Den svenska populationens status - Svenska Jägareförbundet
bakgrund

Unga fjällgäss strax innan de släpps ut i Arjeplogsfjällen 2016. I området där projektet startade sina förstärkningsutsättningar 1981 fanns det fortfarande häckande vilda fjällgäss.

Den svenska populationens status

BirdLife Norge menar att den svenska fjällgåspopulationen är återinförd (reintroduced) medan Projekt Fjällgås anser att den är förstärkt (reinforced). De olika klassningarna av populationer är betydelsefull för de politiska processerna och en återinförd population har lägre bevarandestatus än en förstärkt.

Definitionen av en återinförd population är att den ursprungliga populationen försvunnit (”release of an organism inside its indigenous range from which it has disappeared”, IUCN 2013). Enligt alla svenska intressenter fanns det fjällgäss kvar i Sverige 1981 när utsättningarna startade. En genomgång av gamla rapporter visar att det också fanns häckande par i just det område som utsättningarna startade. BirdLife Norge anger några olika alternativ till inställning: 1) det fanns inga vilda fjällgäss i området när utsättningarna startade 2) om det fanns vilda fjällgäss blandade de inte sig med utsättningsfåglar 3) om det fanns vilda fjällgäss kvar så förstörde utsättningarna den vilda populationen.

Projekt Fjällgås använde själva begreppet återinförd för att beskriva sitt arbete tidigare, långt innan IUCN satte upp sina kriterier för hur man ska bedöma utsättningsprojekt. Projektet har sedermera anpassat terminologin till IUCNs definitioner och till den nya kunskap som tagits fram för att undvika framtida missförstånd. Projekt Fjällgås anser att förstärkning av populationen är den rätta definitionen och denna ståndpunkt får stöd hos ansvariga svenska myndigheter.

The status of the Swedish population of LWfG

Young LWfG in the moment before being released in the breeding area in Arjeplog mountain areas in Swedish Lapland 2016. The reinforcements with relaeased LWfG started in 1981 when wild birds were still breeding in the area.

BirdLife Norway considers the Swedish Lesser White-fronted Goose (LWfG) population to be reintroduced, whereas the Swedish LWfG Project regards it to be reinforced. The distinction of the classification is important for the political processes, as the conservation status of a reintroduced population is regarded inferior compared to a reinforced population.

The definition of reintroduction is a translocation of animals into an area where the original population has disappeared (”release of an organism inside its indigenous range from which it has disappeared” IUCN 2013). According to all relevant bodies involved in LWfG conservation in Sweden, Lesser White-fronted Geese still existed in Sweden in 1981 when releases started. An analysis of old reports also verify that breeding pairs still were present in the area where releases set out. BirdLfe Norway give some different alternatives in position regarding this issue 1) there were no LWfG breeding that could mix with released birds 2. If there were wild LWfG in the area when the releases started the different cohorts of birds did not mix 3. If there wild LWfG in the area and they did mix the released birds destroyed the quality of the wild birds.

The Swedish LWfG Project previously used reintroduction as a term to describe the conservation work, long before IUCN presented its criteria related to different translocation activities. The Project has now adapted its terminology to IUCN definitions and to new knowledge to avoid further confusion. The Swedish project find the term reinforced to be the adequate terminology and this standpoint is shared with Swedish authorities and IUCN.

Scientific framework with references for interested readers.

The population of Lesser White-fronted Goose (LWfG) in Sweden has never been regarded as extinct (Swedish Red List 2015, Naturvårdsverket 2011),

The species had a sparse, but continuous breeding distribution in the Fennoscandian mountains until the 1980’s, when releases started. During the 1990’s, i.e. a decade after first releases, the population in Fennoscandia became more and more fragmented (Oien & Aarvak 2008, AEWA 2008) and von Essen (1999) estimated that 10 breeding pairs, not connected to the reinforced population, existed in 1990.

Analysis of old reports (observations) show that the species was still breeding in the area that was chosen to release individuals within the breeding program as late as, at least, 1984 (Andersson & Holmqvist 2010).

In a special review requested by the AEWA secretariat, the conservation programme linked to the Swedish LWfG population is described as a reinforcement project by IUCN (Seddon 2012, doc.).

Several sites along the flyway of the Swedish population have been listed as Natura 2000 areas, designated for i.a. Lesser White-fronted Goose, according to the Birds Directive provisions. The EU Commission has also confirmed that the population is covered by the Directive.

The population is covered by a National Action Plan in Sweden.

The species is classified Critically Endangered (CR) in Sweden as well as within EU (ArtDatabanken 2015, IUCN and BirdLife International 2015). The population is wild, native, and part of the Fennoscandian population (IUCN 2015).

References

AEWA 2008. International Single Species Action Plan for the Conservation of the Lesser White-fronted Goose (Western Palearctic population). Technical series

Andersson, Å. & Holmqvist, N. 2010. The Swedish population of Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus – supplemented or reintroduced? Ornis Svecica 20: 202-206.

Swedish redlist. Artdatabanken 2015. Rödlistade arter i Sverige 2015. ArtDatabanken SLU, Uppsala

BirdLife International 2015. European Red List of birds. Luxembourg. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

IUCN/SSC 2013. Guidelines for Reintroduction and Other Conservation Translocations. Version 1.0. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission, viiii + 57 pp.

Naturvårdsverket 2011. Åtgärdsprogram för Fjällgås 2011-2015. Rapport 6434. Naturvårdsverket. Stockholm.

Seddon, P. 2012. Guidance concerning the Conservation Translocation Status of the Lesser White-fronted Goose (Anser erythropus) in Sweden – following a request from the UNEP/AEWA Secretariat based on the recommendation of the AEWA Technical Committee.

Swedish red list. Artdatabanken 2015. Rödlistade arter i Sverige 2015. ArtDatabanken SLU, Uppsala

von Essen, L. 1999. The Swedish reintroduction project of Lesser White-fronted Geese. In: Tolvanen, Oien, Ruokolainen (eds). Fennoscandian Lesser White-fronted Goose conservation project. Annual report 1998. WWF Finland Report 10 & Norwegian Ornithological Society, NOF rapportserie Report No 1-1999: pp. 53-55.

Øien, I.J. & Aarvak, T. 2008. Dverggås i Norge. Kunnskapsstatus og forslag til nasjonal handlingsplan. Norsk Ornitologisk Forening, Rapport 3-2008. 58 s. [Lesser White-fronted Goose in Norway. Knowledge status and suggestions for a national action plan.]. (In Norwegian with English summary)

 


  • Dela med e-mail
  • Skriv ut
2017-01-18 2017-02-07