China–Australia Migratory Bird Agreement

Australia has been a critical nation in protecting migratory birds by taking conservatory measures in the East Asian – Australasian Flyway since the mid-1970s.[7] Australia has made bilateral migratory bird agreements with several Asian countries. It started with Japan (JAMBA) in 1974, China (CAMBA) in 1986 and the Republic of Korea (ROKAMBA) over 15 years ago in 2006.[7]

As well as these bilateral agreements, Australia is a signatory to the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, more commonly known as the Ramsar Convention. This intergovernmental treaty primarily focuses on the conservation of wetlands by ensuring environmental maintenance and ecological sustainability.[7] The Ramsar Strategic Plan (2009–2015) outlines outcomes to be achieved for the Ramsar Convention. First, there should be an increase in engagement within local communities and awareness of the importance of wetlands on ecosystems.[8] Second, international coordination with the Ramsar Convention must be maintained to achieve an international wetland network.[8] Thirdly, there should be a focus on cooperating with international parties to maximise the impact of the agreement.[8]

Further, as a member since 2006, Australia's membership in the East Asian – Australasian Flyway Site Network which was established in 1996 has assisted the encouragement and implementation of more effective conservatory measures for migratory birds.[9] Also, Australia is part of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals which is an environmental treaty as part of the United Nations which aims to improve international coordination of migratory bird conservation.[10]

In more recent developments according to The Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, Australia has demonstrated initiatives interlinked with their commitment to agreements with Japan, China and Korea. The introduction of the Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds is a national framework focused on the research and development of migratory shorebirds within Australia.[11] The EPBC Act 1999 has assisted the development of the Conservation Plan to facilitate the survival of bird species.[8] The protection of habitats has been amplified by the National Landcare Programme as well as through coordinating measures with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office, Parks Australia and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.[12]

A Curlew Sanpiper pictured in Alaska

Evaluation of shorebird populations trends in eastern Australia has shown to have plummeted by 79% across 24 years.[13] As Australia provides a habitat for millions of migratory birds yearly, there is a constant need for protection to prevent extinction and sustain ecosystems.[11]

The decline in inland wetlands within Australia is another threat to migratory birds and a key reason for such agreements. Inland wetlands provide nutrients to surrounding water bodies and resultantly improve birdlife due to the nutrient-abundant habitats.[14][8] Due to climate change and water-resource use, inland wetlands have declined and posed a risk to bird species that heavily rely on those habitats.[8] Migratory bird agreements are created to ensure appropriate steps are taken to ensure the protection of bird environments, such as the role of the CAMBA in terminating contracting parties for bringing plants and animals that may be "hazardous to the preservation of migratory birds and their environment".[1]

Climate change is a major threat posed towards bird species given their sensitivity towards slight weather changes.[16] Changes in climates and global warming not only influence the timing in migration,[17] but also plant diversity in key habitual areas for birds due to processes like eutrophication which result in higher levels of nitrogen present in water.[18] The increase in agricultural efforts has worsened ecosystems due to environmentally unfriendly and unfeasible processes such as the use of chemicals, as well as eutrophication.[19] Rising sea levels is a threat to species that live around coastal lines and increases in forest fires is reducing bird populations due to the effects of climate change.[20][21] Although there are moderate levels of responses to this specific issue, the increase in awareness and danger of climate change has meant there will be a greater need for more effective responses.[22]

Migratory bird agreements play an important role in protecting and conserving migratory birds and their habitats by outlining both the birds that are protected and the clauses that determine what action contracting parties should be undertaking. Most migratory bird agreements highlight the birds that are protected such as that of the Annex in the CAMBA to ensure specificity and to monitor which birds are being protected over time as treaties like the CAMBA may be amended.[23] For instance, in May 2015, the Eastern Curlew and Curlew Sandpiper were both listed as critically endangered,[24] both of which are listed in the Annex. However, two-thirds of Australia's migratory birds remain unprotected under national protection, reflecting the need for further protection on this issue alongside the CAMBA.[22]

Several issues influence the need for migratory bird protection such as the CAMBA. The top threats include agriculture, aquaculture, biological resource use and natural system modifications.[13] There is a range of other threats such as shooting, poisoning and electrocution which have all been identified for several years but the impact of these have worsened over time.[13] Another frequent issue is derived from land-use constraints as a result of an increase in population and economic development. Land threat types include over-grazing, afforestation and burning or fire.[13] Some issues go beyond the conventional dilemmas identified and are legally related, such as the pitfalls in international agreements. These include gaps in the listing of international migrants, national migrants and other legal mechanisms that aim to conserve migratory birds.[22]

The increase in regulation on rivers and other water bodies is an issue with current migratory bird agreements.[25] The CAMBA recognises laws and regulation as an exception from prohibiting the taking of birds and eggs while encouraging both parties to take measures to protect the environments of these birds.[1] Although, many international agreements fail to recognise river regulation. The Murray-Darling Basin for example is largely regulated and experienced some of the largest declines in shorebird populations.[26] Given the size of the Murray-Darling Basin water system, its impact on bird populations has proven to negatively influence ecosystems due to the increase in extraction, regulation and other harmful actions.[27]

The complexity of multilateral treaties is another issue that worsens the effectiveness of protection measures.[28][29] There is sophistication surrounding decision-making and implementation given the nature of multinational agreements as individual nations have different attitudes towards treaties.[29] Legislation protecting specific areas are limited due to political jurisdictions but contrasts with the nature of migratory species being highly cross-jurisdictional.[30] This national complexity given legal and political barriers makes migratory bird protection harder to implement and measure effectiveness. There has proven to be a greater need for harmonisation between state and federal responses by leveraging the EPBC Act 1999 through integrating it within the legislation to improve coordination.[30] The complexity of treaties is evident through the implicit language used when defining key terms and often requires other legislation to provide more substantive details to support state governments in upholding protective measures.[22] Response mechanisms such as the Ramsar Convention are seen as limited in their purpose of responding to migratory bird protection compared to migratory bird agreements such as the CAMBA, given the lack of detail and explicitness within the agreements.[29] For instance, the Ramsar Convention focuses on the registration of wetland sites while migratory bird treaties have a greater focus on migratory birds in general.[29]

A limitation of migratory bird migration within Australia, as demonstrated by the CAMBA and other bilateral treaties, is that the national government can implement international agreements, with states tending to employ their own regulations and laws. As a major piece of legislation at the national level, the EPBC Act 1999 lists all species under Australia's migratory agreements which have allowed for further management plans to be enacted.[22] Examples include the Threat Abatement Plan for the incidental catch of seabirds during oceanic longline fishing operations and the Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds.[22] The lack of current international agreements with countries where bird migration is prominent, such as with Indonesia or Papua New Guinea, has meant that those bird species remain largely unprotected.[22] Despite international agreements, some countries that are involved in bird migration such as shorebirds that follow the Asian-Australasian Flyway, are not parties to an international instrument that aims to protect these species.[22] Although, this does not occur for all international agreements, with the CAMBA shown to be effective by offering site managers in China training as part of the treaty.[31] The involvement of the public in improving the protection of migratory birds is often limited too given the heavy reliance of the government on bilateral agreements. As governments tend to work with other stakeholders to integrate supportive measures, the government themselves do not tend to instigate any actions surrounding conversation.[31]

• Japan–Australia Migratory Bird Agreement
• Republic of Korea–Australia Migratory Bird Agreement.

• CAMBA text – Austlii