Bring back the Great Auk (1 Viewer)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, because it's not something I'm entirely clear on, but whereas any thread on reintroductions, and a lot of threads on conservations seem to lead to (I'm not saying wrongly) "money/resources would be better spent on such and such"...is it actually as simple as there being a given budget, and there being a choice what to spend it on? Or as was touched upon, among a million other things, in the Great Bustard thread, is it a case of various governments or departments have been given a list of responsibilities (in our case by the EU) and we have to show we are meeting each of those? The one touched upon in the Great Bustard thread was that apparently we have a responsibility to re-introduce formerly native species where it's considered viable. If this is the case, maybe even if conservation of existing species is an issue, we still have to use some of whatever budget there is to meet other responsibilities anyway?

Not trying to start, or add to an argument (though that seems hard to avoid sometimes on Birdforum ), but I would be interested to know, as it seems a bit of a recurring direction that most such threads take, usually somewhere prior to some wild tangent or other

Re-introduction responsibilities

Jan-Paul Charteris said:

...is it a case of various governments or departments have been given a list of responsibilities (in our case by the EU) and we have to show we are meeting each of those? The one touched upon in the Great Bustard thread was that apparently we have a responsibility to re-introduce formerly native species where it's considered viable.

Click to expand...

I'd also be interested to fully understand any EU requirements in this respect. A very quick trawl...

Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora:

Article 22
In implementing the provisions of this Directive, Member States shall:
(a) study the desirability of re-introducing species in Annex IV that are native to their territory where this might contribute to their conservation, provided that an investigation, also taking into account experience in other Member States or elsewhere, has established that such re-introduction contributes effectively to re-establishing these species at a favourable conservation status and that it takes place only after proper consultation of the public concerned;

Click to expand...

'Study the desirability of' falls short of obligating Member States to re-introduce extirpated native species. But Annex IV (Animal and plant species of Community interest in need of strict protection) doesn't include any bird species anyway!

And Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds doesn't seem to address re-introductions.

???

Richard Klim said:

'Study the desirability of' falls short of obligating Member States to re-introduce extirpated native species. . .

Click to expand...

Indeed, particularly in conjunction with "after proper consultation with the public concerned".

However, populations in our isolated island would provide valuable reservoirs of animals away from possible disease that could travel clear across continental Europe, so any species mentioned in the list clears the first hurdle with ease.

Consulting the public concerned is an interesting one, especially when you consider how much the damn politicians do in our name without consulting us! Who are the public concerned? Those who are interested? Those who are affected? Those who consider any interference with their feudal rights a devilish cheek?

John

It's a lot easier to raise support for declining local species than it is for those in other countries, unless they are something really charismatic like a tiger or panda. I am not convinced that if people didn't spent money, on say Hen Harriers, than that money would go into conservation of overseas species. We have the same issue in the US. How much has been spent on wolf introduction compared to conservation of Hawaiian Birds.

I will say there is something to be said though of trying to preserve species at the edge of their ranges. At least stateside, how many populations of birds would be doing well if states didn't try to preserve peripheral populations. If these peripheral populations are lost, than the range will contract, and whose to say the new "peripheral" populations won't suffer the same fate. Before you know it, the range is reduced in half and the species is undergoing a drastic population decline.

The recreation of extinct species, or trying to, would be very much a bioscience experiment and have no impact on the funding for conservation. I could see such a project being privately funded as some grand publicity scheme, the Virgin™ Great Auk.

Mono said:

I could see such a project being privately funded as some grand publicity scheme, the Virgin™ Great Auk.

Click to expand...

Imagine the headlines...

"FLIGHTLESS BIRD IN ORBIT: Richard Branson proudly announces Virgin™ Galactic's successful launch into space of a species brought back from extinction!"

Mono said:

the Virgin™ Great Auk.

Click to expand...

Well with this kind of genetic recreation I suppose the first breeding may indeed involve a virgin Great Auk

The hard truth is mankind had it's chance to spare it when it was discovered, but they annihilated it.

fugl said:

Indeed, particularly in conjunction with "after proper consultation with the public concerned".

Click to expand...

I'll take that as a, 'No, I'm not a Nevada Reno football fan'.

Richard Klim said:

I'd also be interested to fully understand any EU requirements in this respect. A very quick trawl...

Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora:

'Study the desirability of' falls short of obligating Member States to re-introduce extirpated native species. But Annex IV (Animal and plant species of Community interest in need of strict protection) doesn't include any bird species anyway!

And Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds doesn't seem to address re-introductions.

???

Click to expand...

EU Directives are aimed at encouraging EU members to achieve certain aims. They allow each member state to choose how this is done, so there is a fair amount of leeway as to how this is done, and what exactly is achieved. It may be the case that the British authorities have chosen to interpret this directive in such a way as to support any reintroductions that look feasible and affordable. Other member states might follow a different approach

Great Bustard

duncan fraser said:

EU Directives are aimed at encouraging EU members to achieve certain aims. They allow each member state to choose how this is done, so there is a fair amount of leeway as to how this is done, and what exactly is achieved. It may be the case that the British authorities have chosen to interpret this directive in such a way as to support any reintroductions that look feasible and affordable.

Click to expand...

The Great Bustard Group states: "The UK is obliged under EU legislation (Habitats Directive 1992) to reintroduce species where it is considered feasible."

As I noted in post #42, the Habitats Directive 1992 requires Member States to 'study the desirability of' re-introducing a number of explicitly listed non-avian species.

Some might consider the British Great Bustard re-introduction programme to be a worthy cause, but they shouldn't falsely suggest that it's an EU obligation under the Habitats Directive.

[Presumably the EU considers that the exceptional mobility of birds (compared with other orders) facilitates natural re-establishment where extensive suitable habitat is available?]

If you implanted some singing genes, you could get songbird survival to sponsor the Great Great Auk Comeback.

Richard Klim said:

The Great Bustard Group states: "The UK is obliged under EU legislation (Habitats Directive 1992) to reintroduce species where it is considered feasible."

As I noted in post #42, the Habitats Directive 1992 requires Member States to 'study the desirability of' re-introducing a number of explicitly listed non-avian species.

Some might consider the British Great Bustard re-introduction programme to be a worthy cause, but they shouldn't falsely suggest that it's an EU obligation under the Habitats Directive.

[Presumably the EU considers that the exceptional mobility of birds (compared with other orders) facilitates natural re-establishment where extensive suitable habitat is available?]

Click to expand...

It depends how the directive is interpreted. You seem to be looking for the 'letter of the law', but directives don't really work in that way. As the name implies, they are 'directives' and open to some degree of interpretation - more 'the spirit of the law'.

What's the point of carrying out a desirability study and then waiting for the EU to pass another directive making it a legal obligation. If the reintroduction looks desirable, you might as well go ahead. Maybe the group feels that 'obligation' means a moral obligation, rather than a legal one. Maybe that is their interpretation of the directive.

Jan-Paul Charteris said:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, because it's not something I'm entirely clear on, but whereas any thread on reintroductions, and a lot of threads on conservations seem to lead to (I'm not saying wrongly) "money/resources would be better spent on such and such"...is it actually as simple as there being a given budget, and there being a choice what to spend it on? Or as was touched upon, among a million other things, in the Great Bustard thread, is it a case of various governments or departments have been given a list of responsibilities (in our case by the EU) and we have to show we are meeting each of those? The one touched upon in the Great Bustard thread was that apparently we have a responsibility to re-introduce formerly native species where it's considered viable. If this is the case, maybe even if conservation of existing species is an issue, we still have to use some of whatever budget there is to meet other responsibilities anyway?

Not trying to start, or add to an argument (though that seems hard to avoid sometimes on Birdforum ), but I would be interested to know, as it seems a bit of a recurring direction that most such threads take, usually somewhere prior to some wild tangent or other

Click to expand...

It would be impossible to have a fixed budget. The funds come from a variety of sources - international, EU, govt. departments, universities, pressure groups, the general public. The amount being spent will depend on factors such as the state of the economy, which party is in power, other financial demands, the generosity of the public etc. The RSPB regularly launches 'extra' conservation campaigns to raise funds for specific projects, and these usually seem to meet their target. So, the budget will vary each year.

duncan fraser said:

It depends how the directive is interpreted. You seem to be looking for the 'letter of the law', but directives don't really work in that way. As the name implies, they are 'directives' and open to some degree of interpretation - more 'the spirit of the law'.

Click to expand...

It seems quite clear to me that the Habitats Directive requires Member States to study the desirability of re-introducing a number of explicitly listed species. Member States are of course at liberty to consider the re-introduction of other locally extirpated species not required by the EU 'legislation' (= letter of the law) cited by the Great Bustard Group, but they're not 'obliged' to do so as suggested by GBG.

Richard Klim said:

It seems quite clear to me that the Habitats Directive requires Member States to study the desirability of re-introducing a number of explicitly listed species. Member States are of course at liberty to consider the re-introduction of other locally extirpated species not required by the EU 'legislation' (= letter of the law) cited by the Great Bustard Group, but they're not 'obliged' to do so as suggested by GBG.

Click to expand...

But, what is the point of studying the desirability of something, and then doing nothing. It follows logically that you then act upon the findings of your study. This seems an obvious interpretation, and clearly the way that the Directive has been interpreted by a number of groups.

duncan fraser said:

But, what is the point of studying the desirability of something, and then doing nothing. It follows logically that you then act upon the findings of your study. This seems an obvious interpretation, and clearly the way that the Directive has been interpreted by a number of groups.

Click to expand...

Duncan, I think we've got our wires crossed, in two major respects:

1. The Habitats Directive requires Member States to study the desirability of re-introducing certain explicitly listed species, but NOT Great Bustard.
   
   
2. A Member State study of the desirability of re-introducing one of the explicitly listed species might conclude that it's not desirable!

Article 22

"In implementing the provisions of this Directive, Member States shall:

(a) study the desirability of re-introducing species in Annex IV that are native to their territory where this might contribute to their conservation, provided that an investigation, also taking into account experience in other Member States or elsewhere, has established that such re-introduction contributes effectively to re-establishing these species at a favourable conservation status and that it takes place only after proper consultation of the public concerned;"

To me, and surely many other people, this clearly indicates that re-introductions should not only be investigated, but also implemented where desirable.
It is true that no birds whatsoever are listed in Annex IV, which is very strange and presumably some form of administrative oversight.
However, Annex I lists nearly 200 threatened bird species for which the Directive expects there to be special conservation concerns. These include Osprey, Red Kite, White-tailed Eagle and Great Bustard - which presumably goes some way to explaining why they all have re-introduction schemes. In fact, there are special papers devoted to only 7 bird species - one of these is Great Bustard in which it states:

"General requirements
Member States are required to take the requisite measures to maintain the population of the great bustard at a level which corresponds in particular to its ecological, scientific and cultural requirements, or to adapt the population of the species to that level (cf Article 2).
To achieve this, Member States are required to preserve, maintain or re-establish a sufficient diversity and area of habitats for the great bustard which should include primarily the following (cf Article 3):
- creation of protected areas;
- upkeep and management in accordance with the ecological needs of habitats both inside and outside
protected areas;
- re-establishment of destroyed habitats;
- creation of habitats.

This could, in fact, if followed literally, be interpreted as supporting habitat creation for a re-introduction programme.

duncan fraser said:

To me, and surely many other people, this clearly indicates that re-introductions should not only be investigated, but also implemented where desirable.

Click to expand...

Agreed: re-introductions should be implemented wherever the studies required by the Habitats Directive find them to be desirable.

duncan fraser said:

It is true that no birds whatsoever are listed in Annex IV, which is very strange and presumably some form of administrative oversight.

Click to expand...

It's hard to believe that it's merely an oversight which has gone completely unnoticed since 1992.

duncan fraser said:

However, Annex I lists nearly 200 threatened bird species for which the Directive expects there to be special conservation concerns.

Click to expand...

Annex I of the Habitats Directive doesn't list any bird species. You're presumably referring to Annex I of the Birds Directive, which doesn't seem to impose any re-introduction obligations.

The British Great Bustard re-introduction attempt may be a worthwhile conservation effort. It just seems misleading to suggest that it represents part of the UK's legal obligation under the Habitats Directive.