored in institutional databases should also be included in the list of references, with indication of the source and date of access to the database. Example: Aunins▇▇▇▇▇▇, A. ▇. 2001a. Changes of lekking activity of Great Snipe during course of night and season in Latvia: recommendations for methods of searching for Great snipe leks and estimating lek size. Putni daba Supplement 1: 13 – 26. Aunins▇▇▇▇▇▇, A. ▇. 2001b. Territorial distribution, numbers and habitat selection of Great Snipe in Latvia: historical information and the current situation (1999 - 2001). Putni daba Supplement 1: 4 - 12. BirdLife International. 2000. Threatened Birds of the World. Spain and Cambridge, U.K. Devort▇.▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, M. 2000. Some methodological aspects of snipe research: The contribution of long-term wing collection and analysis of Common snipe (Gallinago gallinago), ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ (Lymnocryptes minimus) and Great snipe (Gallinago media) to the monitoring of their populations. OMPO Newsletter No 21: 5 – 24. Garvis▇▇▇▇▇▇, G. ▇. 2000. The National Action Plan for the Great Snipe (Gallinago media) conservation in Ukraine. In: The National Action Plans for the Globally threatened bird species. Ukrainian Society for the Protection of Birds (USPB). SoftArt Press, Kyiv. pp. 180-189. (in Ukrainian). 1 In the interim, Action Plan compilers are advised to follow the key concepts and approaches presented in the explanatory notes and guidelines under the EU Habitats Directive Article 17. DG Environment. (2017). Reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive: Explanatory notes and guidelines for the period 2013-2018. Brussels: European Commission 2 The Basic Data shall be limited to 1-2 pages. 3 Include the following footnote in relation to Principle Principal Range States: Each Contracting Party to AEWA is equally responsible under the Agreement for all the AEWA species/populations they host as per the obligations set out in the AEWA legal text. All the countries which host a specific species (whether in small or large numbers) are considered Range States for that species. The identification of Principle Principal Range States in AEWA Action Plans, is an approach used to prioritise coordinated international conservation efforts to those countries considered to be crucial for ensuring the favourable conservation status of the species/population in question. It should be noted that, under no circumstances does the identification of Principle Principal Range States in AEWA International Species Action Plans, diminish the legal obligations of potential remaining Range States which are Contracting Parties to AEWA to equally ensure the adequate protection and conservation of the species/populations in question, including through implementation of relevant actions from the respective Species Action Plan.