of the AEWA Action Plan. The task was to review para 2.1.2 (a) “if the taking has an unfavourable impact on the conservation status of the population concerned”. WG1 Decision: The WG decided not to delete or make any changes to this paragraph but to propose an International Implementation Task (IIT) project on harvest data collection as well as a project on AEWA sustainable harvest guidelines so that, in the long term, countries are enabled to assess if their taking has an unfavourable impact on the conservation status of the population concerned.
of the AEWA Action Plan. Parties may grant exemptions from the restrictions on hunting and trade of Column A populations for the purposes laid down in Paragraph 2.1.3 (a) – (e), provided there is no other satisfactory solution. Such exemptions have to be precise as to content, limited in space and time and shall not operate to the detriment of the species listed in Table 1. Finally, Parties shall inform the Secretariat of any exemption granted. In 59 % of all Range States legislation provides for exemptions. 14 % of the Range States (7 % of the Parties), however, grant exemptions that are not explicitely mentioned under Paragraph 2.1.3 of the Action Plan. These might be regarded an “overriding public interest” pursuant to Paragraph 2.1.3 (b). The latter is, however, difficult to assess due to a lack of definition of this indefinite legal term. Measures taken, for example, in the context of Avian Influenza (and for the reason of public interest) show that exemptions potentially have an important impact on migratory waterbirds and why the Action Plan should be as clear as possible in this question. Clarification might be reached through an amendment of the wording of this exemption or by providing a definition. Art. 9 of the Birds Directive, for example, foresees similar derogations from its general (hunting) provisions, but instead of “overriding public interests” suggests the more defined interests of “public health and safety”. Granted exemptions in most countries are required to be precise as to content and limited in space and time. Measures to prevent exemptions operating to the detriment of the species are, however, often not taken. The Secretariat has also not received any information from the Parties regarding exemptions granted in the individual countries yet.
of the AEWA Action Plan. Paragraph 2.1.3 identifies the circumstances in which Contracting Parties may permit certain activities that are otherwise prohibited by the Agreement. In drafting the guidance, consideration was paid to the extensive body of guidelines that have been developed on the interpretation of similar legal text in the European Union’s Birds and Habitats Directives and the Council of Europe’s Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention).
of the AEWA Action Plan. Parties shall endeavour to phase out the use of lead shot for hunting in wetlands by the year 2000. A series of international update reports on lead poisoning in waterbirds was produced by Wetlands International in the past, the latest published in 200010. Their aim was to identify new developments in this field and to report on progress made in this issue. Taking note of the outcomes and recommendations of the update review 2000 the Second Meeting of the Parties to AEWA, September 2002, Bonn, Germany, in its Resolution 2.2 on “Phasing out lead shot for hunting in wetlands”, called upon Contracting Parties “to enhance their efforts to phase out the use of lead shot in wetlands as soon as possible […] namely, to promote communication between, and awareness within, authorities and the hunting community; to allocate resources for the enforcement of relevant laws; and to stimulate and facilitate the production and availability of non-toxic shot – and to actively inform themselves on the issue and its solutions. Contracting Parties were moreover requested to report to each ordinary session of the Meeting of the Parties on progress made to phase out lead shot in accordance with self-imposed and published timetables, and specify how they plan to overcome any problems encountered. The same Meeting of the Parties adopted the International Implementation Priorities 2003 - 2007, one priority being the continuation of the production of the update reviews on lead poisoning in waterbirds. This priority was again adopted as part of the International Implementation Priorities 2006 - 2008 (priority number 11) by the Third Meeting of the Parties to AEWA, October 2005, Dakar, Senegal. 10 Previous reports were published in 1995 and 1997. The last update report “Xxxxxxxx, N.H. 2001. Lead Poisoning in Waterbirds. International Update Report 2000. Wetlands International, Wageningen, The Netherlands” can be downloaded at xxxx://xxx.xxxx-xxxx.xxx/surveys/hunting_and_trade/wi_lead_poison_wbirds_en_2000.pdf
of the AEWA Action Plan. The Meeting will be requested to review and adopt these International Reviews and the draft Resolutions linked to them.
