This book includes a plain text version that is designed for high accessibility. To use this version please follow this link.
Lesser white-fronted goose (Anser erythropus) CMS STATUS Appendix I & II CMS INSTRUMENT(S) African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA)


The globally threatened lesser white-fronted goose is a Palearctic migrant, breeding discontinuously in forest- or shrub tundra and mountainous shrubby wetlands from Fennoscandia to easternmost Russia. The species has declined rapidly since the 1950s leading to a fragmentation of its breeding range. Many key stop-over and wintering sites are still unknown. Today, three distinct wild sub-populations remain, of which the two Western Palearctic subpopulations (Fennoscandian and Western main) continue to decline. The Eastern main sub- population is currently thought to be stable. In addition, a small population which migrates to the Netherlands has been supplemented/re-introduced in Sweden using a human-modified flyway.


Threats to migration pathways


Although legally protected in almost all range states, accidental and illegal hunting are thought to pose the main threats to the lesser white-fronted goose. This is particularly the case along the flyway of the Western main population, but hunting is also considered the foremost threat in the south-eastern European wintering areas of the small Fennoscandian population.


The lesser white-fronted goose is a so-called look-alike species, which constitutes the major barrier to implementing effective


60


conservation measures to minimize the negative impact of hunting. It very closely resembles the greater white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons), which is a common quarry species across its entire range. When migrating together in mixed flocks the two species are hard to distinguish, particularly in flight. Additional threats include habitat loss and predation. Further, gaps in key knowledge, such as the location of the wintering sites of the Western main population, continue to limit the effective implementation of conservation measures.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76