Contents:
1) GOOSE 2007 in Xanten - Germany
- Posters and presentations:
- Lesser White-fronted Goose Workshop, 29th January
- Proceedings of the Conference.
2) Workshop on the protection of the Lesser White-fronted Goose, Helsinki and Lammi 2005
- Proceedings
- Photos
- Action plan draft
- List of participants
- Contact information
- Sponsors
- Minutes of International Conference
- Present state and major threats of the species
- On-going and planned conservation activities
- Genetics
- Preview of the international Action Plan for Lesser White-fronted Goose
- Problem analysis of LWfG conservation
3) National Finnish meeting on the protection of the Lesser White-fronted Goose,
- Minutes. Lammi 2005 (in Finnish)
Link to Helsinki invitation announcement
Sunday afternoon back from Helsinki, my wife and I left Monday morning very early for the nine hours car drive to our house in France. Therefore a little later than I consider to be polite, I still would like to express my great appreciation to you all for the perfect organisation of the workshop. With the participants you created a constant constructive atmosphere to be able to achieve results and the Lammi station is a good venue for this type of events.
I have enjoyed it very much and look forward to contribute further to the process and substance of the new action plan and therefore will be in touch with you at least until the moment the draft plan will formally be submitted to AEWA and other formal intergovernmental institutions. Do not hesitate to contact me if you think that is helpful in the weeks to come.
Proceedings will be published and sent to participants. The organizers welcome Your contribution. Deadline for submission is July 31:st 2005. Please ask us at <piskulka.conf@maths.jyu.fi> for instructions before sending a copy of your talk/poster.
Some presentations and other documents are already available in electronic form. Here are the links:
Please send Your photos to <piskulka.conf@maths.jyu.fi> if You like them to be put in the net without copyright restrictions.
Here are links to some pictures:
The Action Plan draft will be e-mailed to all participants for review/comment. Please, ensure Your address is corrrect in the list below
|
|
Participant |
Organisation |
|
|
Norway |
Aarvak, Tomas |
Norwegian Ornithological Society |
tomas@birdlife.no |
|
Finland |
Alho, Pentti |
private |
pentti.alho@phnet.fi |
|
Sweden |
Andersson, Anna-Karin |
Uppsala University |
|
|
Sweden |
Andersson, Åke |
Länsstyrelsen I Norbottens Län/Wetlands International |
ake_a@swipnet.se |
|
Finland |
Asanti, Timo |
Finnish Enviroment Institute (SYKE) |
timo.asanti@ymparisto.fi |
|
Netherlands |
Boere, Gerard |
private capacity |
gcboere@planet.nl |
|
AEWA |
Dereliev, Sergey |
UNEP/AEWA Secretariat |
sdereliev@unep.de |
|
Netherlands |
Ebbinge. Bart |
Wetlands International |
bart.ebbinge@wur.nl |
|
Germany |
Eberhardt, Doris |
BUND=Friends of the Earth Germany |
doris.eberhardt@bund.net |
|
Norway |
Ekker, Morten |
Directorate for Nature management |
morten.ekker@dirnat.no |
|
Germany |
Gonzales, Javier |
IPMB / Heidelberg |
c/o wink@uni-hd.de |
|
Sweden |
Gylje, Sofia |
Länsstyrelsen I Norrbottens Län |
sofia.gylje@bd.lst.se |
|
Finland |
Haapanen, Antti |
Friends of the Lesser White-fronted Goose |
Antti.Haapanen@kolumbus.fi |
|
United Kingdom |
Jones, Tim |
BirdLife International? (Compiler of the forthcoming Action Plan) |
|
|
Finland |
Kahanpää, Lauri |
Friends of the Lesser White-fronted Goose |
kahanpaa@maths.jyu.fi |
|
Turkey |
Kaya, Ugur |
DOGA DERNEGI |
uepeyzaj@yahoo.com |
|
Finland |
Kellomäki, Erkki |
Häme Regional Environment Center |
erkki.kellomaki@ymparisto.fi |
|
Russia |
Kholodova, Marina |
Russian Academy of Science, Moscow |
mvkholod@mail.ru |
|
Russia |
Kuznetsov, Alexandr |
State Hunters Inspection of the Nenets Autonomous Okrug, Naryan-Mar |
lavrinenko@gisnm.atnet.ru |
|
Sweden |
Larsson, Torsten |
Naturvårdsverket = Swedish Environmental Protection Agency |
torsten.larsson@naturvardsverket.se |
|
Finland |
Lehtiniemi, Teemu |
BirdLife Finland |
etunimi.sukunimi@birdlife.fi |
|
Russia |
Litvin. Konstantin |
Bird Ringing Centre of Russia, Institute of Animal Ecology and Evolution, Russian Academy of Science |
klitvin@gol.ru |
|
Iran |
Mansoori, Jamsheed |
|
birdlifeiran@yahoo.com |
|
Sweden |
Marie Björklund |
Länsstyrelsen I Norrbottens Län |
Marie.Bjorklund@bd.lst.se |
|
Finland |
Markkola, Juha |
WWF Finland |
juha.markkola@oulu.fi |
|
Finland |
Merilä, Juha |
WWF Finland |
juha.merila@helsinki.fi |
|
Russia |
Mineev, Oleg |
The Institute of Biology Komi Scientific Centre Russian Academy of Science |
mineev@ib.komisc.ru |
|
Germany |
Mooij, Johan |
Aktion Zwergans |
johan.mooij@bskw.de, Johan.Mooij@t-online.de., mooij@bskw.de |
|
Russia |
Morozov. Vladimir |
RGG |
piskulka@mtu-net.ru |
|
Netherlands |
Nagy, Szabolcs |
BirdLife International |
szabolcs.nagy@birdlife-europe.nl |
|
Finland |
Osara, Matti |
The Ministry of Environment |
matti.osara@ymparisto.fi |
|
Finland |
Pessa, Jorma |
North Ostrobothnia Regional Environment Center |
jorma.pessa@ymparisto.fi |
|
Bulgaria |
Petkov , Nikolai |
Conservation of BSPB (Bulgarian Society for the Prtoection of Birds) |
nicky.petkov@bspb.org |
|
Finland |
Pirinen, Tanja |
WWF Finland |
tanja.pirinen@wwf.fi |
|
Russia |
Romanov, Alexey |
Putoransky Zapovednik, Norilsk, Russia |
klitvin@gol.ru |
|
Finland |
Ruokonen, Minna |
University of Oulu |
mruokone@sun3.oulu.fi |
|
Ukraine |
Rusev, Ivan |
Wetlands International |
wildlife@paco.net |
|
Germany |
Scholze, Wolfgang |
Deutscher Aero Club; Aktion Zwerggans / Operation Lesser Whitefront |
w.scholze@daec.de |
|
Finland |
Soikkeli, Martti |
Department of biology, University of Turku, Finland |
marsoi@utu.fi |
|
Finland |
Sulkava, Pekka |
Metsähallitus |
pekka.sulkava@metsa.fi |
|
Russia |
Syroechkovski, Evgeni |
Russain Academy of Science, Moscow |
rgg@eesjr.msk.ru |
|
Russia |
Tarasov, Vladimir |
Institute of plant & animals ecology of the Ural branch of the Russian academy of sciences |
grouse@bk.ru |
|
Finland |
Tolvanen, Petteri |
WWF Finland |
petteri.tolvanen@wwf.fi |
|
Estonia |
Toming, Maire |
Matsalu Nature Reserve/Wetlands International |
maire@matsalu.ee |
|
Estonia |
Valker, Tarvo |
Silma Nature Reserve Administration |
tarvo@silma.ee |
|
Sweden |
Vilkuna, Riikka |
Svenska Flygsportförbundet/Aktion Zwerggans |
Riikka.Vilkuna@swipnet.se |
|
Finland |
Vuolanto, Seppo |
The Ministry of Environment |
seppo.vuolanto@ymparisto.fi |
|
Iran |
Vuosalo-Tavakoli, Ellen |
Mazandaran Crane Conservation Association |
ellentavakoli@excite.com |
|
Kazakhstan |
Yerokhov, Sergey |
Institute of Zoology of Kazakh Academy of Science |
Syerokhov@nursat.kz, instZoo@nursat.kz |
|
Norway |
Øien, Ingar Jostein |
Norwegian Ornithological Society |
ingar@birdlife.no |
Seppo Vuolanto: Opens the meeting. Welcomes the participants and introduces the programme of the meeting. Szabolcs Nagy and Petteri Tolvanen will keep record of the presentations and discussion.
Evgeniy Syroechovski: Status and conservation Lesser White-fronted Goose in Russia and Central Asia. The development of a national strategy for Russia has started. It will be presented in St. Petersbourg in October. Field surveys in Putorana Plato, Kalmykiya, Azerbaijan, Chukotka and Vorkuta..Successful satellite tracking showing the route to a wintering place in Iraq, but the picture is going to be complicated. Started collaboration with hunting organisation and fundraising with companies. They are going to start new satellite tracking in this year in Putorana Plato with transmitters of neck-collar type. Strong hunting pressure (also in spring) along Ob River. They have found some locations of wintering geese (mostly GWfG) in Turkmenistan close to the border with Afganistan. Satellite tracking has reconfimed the importance of the Samur River delta for LWfG. There are also new data from Azerbaijan. Knowledge is still missing on main wintering ground for the western population. It is still not known where 80% of the breeding birds are and also most of stopover sites for the eastern populations. Main threats at wintering and stopover areas are still assumed, but no exact mechanisms are known. Next priorities and plans for Russia: improvement of knowledge through field surveys, satellite tracking, genetic studies; creation of network of protected areas in key stopover sites; creation of GIS database on distribution of LWfG; co-operation with hunters to decrease hunting pressure; creation of national strategy with AEWA and collaboration with RBCU.
Ingar Jostein Øien: Update on the work done on the Fennoscandian population. Main work within Fennoscandia is still annual monitoring before breeding and of breeding success at Valdak. In the meantime catch some birds for colour ringing and these birds are observed along the European migration route where established monitoring takes place. A LIFE project application (lead by WWF Finland) submitted to protect this migration route. There are further plans for further satellite tracking focusing at breeding sites, because breeding grounds might change, and at the moment the breeding grounds are mainly unknown. The breeding population is between 20-30 pairs (this figure refers to adult and subadult birds [i.e. 3rd cy] appearing in pairs). At Valdak 40-45 birds were observed in spring. Significant drop from 60-70 to 40-45 happened around 2000; since then the population size has been more or less stable. Most birds colour-ringed in Norway are observed along the European migration route., but based on the analysis of the individual belly patch pattern we don't have full control on the Fennoscandian population(= not all of the Fennoscandian LWfG staging at Valdak).
Sergey Yerokhov: Lesser White-fronted Goose in Kazakhstan. Main stop over sites are located in the Kustanay region, which is characterised by changing semi-static water bodies. Long draught period has affected the species negatively, therefore birds now occur more to the south from the Kustanay region. According to their results the total number is not changing significantly: 7,000-10,000 (1997-2004). The age structure (share of juveniles) is changing from yeat to year. The staging in Kustany region population may have even increased in the latest years. Last year the average flock size was 3-400 birds as opposed to 30-40 birds per flock earlier. He suggests that the Western population is increasing. Two wawes: September and October. The latter mostly families. Most birds are probably wintering in the Caspian region and at water reservoirs in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. A GEF project started (Integrated conservation of globally important wetlands in Kazachstan) which includes actions to improve legislation, to establish new protected areas and to improve protection. Another regional project is starting to Establish a network of habitats along the flyway of Siberian Crane and other globally threatened species including Kazachstan (including Naurzum, Zharsor-Urkash and Kulukol lakes in Kustanay region), China andRussia and Iran. Four areas included in the Kustanay region (incl. the Kulikol Lake) and one in the Naurzum region. New protected areas as a result of the project hopefully established by 2009. He invites collaboration from foreign organisations.
Juha Markkola. Review the global the protection and major threats of Lesser White-fronted Goose. Main threats are hunting and poaching; habitat degradation; global climate change (e.g. through changing rodent cycles). Hunting: mortality rate of juveniles is very high (78%). An old data set from Finland and Sweden shows that was is a big difference in number of captive-born, reintroduced LWfG birds shot in between the two countries. In Russia hunting takes place during the whole summer. Also along the European flyway the LWfG is still frequently confused with WfG by hunters. The annual (autumn) goose bag in Kustanay region, Kazakhstan is supposed to be 5,000-60,000 and it is assumed that 270-3,000 LWfG are shot annually in the area. Hunting has increased in former Soviet Union, even in protected areas. No information about the hunting pressure in Turkey and Irak. In the eastern flyway, most of the mortality supposed to take place in the wintering sites (East Donting Lake in China). Minimum adult mortality during the wintering period in the East Dongting Lake area is assumed as low as 0.9% based on estimating missing parents. Poisoning is a big problem here. In the temparate zone LWFG prefers natural steppes with high calcium concentration. Rise of level of Caspian sea has flushed former grazing areas (e.g. in Azerbaijan). Water regulation in the Yangtze river will lower floods (monsoon rains in summer, spring) and raise the winter water level - habitats will be reduced? . In the Nordic countries growing reindeer stocks have caused serious deterioration of vegetation, lack of rodent peaks and increased predation pressure on birds (by Red Fox). Legal protection: become protected in Romania, Turkmenistan, Lithuania and also included in the national Red List of Kazakhstan in 2002, but accidental shooting still happens. Regional initiatives: national LWfG conservation projects in Nordic countries since 1980's, Nordic co-operation since 1988, Geese (and Swans and Ducks) Study Group of Eastern Europe and Northern Asia (RGG) since 1995, Chinese researchers. JAWGP Japan Association for Wild Geese Protection since 1997. EU LIFE projects: Greece 1996-1998, Finland (and Russia and Kazakhstan) 1997-2000. List the involvement of international organisations (Wetlands, BirdLife, WWF, AEWA, IUCN, UNEP). Lists action plans: Birdlife/IWRB, Regional action plan for the Caspian sea, national action plan for Greece. Hunting free zones are established in Kazakhstan, Bothnian Bay coast, Finland, protected areas only a few breeding sites are protected, but more along the flyway (Kanin, Hortobágy, Kazakhstan, East Dongting Lake). The IBA network is important for the species. Habitat conservation in Bothnian Bay coast, Finland; Hortobágy.
Chairmans conclusions by Seppo Vuolanto: It was surprising that the migration is increasing in Kazakhstan, but other speakers have told that the species is still declining. Evgeniy Syroechkovski overview concorded with the presentation about the Fennoscandian population. Hunting and poaching is still the most important factor, but also habitat deterioration and the unknown impact of climate change. We got a good overview of the present status of the species, but there is still a lot not known about breeding and wintering grounds and threats. The situation is fairly critical at the moment especially in Europe.
COFFEE BREAK
Åke Andersson: Swedish reintroduction project &endash; history and results. Since 1981 Barnacle Geese have been used as foster parents for leading young captive-born LWfG to new wintering grounds in the Netherlands. There will be surveys carried out in the summer 2005 to check whether any breeding pairs still occur in the wild in Sweden. In total 300 young and 44 1y old and 3 2y old birds were released (1981-1999). Between 1981-1983 74 birds were released without marking. After that all birds marked. Of birds released as sub-adults, females have a higher (22%) tendency to return to the release area than males (4%). Rate of return of birds released as young has increased to 43% for males, 57% for females after 1994. Some males apparently form pairs with Barnacle females (4-5 observations) and follows the females back to the breeding grounds. Released birds have been observed in Estonia, Norway and Finland, some individual even on Novaya Zelmlya. There is a supposed moulting migration of some birds to the east (observations from Salla in NE Finlandmand on Russian White Sea coast). In 1999, it was discovered that some birds in captivity carry mtDNA and nuclear DNA from A. albifrons, and the reintroduction was discontinued immediately and a DNA study was started by Håkan Tegelström (later on Anna-Carin Andersson) and Minna Ruokonen. At least 36% of the Swedish captive LWfG were found to carry either mtDNA or nuclear DNA of A. albifrons. Number of fledgings of the Swedish reintroduced LWfG population born in the wild increased from <5 before 1992, <10 before 1998 to >15 since 2000 (8 families). Current estimate of the size of the reintroduced breeding population in Sweden: 10-15 pairs. It seems that birds are making a non-stop flight from Swedish moulting area to the Netherlands in the autumn, while making several stops on spring migration. 13 SPA areas on the migration area. Returning frequency >75%. Conclusions: in 25 years a breeding population has been established with migration route to the Netherlands, but contains A. albifrons genes. The survival rate of youngs seems to be satisfactory, but the population size is small.
Gerard Boere comment : notes that if wild breeding pairs remained in Sweden, then the Swedish project is rather restocking than reintroduction. ÅA agrees with this.
Johan Mooij: A new migration route for Lesser White-fronted Goose. The aim of this strategy to establish a new, safer migration route for LWfG. He argues that field identification (separating WfG and LWfG) is not possible under the conditions hunting takes place. Pellet shot scatters and causes collateral damage. There is a high percentage of cripple loss because the average distance is too long in practice. He shows a picture about 123 WfG including 3 LWfG from Bulgaria. In areas where both species are present accidental shooting still happens. If the first strategy fails then the need for reintroduction should be considered. He argues that manipulation, change of migration route is not exceptional. 1990-2005 LWfG 80 individuals per year were observed in Germany. Argues that the Fennoscandian population is genetically not different from more eastern populations. All females has only one halotype, while the males have all other neighbouring halotypes. Despite the moratiorium on release the Swedish reintroduced population is still viable, however the imprint with Barnacle is a problem. That could be avoided by guiding them by ultra-lights. The Aktion Zwerggans group would like a new LWfG reintroduction project based on the ultra-light planes either in Sweden or in Finland in 2006.
Ivan Russev: Projects to reduce the impact of hunting. It's known that high mortality due to hunting is the most important reason for the decline of the LWfG populations. LWfG resembles and often occurs in mixed flocks with the common and heavily hunted WfG.. There's a need to let the hunters know about LWfG, explain the differences between two species WfG and LWfG, tell them about the problems in the conservation of the species, and the methods how to avoid killing LWFG during hunting. Refers to the campaigns in Finland and in the Eastern Europe (stickers, posters). The largest single campaign so far to raise the awareness amongst hunters has been the poster and sticker campaign, run by the Norwegian Ornithological Society and the Bulgarian Society for the Protection of Birds. This material (in national languages) was spread widely in Kazakhstan, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Azerbaijan, Russia and Ukraine. A brochure was produced in Russian and Kazakh languages and distributed in 10,000 copies. In 2003-2004 poster was produced about endangered species in Kazakhstan. He estimates that 200-300 LWfG are shot in Ukraine every winter. Many flocks are distributed on agricultural fields. Hunting inspection suffers from lack of resources to be effective. The new president of Ukraine has promised to close all hunting in 10 years. Reports plans about special training to hunters, lectures to pupils. Collaboration with decision-makers. He stress the importance of collaboration with hunters.
Petteri Tolvanen: New EU LIFE-Nature project application: the conservation of Lesser White-fronted Goose on the European migration route. This project (application submitted in the autumn 2004) is dealing with European Flyway which is used by at least half of the Fennoscandian population.Also the European flyway population is still slowly declining. This route is now located almost entirely in the EU. The project is based on the conservation priorities defined in the International Action Plan for the LWfG , including the location of key areas, promote the legal protection of the species and reduce the hunting pressure and manage the habitats. It aims to eliminate the most important threats to the population. It includes 11 partners and co-financiers (authorities and environmental NGOs) from Norway, Finland, Estonia, Hungary and Greece. Project actions will include catching and colour ringing Fennoscandian birds, satellite and radio tracking, preparation of national action plans in Norway, Finland, Estonia, restoration and management in Matsalu Bay, Estonia and in Hortobágy, Hungary, raising awareness amongst hunters, farmers and land owners in Hungary, Estonia. Greece], monitoring of the LWfG population and the effect of the project actions at all key sites. The project period would be from spring 2005 until the year 2008. EU decision expected during late spring/summer 2005.
Antti Haapanen: He represents the Friends of Lesser White-fronted Goose. Much attention has been paid to whether this population is separate from the rest of the population. He disputes the conclusion of the study of Ruokonen et al. (Ruokonen, M., Kvist, L., Aarvak, T., Markkola, J., Morozov, V.V., Øien, I.J., Syroechkovsky Jr., E.E., Tolvanen, T., and Lumme, J. 2004:Population genetic structure and conservation of the lesser white-fronted goose (Anser erythropus). Conservation Genetics 5 (4): 501-512.) because the Fennoscandian birds migrate to the same wintering grounds as the West Russian population and argues that the Fennoscandian population should be not regarded as a separate management unit. The Friends of the Lesser White-fronted Goose wrote to the Finnish Ministry of Environment expressing doubt that the Fennoscandian population can be saved with the present measures and that the key factors causing the decline of the population (overhunting) can be removed overnight. They have suggested to take supportive actions for the reintroduction of the species to Finland. The Ministry has replied that the captive population is contaminated by alien genes and cannot be cleaned and according to the Finnish legislation such a captive population cannot be used for reintroduction, but agreed to hold a meeting with wide participation. He express disagreement with the Ministry because of the Kholodova study shows that although some captive birds carry alien genes, a high percentage of the captive birds are identical with the wild population, therefore disagrees with the Ministry on the interpretation of the Nature Conservation Law. He states the Finnish Ministry of the Environment has not fullfilled its national and international responsiblities in the conservation of the species, and calls for immediate reintroduction actions.
Juha Markkola: Questions Mooij's statement that LWfG can be only protected where there is no hunting of WfG.
Johan Mooij: Corrects saying that reintroduction should be tried only in countries where hunting of WfG is not allowed.
Gerard Boere: Question about the importance of hunting as a threat for the species on the European migration route, cf LWfG killed in Bulgaria in Johan Mooij's presentation.
Sergey Dereliev: Says that the birds shown by Mooij the picture are poisoned, not shot and poisoning is an important threat on the Balkans.
Ingar Øien: The LWfG seen in Bulgaria mixed with WfG are mainly Russian birds, coming there for winter from NE with the WfG and Red-breasted Geese; Fennoscandian LWfG use a more western route (from E Hungary to N Greece, not visiting Black Sea coast) and they occur mainly in own pure flocks.
Evgeniy Syroechkovski Stress the importance of working with hunters from the beginning. He also points that most actions deal with the Fennoscandian population and not with the rest of the flyways.
Timo Asanti: Asks Evgeniy Syroechkovski how the knowledge gaps should be filled?
Evgeniy Syroechkovski: He expects that collaboration can be developed during the meeting.
Antti Haapanen: He stress that the action plan shall cover the whole flyway of the western part of the world population, but there are special problems of the reintroduced population and those needs shall be addressed separately.
Szlbolcs Nagy: Asks Johan Mooij about how legislative changes in the Netherlands and Germany will be taken into account?
Johan Mooij: answers that the birds will be not lead to the Netherlands, they will stay in the Lower Rhine area in Germany.
Gerard Boere: He adds that the goose hunting in the Netherlands will be very restricted. He asks Evgeniy Syroechkovski about the Russian position regarding using Russian birds for reintroductions.
Evgeniy Syroechkovski: Birds for restocking can be considered, but not for Russia where they will focus on the protection of the wild population.
Martti Soikkeli: Asks about what is known about the status of LWfG in the Kola peninsula.
Vladimir Morozov: 10 pairs is estimated on the basis of observations of Finnish birdwatchers.
Petteri Tolvanen: Suppose that all of the Fennoscandian population stage on the Kanin Penninsula. About half of the birds in Kanin may come from the Kola Penninsula and this supports the guesstimate that the Kola Peninsula is more or less equivalent in size to the western Fennoscabdian (Norwegian/Finnish/Swedish) wild population. They have seen c 100 individuals on the Kanin Peninsula staging site in autumn 1996, but this is not a total estimate of the LWfG population staging in the area.
Martti Soikkeli: clarifies that the biogeographical term Fennoscandia includes (in addition to Norway, Finland and Sweden) also Karelia and Kola Peninsula in Russia.
Conclusions by chair Seppo Vuolanto: Good overview about the Swedish reintroduction project and plans about the German plans. Interesting points about the genetic aspects. News about the Russian population were also useful. The points about working with hunters were very important. It was especially interesting to hear that the new President of Ukraine is supportive to nature conservation. He notices the difference in opinions regarding reintroduction of LWfG between the Swedish and Finnish WWF organisations and he hopes that these differences can be resolved.
LUNCH BREAK
Gerard Boere, chair of the session: Introduces himself and the next session.
Juha Merilä: Protection of genetic biodiversity &endash; conservation and management units with special reference to the LWfG. Aims to seek answer whether the Fennoscandian population is a separate management unit from the Russian population. He emphasize the need to protect the genetic variability for the adoption to environmental change. He argues that populations show significant differentiation neutral marker genes and/or genes coding adaptive traits may require separate management. The main problems are associated with lack of reliable information, delimination criteria is not always clear. He refers to Moritz (1994) definitions on Evolutionary Significant Units (ESU) and Management Units (MU). The MU have more subtle differences between populations and there are no set numerical criteria for separating them. One major shortcomings with MUs. These are defined on the basis of neutral marker genes only and ignore adaptive differences. This leads to two problems. (1) Populations can be diffeentiated in genes coding quantitative traits while not showing differentiation neutral marker genes. The MU would fail to protect these populations. (2) Populations could be differentiated in neutral marker genes while not showing adaptive differentiation. MU approach could lead to misdirected conservaton efforts and even cause further loss of genetic diversity when populations might actually beneft from gene flow. This might accelerate the decline of the species. Microsatellite data in Fs and RU population shows no difference in level of genetic diversity and allelic richness, which shows that the population do not show decline of genetic diversity. He refers to Crandall et al. (2000) defining management units on the basis of exchangebility. This takes into account genetic (neutral marker genes) and ecological (genetic coding adaptive traits) in different timeframe (recent and historical). MtDNA studies show that FSc birds are well differentiated from NW and NE Russian birds and suggest limited current and historical gene flow (exchangeability). Low, but significant degree of differentioation between FSc and RU birds in microsatellites shows low, but significant difference. 3/9 loci shows significant difference. This suggests limited gene flow (exchangeability). He argues that there is an element of unique element. Evidence for genetic differentiation in adaptive traits: it is not studied yet, but there is no reason to assume that there is none, because the difference in quantitative traits differentiation is always higher than in neutral marker genes. He concludes that the Fennoscandian LWfG populations should be considered as separate MU and preserving the unique genetic characteristics of the FSc population.
Anna-Carin Andersson & Minna Ruokonen (and Håkan Tegelström Ý),: Genetic results on wild and captive populations of the lesser white-fronted goose. 125 captive LWfG form 6 from Swedish farms, 1 Belgian (12) farm and 15 from Hailuoto farm in Finland. Birds from 10 farms (incl. Öster-Malma, Boda, Nordens Ark, Hailuoto, Belgium) tested, birds from five farms (Öster-Malma, Boda, Hailuoto, Nordens Ark, Belgium) used in introduction. All of the captive stocks are more or less related to one another. Sampled around 100 wild WfG and c. 100 wild LWfG including individuals from all over the the distribution area. The three species (LWfG, WfG, Greylag Goose) can be identified on the basis of mtDNA. No introgression from one species to another in the wild. They express that hybridization may occasionally take place in nature, but has not lead to introgression of the species in the wild. In the captive LWfG there altogether 8 different mtDNA haplotypes were found. 4 of these mtDNA haplotypes came from LWfG, 3 from WfG and 1 from Greylag Goose. 4 individual of the French ultralight project (birds from Belgian farm) had Greylag Goose mtDNA. The latter problem occurs also in the Finnish Hämeenkoski farm: ca 30% of the tested individuals from that farm carry Greylag Goose mtDNA . Nuclear genetic variation: 128 captive LWfG studied. Tested 26 microsatelite loci. Only 10 of those suitable for the study. 98 alleles found in total. 63% of all microsatellite alleles can be found in both species ; 32 private alleles for the wild WfG, 1 private allele for the wild LWfG, 3 private alleles for the captive LWfG. The nuclear variation of the 10 microsatellites support the species, however variation is not enough to identify hybrid ancestry. It is not possible to identify the hybrid individuals. Indication of hybrid origin was based on the private microsatellite alleles. Unfortunately, most private alleles found in low frequency. 12 microsatellite could be used. They have used assignment test. Most of the individuals carrying the WfG haplotypes have low probability to be assigned to wild LWfG. In conclusion: no hybrids were found in the wild, mtDNA from three Anser species were found in the captive LWfG stocks; a few hybrids can be identified in captive stock, but not all. Other markers would show other hybrid individuals. Therefore, it is not possible to estimate the amount of nuclear genes from Greater White-fronted Goose in the captive LWfG stocks. They do not recommend the use of the present captive stocks if reintroduction are to be continued.
Marina Kholodova: Russian genetic analyses on LWfG. Skips over her scheduled presentation.
Javier Gonzales: Comments on genetics of Anser erythropus. Speaks on behalf of Prof. Wink. The genetic distribution of many species is a legacy of glacial time. He raises the question about how genetics can help? It shall be used to resolve taxonomic uncertainties, defining management units, minimizing inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity, population structure and detecting hybridization. Anser, Branta and Cygnus are clearly separate, but ND2 mtDNA did not show differentiation between A. erythropus and other Anser species. Similar result on the basis of DNA Control region. Inter Simple Sequence Repeats (ISSR) is an easy and time effective procedure. L18 of two species of Anser shows similarity again. There is more variation in A. erythropus However, the LWfG sample came from captive birds (which have hybridised with WfG and Greylag Goose, cf. A-C Andersson and Ruokonen above). Tried also MW4 marker and the result is also similar. The question relates to whether this pattern is linked to sex or hybridization. Fingerprints for owls show more differences both at species and subspecies level. He concludes that LWfG and WfG are very close relatives and it is difficult to differentiate through genetic fingerprinting, because of the species are very close relatives, belongs to genetic pools with on-going hybridization. Fly with the geese but knowing what do they carry.
Questions and discussion
Marina Kholodova: All LWfG populations are endangered, especially the Fennoscndian population at risk for extinction. Genetically the poorest population is the Fennoscandian one and both species (LWfG and WfG) are very close relatives. She emphasises that based on the mtDNA the Fennoscandian LWfG population is not genetically unique. She reminds on the very small effective population size. The risk of extinction of this population is very high. She refers to the example of the Saiga Antelope where they have established four rescue populations with 200 individuals. They have applied "genetic passports" for captive individuals. She suggest to establish similar rescue populations for LWfG in Russia and Fennoscandia. Exclude the clearly hybrid birds in the captive stocks, but use the rest. States that she has no reason to question the Swedish and Finnish DNA studies. Free living birds in Sweden seems to be hybrids, can be "cleaned" with increasing the number of release of genetically pure birds. This has happened with European Bison hybridized with American Bison.
Torsten Larsson: He reminds that the distribution area of LWfG was more or less continuous in the past. Now the population is much less and fragmented. He can understand that in this situation there is a limited genetic flow, but in his opinion the gene flow should be restored. He refers to the IUCN recommendation on Capercailie in Scotland where there is a low gene flow between the six existing subpopulations and suggest to increase the connectivity between the populations.
Minna Ruokonen: Suggest that the conservation strategy should be based on whether this exchange has really taken place in the past. On contrary to the Scotland Capercaillie case (fragmentation of previously continuous range), the differentiation of LWfG population is historical and not due to the recent fragmentation.
Johan Mooij: Suggest that genetic experts come together and give a consolidated expert advise.
Lauri Kahanpää: Comments that the count of 100 birds on Kola Peninsula was 10 years ago. However, the numbers have gone down in Hortobágy and Norway by 70%.
Juha Merilä: Comments that he has not heard so far in the discussion any contradictory arguments on the genetics of the wild and captive LWfG as presented here by Merilä, A-C Andersson and Ruokonen. Asks how many genetic expert should give the opinion to be enough.
Wolfgang Scholtze: Replies to Merilä that the Aktion Zwerggans group has had contradictory opinions on some of the genetic issues, but can not specify it.
Javier Gonzales: Explains that the problem is that the change of genes is different and the answer depends on at what time scale do we want to work.
Konstantin Litvin: He says that Scandinavian birds are flying together with Russian birds, at least partially. This means that there has to be gene flow between the populations.
Ingar Øien: questions whether there is any study showing that LWfG also forming pairs in winter. He refers to their experience at Valdak (pairs forming still in May).
Conclusions by chair Gerard Boere: The presentations show that care is needed with the release of the captive birds. The present captive stocks are genetically problematic. He supports that a separate meeting of professional geneticists should be held.
COFFEE BREAK
Szabolcs Nagy: An action plan is a start of a process, not an end. The purpose is to define actions to reach agreed conservation goals. The Action Plan should build consensus among the organisations and individuals who are in the position to influence the outcome;
facilitate the exchange of experience; form the basis of decisions at international level;
provide framework for more detailed planning at national level. The existing LWfG Action Plan was published in 1996, approved by EU and Bern Convention, with the geographic coverage of Europe and Kazakstan. Main threats as defined in the 1996 Action Plan: hunting, predation, disturbance and habitat loss on the breeding ground, habitat loss on the staging/wintering grounds. In the short term, the aim of the 1996 Action Plan is to maintain the current population of LWfG in known areas throughout its range. In the medium to long term, the aim is to ensure an increase in LWfG population. Conservation priorities of the 1996 Action Plan: Locate and assess key areas; Promote the use of international conventions for the protection of the species together with direct discussions between range states; Promote the legal protection of the species and key sites; Reduce the hunting pressure; Manage habitats and prevent further losses in the staging and wintering grounds; Monitor the remaining populations and carry out research on the biology of the species; Raise public awareness of the species particularly amongst hunters and landowners. There's the following needs to review the 1996 Action Plan: 1) The action plan should have been reviewed and up-dated in every three years (but this proved to be unrealistic); 2) The short term aims were not achieved over the last decade; 3) Wintering sites are not covered by the plan but fall under the scope of AEWA.. Monitoring of the implementation of the Action Plan: is progress made in the implementation of the plan? Up-date of the Action Plan: what has changed since drafting the plan? Review of the Action Plan: what are the problems now and how should we better protect the species? The standard AEWA format for a single species action plan includes the following parts: Biological assessment; Available key knowledge; Threats; Policies and legislation relevant for management; Framework for action; Activities by country; Implementation; References and the most relevant literature; Annex 1: key sites; Annex 2: Signatory status. In the review process of the LWfG Action Plan, a "problem tree analysis" will be carried out (to be drafted here in the Lammi meeting), and in the new Action Plan the framework of the conservation actions will be defined in the following way: purpose/description of the action > expected results > objectively verifiable indicators for each action. National activities will be defined for each result, and the priority, time scale and responsible organisation will be defined for each national action. During the Lammi meeting, we should agree on the problems, agree on the conservation objectives, and evaluate the pros and cons of possible conservation strategies. The planned schedule of the review process is the following:
Chairman Dr Gerard Boere, Netherlands
Szabolcs Nagy: introduces the problem tree methodology.
The problem tree was drafted during this session (file Problem tree Workshop2.jpg)
High adult mortality
Mortality of eggs and goslings, reproduction success
Habitat loss/conversion
Genetic introgression
COFFEE BREAK
LUNCH BREAK
- Asanti, Timo SYKE
- Kaartinen, Riikka WWF kiljuhanhityöryhmä
- Kahanpää, Lauri Kiljuhanhen ystävät ry
- Karvonen, Risto WWF kiljuhanhityöryhmä
- Lehtiniemi, Teemu BirdLife
- Luukkonen, Aappo WWF kiljuhanhityöryhmä
- Luukkonen, Jari WWF
- Markkola, Juha WWF kiljuhanhityöryhmä
- Osara, Matti YM
- Pessa, Jorma Pohjois-Pohjanmaan ympäristökeskus
- Ruokonen, Minna Oulun yliopisto; WWF kiljuhanhityöryhmä
- Soikkeli, Martti Kiljuhanhen ystävät ry (Virhe, MS ei edustanut KH Ystäviä)
- Timonen, Sami WWF kiljuhanhityöryhmä
- Tolvanen, Petteri WWF
- Toming, Maire Matsalun kansallispuisto, Viro
1990-luvun lopussa järjestettiin Helsingissä vastaava kansainvälinen kiljuhanhiseminaari kuin nyt 1.-2.4.2005 Lammilla, ja lisäksi kaksi kansallista laajaa kiljuhanhen suojelutyötä käsittelevää kokousta (Helsingissä v. 1998 kansainvälisen kiljuhanhiseminaarin päätteeksi, ja Inarissa Suomen kiljuhanhi-Life-hankkeen päätteeksi)
Tarkoitus on ollut linjata kiljuhanhen suojelutyötä kansallisesti Suomen kiljuhanhi-Life-hankkeen (1997-2000) päätyttyä
Vuonna 2004 Ympäristöministeriö on käytännössä ryhtynyt linjaamaan suojelutyötä (YM:n kirje kiljuhanhen suojelutyön painopisteistä 31.5.2004, Dnro 2/5712/2004) ja esittänyt uutta laajapohjaista kokousta, joka nyt Lammilla toteutuu
WWF:n kiljuhanhityöryhmä on toiminut yli 20 vuotta ja organisoi YM:n tukemana lajin seurantaa ja suojelua Suomessa
Kiljuhanhen ystävät ry on toiminut nyt seitsemän vuotta
tämän kokouksen tavoitteena on:
Juha Markkola: käsikirjoitus aiheesta on tekeillä, tilanne on kriittinen, karkea ennuste on, että nykyisellä taantumisvauhdilla kanta häviäisi noin 20 vuoden sisällä
Jorma Pessa: kokouksessa kyseenalaistettiin myös se, onko Suomen pesimäkanta hävinnyt vai ei
Juha Markkola: ei voida puhua erikseen Suomen ja Norjan kannoista, kyseessä on Fennoskandian yhteinen kanta
todettiin, että edellinen varmistettu kiljuhanhen pesintä Suomessa oli vuonna 1995
Petteri Tolvanen: on syytä muistaa että myös 1980-luvun lopussa, ennen kuin vuoteen 1995 asti asuttuna ollut Suomen "ydinpesimäalue" löydettiin WWF:n kiljuhanhityöryhmän toimesta, oltiin valmiita julistamaan kiljuhanhi Suomesta hävinneeksi
Jorma Pessa: kansainvälisessä kokouksessa todettiin jälleen kerran selkeästi, että tärkeimmät kiljuhanhiamme koskevat uhkatekijät ovat muualla kuin Suomessa
Juha Markkola: nykyisin Fennoskandian päämuuttoreitti syksyllä kulkee Kaninin niemimaan kautta; hanhien syysmetsästys on intensiivistä ja tämä saattaa olla yksi syy siihen, miksi Perämeren muuttoreitti ei enää ole käytössä syksyisin; kuitenkin Perämereltä vielä 1990-luvultakin joitakin syyshavaintoja kiljuhanhista
Lauri Kahanpää: onko ketun aiheuttamalle uhkatekijälle pesimäalueilla Suomessa mitään tehtävissä?
Vastaus (Petteri Tolvanen, Juha Markkola, Matti Osara): Ylä-Lapin tunturialueiden kettukantaa on pyritty pitämään aisoissa erityisluvalla metsästämällä jo n 6 vuoden ajan mm. naalin ja kiljuhanhen suojelemiseksi, mm. osana naali- ja kiljuhanhi-Life-hankkeita. Erityisesti vanhoihin naalinpesiin asettuneita kettuja on pyritty poistamaan. Nyttemmin porojen teurastuksen loppuminen maastossa on jonkin verran vähentänyt Tunturi-Lapin kettukantaa.
Timo Asanti: intensiivinen porotalous, suuret poromäärät, maastoliikenne poronhoitoon liittyen on merkittävä riski kiljuhanhellekin
Timo Asanti: myös rauhoitusalueiden valvonta on tärkeää. Lapissa metsästystä ei rajoiteta juuri missään suojelualueilla
Lauri Kahanpää: voidaanko tärkeimmät syysalueet paikallistaa?
Juha Markkola: syysmuuttohavainnot Suomessa loppuivat käytännössä 1960-70 &endash;lukujen taitteessa, mutta yksittäisiä syyshavaintoja kiljuhanhista Hailuodosta on vielä 1990-luvulle asti (mm. 1993 Hailuodossa parvi, joka yritti laskeutua, mutta metsästäjät pelottivat linnut pois). Liminganlahdella Pitkänokalla ja Lamunkarilla ei ole tällä hetkellä pysyvää metsästysrauhoitusta. Säärenperän alue pakkolunastettiin suojelualueeksi ja on nyt metsästyskiellossa. Hailuodossa valitettavasti juuri parhaat, perinteisesti syksyisin käytössä olleet lepäilyalueet jäivät metsästysrauhoituksen ulkopuolelle. Yhteenvetona: noin puolet Oulun seudun perinteisesti tärkeistä lepäilypaikoista on suojeltu; tämä huono esimerkki muille maille.
Teemu Lehtiniemi: BirdLife ja SLL ovat vaatineet Ympäristöministeriöltä selvitystä metsästysrauhoitusalueiden tarpeesta Suomessa (asiantuntijatyöryhmän perustamista ja poliittista toimeenpanevaa työryhmää)
Jorma Pessa: BirdLife ja SLL ovat vähän myöhässä liikkeellä tässä asiassa, koska metsästysrauhoitusalueet on jo käytännössä pääosin perustettu luonnonsuojeluohjelmien toteuttamisen yhteydessä
Timo Asanti: asia ei ole uusi, SYKE on kirjelmöinyt asiasta jo 1997
Lauri Kahanpää: jos rauhoitusalueita ei ole mahdollista siirtää, onko mahdollista siirtää kiljuhanhet lepäilemään syysmuutolla rauhoitetuille alueille?
Jorma Pessa: nykyiset metsästysrauhoitusalueetkin ovat riittävän suuria isoillekin hanhimäärille
Martti Soikkeli: Porin seudun rantaniityt ovat umpeenkasvaneet, niiden tilanne on huono; tosin kiljuhanhet lepäilivätkin aikoinaan alueella enimmäkseen Kokemäenjoen suiston laidunniityillä ja pelloilla, ei niinkään merenrantaniityillä. Ei ole koskaan nähnyt Porin seudun nykyisin hoidon piirissä olevilla etelänsuosirriniityillä kiljukkaita.
Juha Markkola: Perämerellä merenrantaniityt ovat perinteisesti olleet kiljukkaille tärkeimpiä levähdysalueita, ruokailu pelloilla on uudempi ilmiö.
Jorma Pessa: EU:n CAP:n ansiosta kiljuhanhien levähdyspaikkojen tila on Suomessa parantunut, ei huonontunut kuten monissa muissa maissa.
Martti Soikkeli: maailmassa on palautettu satoja lajeja luontoon tarhakannasta, ei tarhaushistoria pelkästään tee tarhakannasta huonoa, risteymät ovat tietenkin asia erikseen. Ruotsiin istutettu tarhakanta on muuten paitsi genetiikaltaan täysin kuten luonnonvarainen kiljuhanhi; tarhalintujen perimässä olevien tundrahanhimerkkien fenotyyppistä merkitystä ei toistaiseksi ole edes yritetty arvioida.
Juha Markkola: tarhalintujen ja villilintujen mittausaineistoissa on havaittavissa jopa morfologisia eroja tarhalintujen ja luonnonvaraisten lintujen välillä; nokan pituudessa n. 5%:n ero; nykyiset tarhakannat on geenitutkimuksin osoitettu hybridikannoiksi; jo luonnonsuojelulaki ja kansainväliset biodiversiteetin suojelusopimukset estävät tällaisen kannan käytön istutukseen, tällaisia lintuja ei yksinkertaisesti voida istuttaa luontoon. Yhteistoiminnalle [istutushankkeita ajavien kanssa] on tietyt minimiedellytykset. Tässäkin kokouksessa on selkeästi osoitettu, että nykyisten tarhakantojen puhdistaminen ei ole mahdollista. Tosiasioiden tunnustaminen on ehdoton edellytys hyvälle yhteistoiminnalle.
Jorma Pessa: hyväksytäänkö uuden tarhakannan ottaminen luonnosta yleensä?
Juha Markkola: hyväksyy, mutta vain sillä ehdolla, että vanhasta tarhakannasta hankkiudutaan samalla eroon. Asiasta on jo kertaalleen päätetty yksimielisesti v. 1998 kokouksessa.
Kiljuhanhen ystävät / Lauri Kahanpää: hyväksyy sillä ehdolla, että vaikutukset luonnonkantaan otettava huomioon.
SYKE / Timo Asanti: sama kuin Markkolan kanta
YM / Matti Osara: sama kuin Markkolan kanta
WWF / Jari Luukkonen: sama kuin Markkolan kanta. WWF:n näkökulmasta tarhaus- ja istutustoiminta ei kuitenkaan ole prioriteetti; WWF ei halua käyttää omia resurssejaan tällaiseen toimintaan vaan luonnonkantojen suojeluun.
Petteri Tolvanen: sama kuin Markkolan ja Luukkosen kanta; tarhaus- ja istutustoiminta ei ole prioriteetti; puhtaisiin luonnonlintuihin pohjautuva geenipankkitarhaus on sinänsä hyvä ajatus, mutta tällaisen kannan perustaminen on iso ja kallis hanke.
BirdLife / Teemu Lehtiniemi: kysymys on hankala; on varauduttava siihen, että jossain vaiheessa Fennoskandian loput villilinnut olisi yritettävä ottaa tarhaan; milloin se hetki on, on epäselvää, luultavasti ainakin muutama vuosi kannattaa vielä katsoa tilanteen kehittymistä, mutta ennalta olisi mietittävä se yksilömääräraja, jolloin luonnonkanta olisi yritettävä ottaa tarhaan.
Lauri Kahanpää: kaksi vuotta sitten Kiljuhanhen ystävien ja ruotsalaisten tarhaajien yhteinen yritys hankkia luonnonlintuja Venäjältä; ei onnistunut; nyt Ruotsin kiljuhanhiprojekti on onnistut saamaan luvan, on mahdollista että venäläisiä luonnonlintuja saadaan Ruotsin tarhalle jo v. 2005.
Minna Ruokonen: lajilla, jolla on kolmen vuoden sukupolviväli (kuten kiljuhanhella) perustettavan tarhakannan koko pitäisi nopeasti kasvattaa noin 100-150 yksilöön, jotta merkittävä osa kannan perintöaineksesta säilyy
Timo Asanti: moisen uuden tarhan perustaminen olisi tietenkin valtiovallan vastuulla
Minna Ruokonen: jos ennalta tiedetään, että Fennoskandian luonnonkantaa ei saada tarhaan, onko kannatettavaa yrittää ottaa Venäjältä Suomeen tarhaan kasvatettavaksi?
Jari Luukkonen: kommentti tarhaustoimintaan yleensä: jos istutukset tulevaisuudessa uudella kannalla aloitettaisiin Suomessa, tarkoittaisiko se käytännössä uutta Ruotsin mallin mukaista istutuspopulaatiota?
Jorma Pessa: kv-kokouksen yllättävintä antia oli, että Hollantiin on perustettu SPA-alueita Ruotsin istutusperäisen kannan perusteella
Lauri Kahanpää: Kiljuhanhen ystävät ovat valmiita pitämään tarhakannat (nykyisen tarhakannan ja mahdollisesti perustettavan uuden luonnonlinnuista peräisin olevan kannan) erillään.
Timo Asanti: lähteekö Suomesta useita erillisiä kommentteja, vai tehdäänkö Suomen kommentit koordinoidusti?
todettiin, että ensimmäisessä vaiheessa kommentit voivat olla erillisiä
Lauri Kahanpää: myöhemmässä vaiheessa Suomen kannan Ornis-komiteassa ottaa YM
Juha Markkola: arvio edellisen action plan -kauden tuloksista on edelleen tekemättä, eikä arviota oikein päätetty tehdä kv-kokouksessakaan, vaikka sellainen tarvittaisiin; uuden action planin osaksi on ehdotettava edellisen action plan -kauden tuloksien arviointia.
kv-kokouksen anti on ollut valtava paketti tietoa
lajin suojelun ongelmat on kokouksessa käyty läpi ja kartoitettu hyvin; paljon on vielä ratkottavaa, mutta koossa on vyyhti ratkaisumalleja, joista yhteinen linja on löydettävissä
yhteinen päämäärä Suomessa olisi lyötävä lukkoon
pesimä- ja lepäilyalueet Suomessa on varsin hyvin suojeltu; aihetta käydä läpi erämaa-alueiden rauhoitusmääräyksiä niin, että ne tukevat kiljuhanhen suojelua: rauhoitusosia, liikkumisrajoitusalueita, jopa poronhoidolle ja metsästykselle saatava tarvittaessa rajoituksia
Perämerellä muuttolevähdysalueet ovat hyvässä kunnossa ja jatkuvuutta hoitotoimille on luvassa
tutkimus on myös tärkeä osa-alue, sen jatkuvuus turvattava
genetiikasta: tarhalintujen osalta on työsarkaa jäljellä; tieto on lisännyt tuskaa tässä asiassa; tulevaisuudessa tarhakantaa olisi ehkä mahdollista manipuloida ja valikoida
tarhaustietoa ja &endash;taitoa on Suomessa olemassa; sen jatkuvuus on turvattava
kiljuhanhen suojelu on kansainvälinen kysymys, Suomi on ollut aktiivinen jo hyvin pitkään, tässäkin jatkuvuus turvattava: kansainvälisen suojelusuunnitelman tekoon laitettava panoksia niin paljon kuin mahdollista, sillä se tulee jatkossa olemaan lajin suojelutyön perusta
EU on liittymässä AEWA:n osapuoleksi, ehkä tästä johtuen action planin teon aikataulu on niin tiukka; työ osuu Suomen kannalta hyvään saumaan WWF:n vetämään Life-hankkeeseen liittyen: päästään nopeasti tekemään kansallista suojelusuunnitelmaa kiljuhanhelle
tämän kokouksen aikana on päästy niin hyvään alkuun, että yhteinen linja varmasti löytyy
Jorma Pessa: pyytää tarkennusta YM:n kantaan uuden tarhakannan perustamisasiassa
YM / Matti Osara: uuden luonnonlinnuista peräisin olevan tarhakannan perustaminen on kannatettavaa Markkolan aiemmin mainitsemilla reunaehdoilla
Petteri Tolvanen: pyytää täsmennystä YM:n kantaan kiljuhanhi-istutuksiin Suomessa nykyisellä tarhakannalla?
YM / Matti Osara: nykyistä tarhakantaa ei pidä käyttää istutuksiin. Tämä lukee luonnonsuojelulaissa ja YM:n kirjeessä kiljuhanhen suojelutyön painopisteistä Suomessa (31.5.2004); kyseessä on vierasperäinen kanta, jonka päästäminen luontoon on kielletty
Teemu Lehtiniemi: jos perustetaan uusi tarhakanta Venäjältä peräisin olevista linnuista, mikä on YM:n kanta istutuksiin tällaisella kannalla?
YM / Matti Osara: lähtökohtana on, että istutuksiin käytettävän kannan olisi oltava Fennoskandian kantaa, mutta käytännössä olisi ehkä käytettävä mahdollisimman läheistä kantaa Venäjältä.
Juha Markkola: Onko Hailuodon eteläosan metsästysrauhoitusalueisiin vielä mahdollista vaikuttaa?
YM / Matti Osara: hoito- ja käyttösuunnitelmaan ei voida asettaa uusia määräyksiä; tarvittaessa alueet voidaan ostaa.
Jorma Pessa: halutaanko Suomen kansallinen kiljuhanhen suojelusuunnitelma tehdä joka tapauksessa lähitulevaisuudessa (siinäkin tapauksessa, että WWF:n vetämä Life-hankehakemus, johon suunnitelman teko sisältyy, ei menisi läpi)?
yksimielinen vastaus kaikilta läsnäolijoilta: kyllä
Matti Osara/YM: lähtökohtana on, että Suomen kansallisessa suojelusuunnitelmassa tullaan noudattamaan kansainvälisen suojelusuunnitelman periaatteita.
Petteri Tolvanen kertoi Suomen kansallisen suojelusuunnitelman teosta siinä tapauksessa, että WWF:n vetämä Life-hanke toteutuu:
Life-hankkeessa on tarkoitus tuottaa hankkeen päättymiseen (joulukuu 2008) mennessä kansalliset suojelusuunnitelmat kiljuhanhelle Suomessa, Virossa ja Norjassa
kansallisten suojelusuunnitelmien teko on tarkoitus koordinoida hankkeessa niin, että tieto on soveltuvin osin kaikkien kansallisten suunnitelmaa laativien ryhmien käytössä
suunnitelmat saavat toki valmistua aiemminkin kuin loppuvuodesta 2008
Suomen osalta kansallisen suojelusuunnitelman laadintatoimenpiteestä Life-hankkeessa vastaa BirdLife Suomi, yhteistyössä WWF:n, YM:n, SYKE:n ja Metsähallituksen kanssa. Valmis suunnitelma luovutetaan YM:lle vahvistettavaksi, ja YM on sitoutunut tekemään päätöksen kansallisesta suojelusuunnitelmasta hankkeessa laaditun työn perusteella.
Jorma Pessa: Miten YM näkee suojelusuunnitelman laadinnan ohjauksen?
Matti Osara/YM: lainsäädännöllinen lähtökohtana on, että erityisesti suojeltaville lajeille (kuten kiljuhanhi) voidaan laatia suojelusuunnitelma; käytännössä YM asettaa työryhmän, jonka tehtävä on suunnitelman laadinta ; Life-rahoituksen ehtona suojelusuunnitelmien laadinnassa on, että kansallinen vastuuviranomainen tulee vahvistamaan tehtävän suunnitelman.
Jorma Pessa: ei-Life-vaihtoehdossa työ rahoitettaisiin ilmeisestikin YM:n uhanalaisten lajien määrärahalla
Jorma Pessa: Life-hankkeen toteutuessa suojelusuunnitelman laadinnalle on jo hankkeessa määritelty tietty aikataulu, mutta mikä olisi aikataulu suojelusuunnitelman teossa siinä tapauksessa että Life-hanke ei toteudu?
Juha Markkola: haluaisi lykätä suunnitelman tekoa muutamalla vuodella; on parhaillaan valmistelemassa väitöskirjaa kiljuhanhesta
Timo Asanti: suojelusuunnitelman laadinnalla on kiire
todettiin, että viime kädessä YM päättää (siinä tapauksessa että Life-hanke ei toteudu) työryhmän asettamisen ajan ja aikataulun; Matti Osara hoitaa asiaa tarvittaessa YM:ssä
suunnitelmaa laativaan työryhmään mukaan kutsuttaisiin YM:n lisäksi SYKE, Lapin ja Pohjois-Pohjanmaan ympäristökeskukset, Metsähallitus, MKJ, WWF, BirdLife ja Kiljuhanhen ystävät ry
Martti Soikkeli: Hämeenkosken tarhan nykyinen tarhaaja Pentti Alho on jo eläkeiässä; Pentti Alholle olisi koulutettava seuraaja, jolle olisi löydettävä palkkaus; lisäksi dataa olisi siirrettävä päiväkirjoista tietokoneelle. Pentti Alhon tarhaus-tietotaidon säilyminen on turvattava.
Timo Asanti: kannatettava esitys
Matti Osara: Korkeasaaren eläintarhalla on periaatteessa velvoite uhanalaisten lajien hoitoon Suomessa
Jorma Pessa: päätelmä: tarkempia suunnitelmia uuden tarhaajan kouluttamiseksi / palkkauksen järjestämiseksi tehtävä tältä pohjalta, niin että YM on mukana
Lauri Kahanpää: ehdottaa, että Korkeasaaren eläintarha tekisi asiasta muistion
Matti Osara (totesi aiemmassa puheenvuorossaan): tarhaustietoa ja &endash;taitoa on Suomessa olemassa; sen jatkuvuus on turvattava
todettiin tähän liittyen, että Suomen kansallisessa kiljuhanhen suojelusuunnitelma tullaan joka tapauksessa tekemään lähiaikoina, tätä asiaa voidaan käsitellä suunnitelmassa
päätettiin, että tämän kokouksen ehdotus YM:lle on, että (siinä tapauksessa että Life-hanke ei toteudu) työ Suomen kansallisen kiljuhanhen suojelusuunnitelman laatimiseksi alkaisi v. 2006 alussa, ja suunnitelma valmistuisi v. 2007 loppuun mennessä.
Puheenjohtaja päätti kokouksen klo 17:30. Matti Osara kertoi käyneensä puhelinkeskustelun YM:n luonnonsuojelujohtaja Ilkka Heikkisen kanssa, ja välitti kokouksen puheenjohtajalle ja osanottajille kiitokset hyvästä työstä.
Oulussa / Helsingissä 30.11.2005
Jorma Pessa
Petteri Tolvanen