Key actions towards the sustainable management of European geese

The improvement in the conservation status of many European goose populations since the 1940s is one of the major success stories of European bird conservation. Indeed, in many respects, actions to improve the status of these, and other, waterbird species have led the development of effective avian conservation more generally. Fox and Madsen (2017) document the historical development of policies and mechanisms which have contributed to population recoveries from their former depleted status. These included the creation of international conservation organisations such as the International Wildfowl Research Bureau (IWRB, now Wetlands International) (Kuijken 2006), and the development of international legislative frameworks such as the Ramsar Convention in 1971 (Matthews 1993), the European Union’s Directive on the conservation of wild birds in 1979 (‘Birds Directive’; Temple-Lang 1982) and more recently the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA; Boere 1991, 2010).

The response of migratory goose populations to their coordinated conservation has been dramatic. Since the 1940s, the conservation status of most (although not all) European goose populations has markedly improved, as outlined by Fox and Madsen (2017), in many instances returning them to favourable conservation status. At first, numbers consolidated within newly established nature reserves and other forms of refuge areas (van Roomen and Madsen 1992), but subsequently they have expanded rapidly into agricultural landscapes (Fox and Abraham 2017). As problems associated with these expanding populations developed, the limitations of existing general conservation frameworks to deal with emerging conflict have become apparent, leading initially to increasingly wider scale regional or national policy responses (for the Netherlands: Anon 1990; for Scotland: Scottish Executive 2000; Bainbridge 2017). Yet overall these responses have been largely piecemeal and generally ineffective at reducing conflicts for more than short periods at any location. In part in response to such failures, a ground-breaking population-based international framework (using adaptive management approaches adopted effectively in North America) has been developed as a new way to address the conflicts created by the Svalbard-nesting population of the pink-footed goose Anser brachyrhynchus (Madsen et al. 2017).

Meanwhile, many other populations continue to increase and show significant range expansion (e.g. Balmer et al. 2013 for Britain and Ireland), some of which have developed resident populations among formerly migratory species, while others have shifted into new habitats (such as urban environments). Several populations show little sign of strong density dependence, as evidenced by reduced doubling times in numbers, and many now have access to almost unlimited sources of food in contemporary agricultural landscapes (Fox and Abraham 2017). All these trends suggest that, without intervention, the current levels of conflict will, with a high degree of confidence, continue and in all likelihood spread in extent.

However, before turning to addressing some possible solutions to these issues, it is helpful to briefly summarise the impacts of expanding goose populations on other interests.

Continued implementation of past responses, whether undertaken at local or regional scales alone, has a high likelihood of being ineffective in the long term. Fundamentally, this is because most geese have shown the behavioural and ecological flexibility to adapt to feeding on modern agricultural landscapes from their former use of natural and comparatively nutrient-poor habitats (Owen 1976). Given that farmland landscapes suitable for goose feeding are effectively unlimited in Europe, future increases in both abundance and range of goose populations can be expected in the immediate future as long as agriculture continues as at present (Fox and Abraham 2017). At present, there are few signs of strong density dependence among many currently increasing populations, and North American experience suggests that it is unlikely that limitation on breeding areas will constrain population growth of geese breeding on European tundra. Furthermore, species which were previously believed to be highly adapted arctic breeders, in particular barnacle geese, have shown an amazing plasticity and capacity to expand their breeding ranges to sub-Arctic and temperate regions (van der Jeugd and Kwak 2017), again escaping potential mechanisms for density dependence.

Because of agreement about their poor conservation status in the 1940s, there has been a common agenda for the conservation of European geese (for example, through the implementation of policies for refuge creation and regulation of hunting), which was essential to restore the favourable conservation status of many goose populations. In contrast, there have been no attempts to date to develop similar coordinated international policies in relation to issues related to wide-scale conflict reduction. Indeed, in the 1990s, the effect of differing national policies in some parts of northern Europe was actually to exacerbate local conflicts as geese redistributed themselves in response to quite different management regimes on different sides of national borders, as was the case for pink-footed geese (Madsen and Jepsen 1992).

Owen (1992), however, saw this need and explored the need for international cooperation with respect to crop damage by geese, calling for a European management plan, which he considered should include the following:

Twenty-five years on, these same key elements remain just as relevant; yet the need is more pressing than ever.

In an attempt to provide a framework for best practice, we here summarise some of the key elements that characterise successful interventions, drawn from the studies reported in this special issue and elsewhere.

Solutions to problems need to conform to international legal frameworks. For Europe, there are three legislative instruments of primary relevance to goose conservation.

The EU Directive on the conservation of wild birds (2009/147/EC) provides the overarching framework for bird conservation within the EU. It requires that “Member States shall take the requisite measures to maintain the population of the species referred to in Article 1¹ at a level which corresponds in particular to ecological, scientific and cultural requirements, while taking account of economic and recreational requirements, or to adapt the population of these species to that level.²” Article 7 of the Directive allows the hunting of species but not at levels that would “jeopardise conservation efforts in their distribution area.” Article 9, however, provides a mechanism for control of species for a range of purposes and following a series of tests and justifications as outlined by European Commission (2008).

The text of the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats (or Bern Convention) is closely aligned to that of the Birds Directive reflecting their common derivation (Lyster 1985). Together, they extend a conceptually single regulatory framework for birds not just across to EU Member States but to Council of Europe Parties also.

AEWA is a stand-alone treaty within the general ambit of the Convention on Migratory Species. In contrast to the Birds Directive, many of its legal provisions are expressed at the scale of populations rather than species (Table 2). The issue over ‘overabundant’ geese was recognised by the fifth Meeting of the Parties in November 2015 which, in Resolution 6.4 (AEWA 2015a), recognised “the need for a coordinated management approach to the Barnacle Goose (Branta leucopsis) as well as other goose species in Europe, particularly those with overabundant populations” and requested “the establishment of a European multispecies Goose Management Platform and process to address sustainable use of goose populations and to provide for the resolution of human-goose conflicts, targeting as a matter of priority, Barnacle (Branta leucopsis) and Greylag (Anser anser) Geese populations for which management plans are yet to be developed as well as the Svalbard population of the Pink-footed Goose (Anser brachyrhynchus) and the Taiga Bean Goose (Anser fabalis fabalis) for which plans are already in place.” It also invited “interested Parties, Range States and other stakeholders to engage pro-actively in this initiative…”

A follow-up inter-governmental meeting has since mandated the establishment of the European Goose Management Platform (EGMP; AEWA 2016).

Formal population control at biogeographical population level for species is relatively novel in the context of the Birds Directive—although AEWA’s international adaptive management plan for Svalbard pink-footed goose (Madsen et al. 2017) is being implemented by three Member States, and adaptive harvest management is already embedded with AEWA’s Action Plan (AEWA 2015b), which gives legal obligations for the European Union as a Contracting Party. Article 2 of the Directive, however, clearly indicates an adaptive goal with respect to overall conservation status: that is, the adaption of a species population to a level that “corresponds in particular to ecological, scientific and cultural requirements, while taking account of economic and recreational requirement…”.³ Also of significance is that Article 2 relates to “all species of naturally occurring birds in the wild state….”, i.e. it is inclusive of those listed in Annex I. Thus, the Birds Directive provides no legal impediment to the control of species through an adaptive harvest management framework (and/or other policies) in fulfilment of national obligations under Article 2.

The problems outlined above are complex, and both operate and interact at multiple geographic and political scales. Differences in species ecology, behaviour, abundance and population status, as well as in contrasting political and socio-economic environments prevailing across the flyways mean that these problems cannot be tackled through a single, ‘one size fits all’, policy.

Within a single country, the management of goose-related conflicts will be influenced by the implications of the (different) responsibilities of separate central government ministries; relationships between central and devolved (sub-national or provincial) governments; and the interactions between varied government agencies related to the differing issues. All of these essentially concern the question of who has political and financial responsibility for the problem and its solution. Overlain is the issue of communicating and engaging with the public, and of ensuring that state and non-governmental actors share common perspectives, especially since many non-government conservation organisations may be important land-owners and opinion formers, who will also need to manage the perspectives of their members.

There are further issues related to the implications of different national policies between countries, although legislative frameworks such as AEWA and the EU Birds Directive already provide the means for international joint decision making.

Given this complexity, to have any success, it will be essential to develop coordinated and integrated approaches that are mutually supportive. Without such coordination, there is a real risk that groups of interested stakeholders will resort to draconian measures, at risk to the interests of other stakeholders and the long-term stability of populations. Further, actions without a sound scientific basis or by one group of stakeholders may actually exacerbate problems for others. There is a clear need to tackle the problem at the scale of whole populations, integrating the needs and perspectives of all stakeholders in a single process but with the interventions occurring at a range of scales, from local to more strategic, flyway management actions.

The European Goose Management Platform (AEWA 2016) provides a means to deliver these needs but will be critically dependent on adequate funding and political support from the governments of AEWA Parties and other international actors such as the European Commission.

There are a number of real world impediments for implementing science-based adaptive population management for European geese. Understanding these can help minimise their significance. These include the following:

In themselves, none of these problems are insurmountable, but they are likely to result in practical impediments to the initial development of an effective EGMP, not least the speed at which this can be established and develop.

Participants⁴ at the international conference on goose management held in Denmark from 27 to 29 October 2015 were asked to provide a prioritised list of actions that would help in response to, and management of, abundant geese. Table 3 synthesises those recommendations together with issues highlighted from the reviews in this special issue.

In moving towards adaptive management and the potential stabilisation (or reduction) of some populations, there will be important communication needs. Delivering many of the recommendations in Table 3, whether engaging at high political levels within governments or seeking ‘buy-in’ from the farming community and other stakeholders, necessitates important communication skills. It will be important that the EGMP gives due emphasis to awareness raising activities.

The various conflict situations—despite decades of management interventions—are not diminishing. Indeed with projected increases in numbers, conflicts are likely to continue to grow, potentially very rapidly. A step-change in responses is needed. As indicated by the multiple actors highlighted in Table 3 (from farmers’ organisations to academic researchers, and from conservation organisations to national authorities), solutions need to be delivered by many, working together to what must be shared objectives.

Finally, Owen (1992), in urging international cooperation to address crop damage in Europe, concluded “I consider planning to be preferable to inaction.” We agree.