Marine Birds 5 Year Evaluation - Packard Foundation

Helping solve urgent social problems. 

February 5, 2013 

Marine Birds Subprogram 

Five-Year Evaluation 

Prepared for the David and Lucile Packard Foundation

Redstone Strategy Group is a leading advisor to private foundations and nonprofits 

worldwide. We help clients identify their highest-return investments, track 

and learn from results, and continually improve their efforts to solve urgent social 

problems. Our approach combines substantial experience across all sectors of 

philanthropy with deep appreciation of our clients’ knowledge and expertise. This 

allows us to collaborate effectively with clients as they improve their ability to 

achieve social good and learn from their results.

Table of Contents 

Marine Birds Subprogram 

Five-Year Evaluation 

Executive Summary ............................................................................... 1 

1. Overall progress exceeded expectations ..................................... 4 

Invasive species eradications are ahead of schedule .................................................. 4 

Bycatch investments are yielding dividends .................................................................... 7 

Shorebird conservation had small victories, faces a big challenge ................... 10 

2. The Packard Foundation is a leader of marine bird 

conservation ......................................................................................... 14 

The Foundation provided leadership and capacity ................................................... 14 

The Foundation delivered excellent service to grantees ........................................ 15 

3. There are rich opportunities to increase impact ..................... 16 

Invasive species eradications may be more precisely selected ........................... 16 

Bycatch reduction investments may benefit from a narrower focus ................ 17 

Shorebird investments could be designed to attract external support .......... 19 

Marine Birds Subprogram: Five-Year Evaluation

Executive Summary 

This five year evaluation reviews progress made by the David and Lucile Packard 

Foundation’s Marine Birds subprogram. It was prepared at the request of the 

Foundation, which asked whether the subprogram was on track to accomplish its 

goals, how the Foundation was contributing more broadly to the field, and what 

opportunities exist to maximize the impact of future investments. The remainder of 

this document is organized in response to those three questions. In order, the 

answers are: 

1. Overall progress exceeded expectations 

2. The Packard Foundation is a leader of marine bird conservation 

3. There are rich opportunities to increase impact 

At least 29 and 

possibly 34 seabird 

species will benefit 

from the 

Foundation’s 

invasive species 

eradications 

These findings are based on interviews with 18 grantee organizations (39 people in 

all), proposals and reports submitted by grantees, and published literature. 

Overall progress exceeded expectations 

The Marine Birds subprogram has three 

components: to eradicate invasive species on 

important seabird breeding islands, to 

reduce seabird bycatch, and to conserve 

habitat for North American shorebirds in 

the Pacific Flyway. The Foundation’s 

grantees have made progress in all three 

areas – and particularly strong progress in 

eradications – despite less-than-expected 

support from other funders in a difficult 

economic climate. The subprogram is widely 

known and praised among marine bird 

researchers and advocates, and the 

Foundation is seen by most as having a far 

larger impact on marine bird conservation 

than any other private funder. 

Figure 1. Marine Birds 

funding 

The eradication component, the largest in 

the Marine Birds portfolio, has received 

about 60 percent of the subprogram’s total 

spending since 2006 (Figure 1). Such investment is justified by the outcomes, which 

have been more rapid than hoped in the original strategy: at least 22 threatened and 

seven near-threatened seabird species will benefit from completed or ongoing 

eradications on 67 island groups, with seven threatened species likely to dramatically 

increase – and possibly even to restore over time – their populations. In addition, at 

least five other threatened species may benefit. Once completed, these eradications 

will approach the original targets of restoring 10 to 15 threatened species and 

increasing the populations of 10 to 15 threatened or near-threatened species in less 

Marine Birds Subprogram: Five-Year Evaluation 

1

than the decade anticipated by the initial strategy. Consequently, at least 29 and 

possibly 34 seabird species will be less likely to become extinct. These successes came 

despite the fact that the Foundation did not insist that grantees work only on the 

most important breeding islands for threatened and near-threatened seabirds – such 

latitude allowed organizations to develop and mature, to attract support from many 

funders, and to increase their technical capacity as rapidly as possible. As a result, 

future progress could be even greater and more rapid. 

Bycatch reduction received the smallest share of Marine Birds funding – about 15 

percent (Figure 1). The Foundation put this relatively small investment to good use 

and grantees made rapid progress: if new regulations are fully enforced as is expected 

within five years, global seabird bycatch will be reduced by at least 73,600 birds 

annually (mostly albatrosses and petrels) and possibly many, many more. Such gains, 

which represent as much as ten percent of global seabird bycatch, result in large part 

from work with Regional Fisheries Management Organizations, although investments 

in African and South American coastal fisheries also were quite valuable. Sustaining 

current momentum could reduce overall bycatch volumes, although bycatch may 

remain a major threat to specific seabird species. 

Shorebird habitat conservation received just over 20 percent of Foundation funding 

(Figure 1). Unfortunately, this portfolio is making relatively slow progress on the 

overall problem, which is not unexpected: early on, the Foundation recognized that 

the scale of the issue would dwarf its resources, especially in light of future climate 

change. As a result, investments were focused where they were hoped to make the 

largest impact on shorebirds. In the US, this strategy relied in large part on 

government co-funding to bolster Foundation investments, which resulted in some 

on-the-ground wins. These wins are small, however, when compared to the benefits 

of other habitat conservation programs in the US that are not necessarily shorebirdfocused 

but benefit migratory shorebirds nonetheless. Abroad, Foundation 

investments comprised a far greater percentage of total shorebird funding, but cofunding 

was scarce and on-the-ground wins were few despite increased capacity at 

local conservation NGOs. 

The Packard Foundation is a leader of marine bird conservation 

Grantees were extremely complimentary about the Foundation’s leadership and 

contributions to marine bird conservation. In particular, interviewees identified the 

Foundation’s seed funding for early stage research and experiments as crucial to 

developments in seabird and shorebird conservation over the last five years and to 

the increase in attention from other funders and NGOs. In addition, grantees were 

pleased with their interactions with the Foundation staff. Nonetheless, several 

mentioned a need for further fundraising support, especially for international 

organizations looking to connect with US funders, and greater coordination with the 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation on seabird conservation, and invasive species 

eradications in particular. 

There are rich opportunities to increase impact 

The Foundation may continue to identify high return opportunities in each of the 

three Marine Bird portfolios: 


2

• Invasive species eradications: Seabird experts believe eradications on islands 

will continue to offer high returns on investment in the future. To fully realize 

those returns, the Foundation could update its island priorities with new data, 

focus funding on only the most important opportunities, and ensure that 

eradication plans include the biosecurity of cleared islands to sustain results. 

Furthermore, strategic investments in new techniques such as social attraction 

and translocation may increase the benefits of eradications. 

• Bycatch reduction: Despite reductions in total seabird bycatch, fisheries 

remain major threats to specific species. Moving forward, the Foundation 

could narrow its focus to critically-endangered and endangered seabirds, which 

would allow the highest return industrial and artisanal fisheries to be targeted 

more precisely. Likewise, support to speed enforcement of regulations in the 

Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna would greatly 

benefit the most threatened seabirds. In addition, investments in trawl and 

gillnet fisheries, which are responsible for substantial seabird bycatch, could 

prove extremely helpful for particular species. 

• Shorebird conservation: In light of the scale of the issue, the Foundation 

might consider whether its relatively small resources are best spent in the US, 

where significant co-funding is possible but investments by the subprogram 

will play only a small role, or internationally, where the Foundation is one of 

only a few funders, but substantial near-term wins are doubtful. Reasonable 

options appear to exist in both categories. In North America, past support for 

monitoring programs and experimental land-management techniques in 

California and Washington suggest a productive path forward. Abroad, 

investments targeting small, but solvable, problems may be most effective in 

the near-term 


3

The Foundation 

has funded 

completed or 

ongoing 

eradications on 11 

of the 30 highest 

ROI islands 

identified in the 

original strategy 

1. Overall progress exceeded 

expectations 

The Marine Birds subprogram has made significant contributions to seabird 

conservation in only five years, both by eradicating invasive species on breeding 

islands and by reducing seabird bycatch. Shorebird conservation investments have 

been more challenging, although small victories suggest more is possible. The 

remainder of this section lays out in more detail the progress achieved within each 

portfolio. 

Invasive species eradications are ahead of schedule 

Seabirds are among the most threatened animals on earth, with 39 percent of extant 

seabird species on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) red 

list. A primary menace is invasive animals that prey on seabirds and their young, 

compete for food and habitat, and destroy breeding sites. The Foundation aimed to 

remove harmful, invasive mammals from important seabird breeding islands to 

restore 10 to 15 of the 98 threatened seabird species 1 to healthy levels and to increase 

populations of 10 to 15 other threatened and near-threated species. 2 The strategy 

identified three priority regions of the Pacific Ocean: North American, South 

American, and Tropical. 

Overall, eradications have received $13.6 million, 61 percent of total Marine Birds 

spending. This support focused primarily 

on implementation of on-the-ground 

eradication projects, but also funded 

research and capacity building. 

Eradications spending breakdown, 

2006-2012 

Implementation 

$11.9M 

Outcomes 

Research & capacity building $1.7M 

Progress in the eradications component 

has been impressive: the Foundation has funded completed or ongoing eradications 

on 11 of the 30 highest return-on-investment (ROI) islands identified in the original 

strategy, including rodent and goat eradications on San Ambrosio, the highest scoring 

island. 3 As a result, the portfolio is on track to exceed its goals: in total, at least 22 

threatened and seven near-threatened seabird species have or will benefit from 

invasive species removals on established breeding islands – all 29 species will be more 

resilient to future threats and less likely to become extinct. Indeed, for at least six 

1 The original strategy identified 89 threatened species, but recent updates to the IUCN list have 

increased the total to 98. 

2 In this paper, “threatened” refers to IUCN red list categories “critically endangered,” “endangered,” 

and “vulnerable.” “Near-threatened” refers to the IUCN classification of the same name. 

3 The Database of Island Invasive Species Eradications (http://eradicationsdb.fos.auckland.ac.nz/) 

indicates that eradications not funded by the Foundation occurred on at least two other top-30 ROI 

islands (San Cristobal and Bugio), although neither project eliminated all invasive species of concern to 

threatened seabirds. These data do not, however, include the most recent eradications or any in planning 

stages and thus eradications on other high-ROI islands may be underway or recently completed. 


4

threatened seabird species, the major barriers to restoring their populations have been 

eliminated. Although many factors contribute to any one species’ IUCN classification, 

it is possible these six species could be down-listed, moving from “endangered” to 

“vulnerable,” for instance. In addition, Foundation investments are likely to increase 

the populations of another 23 threatened or near-threatened species, although these 

eradications are unlikely to restore the species single-handedly or to change their 

IUCN classifications. A thorough explanation of the calculations, tables of seabird 

species directly benefiting from eradications, an explanation of the benefits to each 

species, and lists of completed and ongoing eradications may be found in Appendix 

A. 

In addition to the direct benefits to threatened and near-threatened seabirds, 

Foundation-supported eradications provide a number of indirect benefits. For 

instance, they will potentially help at least five other threatened seabird species that 

may establish breeding colonies on nearby islands now free of predators. 4 Further, 

many other “least concern” seabirds (including several shearwater, booby, tern, 

frigatebird species) and threatened waders and shorebirds (including the endangered 

Tuamotu sandpiper) have already or will shortly stabilize or increase their populations 

on these islands. Threatened reptiles, such as critically endangered Fiji crested iguanas 

and hawksbill sea turtles and endangered green turtles, are also likely to benefit. Even 

invertebrates such as the coconut crab – the largest land-dwelling arthropod in the 

world – are likely to increase their population and new research is beginning to 

demonstrate the positive impact of eradications on underwater ecosystems that rely 

on seabird guano. 

In total, Foundation grants have led to or will enable eradications of 138 populations 

of 11 invasive species on 67 distinct islands or groups of islets, of which about 85 

percent are in the three priority regions: Tropical, North American, and South 

American Pacific. Although these eradications collectively put the subprogram on 

track to surpass the benefit targets for the Marine Birds subprogram, not all 

eradication investments were equally valuable or well-aligned with the Foundation’s 

strategy: threatened or near-threatened seabirds are known to breed on only 29 of the 

67 islands selected for eradications. Indeed, implementation grantees differ 

dramatically in how closely their work aligns with Foundation priorities, which 

affected what was accomplished within regions and suggests what is possible in the 

future. 

Americas: Although the two primary eradication organizations working near 

the Americas had strayed from Foundation eradication priorities, both have 

improved their selection process to better conform to Foundation 

expectations: while only about 30 percent of eradications previously completed 

with Foundation funding directly benefited seabirds of interest, over 85 percent 

of eradications currently supported by the Foundation will do so. 

4 Such estimates are based primarily on paleontological and historical analysis, which are unavailable for 

the majority of seabird breeding islands. It is thus likely that many ‘unexpected’ seabirds will make use of 

newly predator-free islands. 


5

Foundation 

funding is partly 

responsible for a 

major increase in 

global eradication 

expertise 

The Foundation’s impact on seabirds in the Americas extends beyond on-theground 

eradications to include building capacity for future projects. One 

grantee is now a mature organization able to carry out the most challenging 

projects. Another grantee, meanwhile, has developed into a regionally 

significant entity and is driving interest in eradications across Central America. 

Both organizations now attract substantial external support to complement 

their funding from the Foundation. 

Tropical Pacific: The Foundation supported 29 eradications in the Tropical 

Pacific. About 40 percent of those projects directly benefit threatened or nearthreatened 

seabirds. The relatively low percentage results, in part, come from 

the grantee’s focus on all seabirds and not just threatened and near-threatened 

species. Moreover, islands in the region tend to be remote and have minimal 

scientific capacity on site, which limited the set of islands where eradications 

were feasible and cost-effective, regardless of their potential value. 

Nevertheless, the Tropical Pacific remains crucially important for seabirds and 

the Foundation’s investments in the region have improved capacity for future 

eradications that would benefit threatened and near-threatened seabirds. One 

grantee has demonstrated to local governments and NGOs the feasibility, 

biodiversity benefit, and economic contribution of eradications in the region, 

which is increasing local interest and support. Likewise, another grantee 

organization can now provide low-cost or pro-bono technical support, expert 

analysis, and training for eradication projects across the Pacific, thanks in large 

part to the Foundation. In fact, this organization engaged with local 

communities to assist in planning, biosecurity protocols, and monitoring for 

nearly all Packard Foundation-funded eradications in the region and is now 

equipped to similarly support future projects. 

It is important to note that although grantees did not always work on islands 

identified as priorities by the Foundation, in many cases differences reflect the 

Foundation’s attempt to accommodate the realities of the eradication organizations. 

For instance, Mexican island eradications may not have been the highest ROI 

opportunities but overlapped nicely with the Foundation’s Gulf of California 

subprogram, which funded prior eradications on these islands. Such compromises, 

while sub-optimal for the Marine Birds subprogram goals in the short term, helped 

these organizations grow into the mature, capable organizations they are today, and 

should benefit seabirds in the long run. Likewise, support for grantees in the Western 

Pacific was intended in part to increase eradication capacity in the Tropical Pacific, 

which has been accomplished. 

Foundation funding is indeed partly responsible for a major increase in global 

eradication expertise, which in turn improved understanding of one of the key 

bottlenecks to successful eradications: biosecurity planning. Grantees and other 

eradication specialists all identify biosecurity as the most challenging element of past 

and future eradications, given the needs for perpetual funding and biological expertise 

on-site. As such, high-performing organizations now highlight the need for thorough 

biosecurity assessments to inform which islands are selected for eradications – islands 


6

where ongoing biosecurity cannot be assured should most often be passed over for 

better opportunities. Strong biosecurity plans must also explicitly address perpetual 

funding needs, with local governments often the only body capable of such support. 

Outside of eradications, the Foundation supported trials and implementations of 

novel island restoration technologies and techniques that likely will play increasingly 

important roles in holistic and sustainable island restoration programs. For instance, 

one grantee, erected predator-proof fencing at Ka’ena Point, O’ahu, Hawaii that is 

improving breeding success for at least four threatened or near-threatened seabird 

species. Another grantee is conducting social attraction experiments on four islands 

near the Baja California peninsula that will benefit at least five such species. In 

addition, another grantee organization has developed acoustic monitoring 

technologies to track seabird population trends. Although eradications remain crucial 

to saving seabirds, such novel technologies and techniques are important 

complements, along with community outreach, education, and intensive biosecurity 

planning. 

Bycatch investments are yielding dividends 

Seventeen of the world’s 22 albatross species are at risk of extinction and the primary 

threat to most of these wide-ranging species is bycatch in fisheries. Seven petrel 

species face similar threats, along with many other seabirds. In total, hundreds of 

thousands – and probably more than a million – seabirds are accidently killed in this 

way every year across the globe, although extremely poor data make such estimates 

difficult. What is known for sure is that seabird bycatch is problematic in many 

geographies and across most major fishing-gear types: demersal longline, pelagic 

longline, gillnet, and trawl. 

The intended outcome of the bycatch portfolio is to reduce the mortality of seabirds, 

with an intermediate target of reducing seabird bycatch in three to five Economic 

Exclusive Zones (EEZs) in the Pacific by 

2012. The Foundation aimed to achieve 

these goals through advocacy for bycatch 

mitigation regulations within Regional 

Fisheries Management Organizations 

(RFMOs) and certain EEZs, as well as 

Bycatch reduction spending 

breakdown, 2006-2012 

Regulations & advocacy 

Gear design 

$2.5M 

$0.8M 

through improvements in fishing gear for different kinds of fisheries. Overall, bycatch 

reduction projects have received $3.3 million, about 15 percent of total Marine Birds 

spending. 

Outcomes 

The Foundation’s relatively modest investments in bycatch reduction are likely to 

result in substantial gains for seabirds: if new regulations within RFMOs are fully 

enforced, as is expected within five years, global seabird bycatch should be reduced 

by at least 73,600 birds per year (Figure 3), which would represent approximately a 

five to ten percent global decrease. The intermediate 2012 target is slightly behind 

schedule since the only significant reductions within EEZs to date have occurred in 

South Africa, but reductions are on the horizon in Namibia, Ecuador, and Peru. A 


7

complete list of Foundation-supported bycatch reductions by fishery, gear-type, and 

seabirds impacted may be found in Appendix B, Table B1. 

The total number of seabirds saved, however, is not necessarily the best way to 

measure the impact of the Foundation’s investments; for critically endangered species 

like the short-tailed albatross, saving even a few hundred individuals could spell the 

difference between persistence and extinction. For more abundant species like the 

wedge-tailed shearwater, saving thousands of individuals is unlikely to have 

population-level impacts. In this light, the Foundation’s most significant known 

contribution to seabird health may be work in Ecuador and Peru to save “only” 500 

waved albatross (as discussed below), though a dearth of species-specific bycatch data 

makes it difficult to confirm such inferences. 

Even so, experts agree that the Foundation has accomplished an enormous amount 

in only five years – if fully enforced, new bycatch regulations within RFMOs will 

improve the population health of many albatross and petrel species. Foundation 

investments within specific fisheries are also important, although the value of those 

contributions vary depending on the species in question, the regional context, the 

gear-type, and the fishery size. 

Unexpected catch 

Most commercial 

fisheries target their 

prey with either 

longlines, trawl nets, or 

gillnets, all of which can 

accidently snag 

seabirds. 

Longline: A main line as long as 100 kilometers, with 

smaller branching lines armed with baited-hooks, is 

dragged behind the vessel. Swordfish and tuna are the 

most common longline targets, but hungry seabirds are 

also known to ‘catch’ baited hooks that linger on the 

surface. 

Trawl: A funnel-shaped net is towed through the water to 

collect fish but also captures anything else in its path. Trawl fisheries mostly target 

shrimp, cod, sole, and flounder, but seabirds trailing the boats in search of bait or fish 

waste sometimes collide with supporting cables or end up tangled in nets. 

Gillnet: Fisheries 

nets, mostly near 

gills when they 

are often used to 

hundreds of 

believed to drown in gillnets every year. 

employ long walls of weighted 

coastlines, to catch fish by their 

swim into the mesh. Such methods 

catch salmon and tuna but 

thousands of diving birds are 


8

• Tuna fleets & the high seas: One grantee has successfully argued for 

seabird bycatch mitigation regulations within all five tuna commissions on the 

high seas, which could reduce longline bycatch by 75 to 90 percent once fully 

enforced. The regulations adopted by the International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) and the Indian Ocean Tuna 

Commission (IOTC), however, are much stronger than those followed by 

other tuna commissions. In addition, on-board observer programs and other 

monitoring protocols remain in early development and observance of 

regulations is highly uncertain in many fleets. 

Approaching the problem from a difference angle, another grantee worked 

directly with Japan Tuna and other Asian tuna fleet captains to encourage 

adoption of bycatch mitigation practices and technologies. Assuming 

compliance with regulations in all fleets, these investments could together 

reduce bycatch by at least 45,000 seabirds per year, comprised mostly of 

albatross and petrels whose long lifespans and low fertility rates make such 

reductions particularly valuable. Two other RFMOs have or will soon adopt 

similar measures, although the future bycatch impact of these regulations is 

currently unknown. It is important to note that the scale of bycatch reduction 

within RFMOs is likely to be many times larger than currently estimated since 

data are extremely spotty and many fleets affected by the regulations were not 

included in this analysis. 

More broadly, one bycatch grantee’s progress towards reducing seabird 

bycatch on the high seas has been extraordinarily rapid, with regulations 

designed, proposed, and adopted in less than five years. Moving forward, this 

grantee is focused on improving enforcement of bycatch regulations and 

monitoring the precise impact of what is likely the Foundation’s single 

highest-return investment to reduce seabird bycatch to date. Likewise, another 

grantee is working to improve adoption of mitigation technologies with 

longline fleets based on the West Coast of the US. 

• South Africa & Namibia: The largest confirmed on-the-water benefit within 

the Foundation’s bycatch portfolio comes from South Africa. There, a grantee 

worked to improve bycatch regulations affecting pelagic longline and demersal 

trawl fleets while a different grantee designed line weighting systems that are 

now voluntarily used by fleet captains. As a result, bycatch has been reduced by 

85 percent, or at least 8,000 seabirds per year – mostly shy albatross, whitecapped 

albatross, black-browed albatross, and white-chinned petrels. Perhaps 

more important, fishing captains working in South Africa are now among the 

most vocal supporters of bycatch mitigation regulations in regional fishery 

management discussions. 

• Ecuador & Peru: A grantee has begun to shed light on artisanal fisheries and 

to reduce seabird bycatch in hake fleets in Ecuador and Peru through marketdriven 

gear improvements such as low cost line weights. The Ecuadorian hake 

fleet alone kills several hundred waved albatross per year and similar numbers 

are estimated for the Peruvian fleet. The impact of work within Peruvian and 


9

Ecuadorian artisanal fisheries also is likely much greater than it appears at first 

glance: artisanal fleets in many countries are largely unregulated and bycatch 

reduction can only be driven by low-cost gear that improves fishing yields. 

Technological success in Peru or Ecuador could quickly spread to other 

artisanal fisheries also interested in improving their yields. 

This grantee’s work in these two fisheries could save more than 500 waved 

albatross per year, which would dramatically alter the trajectory of this critically 

endangered species, whose survival depends on only about 15,000 breeding 

pairs worldwide. 

• Chile: A grantee worked in Chile to develop and test optimum bycatch 

mitigation technologies for assorted fisheries, to organize workshops and 

outreach to educate fishermen about bycatch, to strengthen national observer 

programs, and to implement mitigation measures in the Chilean pelagic 

longline fleet. These goals have all been accomplished and seabird bycatch in 

pelagic longline fleet has been reduced by over 100 birds per year, made-up in 

part by black-browed albatross (EN), wandering albatross (VU), and whitechinned 

petrels (VU). The two vessels primarily responsible for this bycatch, 

however, are currently grounded for economic reasons. 

A key component of both top-down regulations within RFMOs and bottom-up 

engagement with specific fisheries is the long-term sustainability of these efforts. 

Policy improvements within RFMOs are likely to reduce bycatch indefinitely, so long 

as monitoring and enforcement efforts ramp-up quickly, as is intended. Work to 

design cost-effective gear appropriate for specific artisanal fisheries can produce 

short-term impacts even without continued engagement, but those gains may be lost 

if newer gear emerges that promises even higher fishing yields. Moreover, gear-design 

has improved to a point where further modifications largely depend on the particular 

needs of individual fisheries and are unlikely to be applicable across the globe. As a 

result, even though past gear-design investments were valuable, further investment is 

unlikely to produce similarly high returns. 

Shorebird conservation had small victories, faces a 

big challenge 

In North America, 28 of 31 shorebird species that depend on Pacific coast habitats 

are thought to be declining. 5 The Foundation chose to adopt a broad, multispecies 

focus to protect as many of these species as possible, recognizing that species-specific 

investments would be difficult to identify and were less likely to attract co-funding 

than an “all shorebird” approach. As a result, the intended outcome for the 

shorebird portfolio was to stabilize the populations of as many species as possible 

through habitat conservation, with an interim target of stabilizing five to eight species 

5 As in the original strategy, Pacific coast species were defined as species that depend primarily on 

Pacific coast sites for breeding, migration, or wintering. Species population assessments were made using 

the US Shorebird Conservation Plan (http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/). 


10

y the end of 2012. Sixteen sites of 

primary importance were identified that 

together provide habitat for more than 

half of the populations of 22 of the 28 

declining North American Pacific 

shorebird species. Of these 16 sites, five 

were selected as funding priorities based 

on threat and feasibility (Figure 4). 

Figure 4. Shorebird priority sites 

Several 

investments in the 

US have attracted 

government cofunding, 

which 

could lead to 

future habitat 

improvements 

A set of broader activities, including 

supporting monitoring and landmanagement 

experiments, was also 

identified as potentially productive. 

Overall, the shorebird portfolio has 

received $5.0 million, about 22 percent 

of total Marine Birds spending. That is 

substantially less than originally 

intended due to reduced budgets in the 

difficult economic climate. 

Outcomes 

Shorebird spending breakdown, 

2006–2012 

Pacific Flyway habitat conservation 

Other habitat conservation 

Monitoring 

$2.8M 

$0.4M 

$1.7M 

The shorebird portfolio has made little progress against the Foundation’s original 

targets, which is not surprising considering the less-than-anticipated funding and the 

scope of the issue. Indeed, on-the-ground conservation work has taken place at only 

three of the original five priority sites identified in the Foundation’s strategy (Figure 

4). Given the activity thus far it’s difficult to establish that any particular species is 

dramatically better off today than five years ago as a direct result of Foundation 

investments, or to assess the long-term impact on shorebirds. On the one hand, 

several of the Foundation’s investments in the US have attracted government cofunding, 

which could lead to habitat improvements in the future. On the other hand, 

the largest benefits in US shorebird habitat over the last five years have occurred 

because of government funded programs not aimed specifically at shorebirds, such as 

the restoration initiative in San Francisco Bay. Likewise, shorebird monitoring 

programs have been very successful and offer future conservation potential, but the 

degree of such value is uncertain. Abroad, Foundation investments have thus far 

created or protected little shorebird habitat, but conservation capacity has increased 

dramatically, which could pay dividends down the road as part of a longer-term 

strategy. 

As a result, it is most useful to consider shorebird outcomes in terms of their 

particular geographies, a topic that will be revisited in the final chapter of this report 

(“There are rich opportunities to increase impact”). 

• US & Canada: The Foundation supported several experimental landmanagement 

projects to offer farmers cash incentives to manage their land in a 

manner beneficial for shorebirds. As hoped, these projects now receive state 

and federal funding many times larger than the Foundation’s initial investment. 


11

The Foundation’s 

most immediate 

contribution to 

shorebird 

conservation may 

come from flywaywide 

monitoring 

capacity 

As of yet none have resulted in permanent habitat protection, but those 

involved are hopeful that such work will eventually benefit Pacific shorebirds. 

– Central Valley rice farms: A grantee worked with rice farmers in the state 

to test shorebird-friendly management practices on 100,000 acres (20 

percent of the total rice acreage) in the Central Valley – one of the 

Foundation’s original priority sites. The National Research Conservation 

Service (NRCS) followed up on the Foundation’s early investments and has 

budgeted $9-12 million as incentives for participating farmers to flood their 

fields at certain times of the year. A dozen or more shorebird species have 

begun to use this new habitat, including near-threatened semipalmated 

sandpipers and the long-billed curlew, the largest shorebird in North 

America. NRCS funding will last for only five years, however, and marketdriven 

incentives remain necessary for long-term sustainability, especially 

considering that water prices and land values in the Central Valley will likely 

continue to rise in the future. 

– Farming for Wildlife: The Foundation supported early trials in a grantee’s 

project centered on flooded-field agriculture in the Skagit Delta in 

Washington state to allow land to serve as productive farmland and seasonal 

shorebird habitat for over a dozen species, including short-billed 

dowitchers, lesser yellowlegs, western sandpipers, and dunlins. Early 

research was sufficiently promising to attract a large grant from the NRCS 

to continue testing and to develop an incentive-scheme appropriate for 

farmland throughout the Pacific Coast. Although work remains, the project 

is likely to secure ongoing government funding, which would allow the 

long-term persistence and improvement of shorebird habitat. 

– Monitoring: The Foundation’s most immediate contribution to shorebird 

conservation may come from flyway-wide monitoring capacity developed by 

a grantee. Indeed, this grantee’s citizen-scientist monitoring system and 

associated database – the largest shorebird monitoring project in the world 

– has already improved knowledge of shorebird lifecycles and migration 

routes, and will allow precise identification of important breeding and 

feeding sites for specific shorebird species within two to three years. Since 

high quality historical date is required to test hypotheses about the causes of 

decline of different species and the impact of different land management 

strategies, no such conclusions are expected for five to ten years. 

• Chiloé Island, Chile: The Foundation’s primary accomplishments on Chiloé 

Island, another priority site and a crucial shorebird breeding and feeding area, 

have been to assist the creation of a Conservation Action Plan (CAP) and to 

build the capacity of a local NGO, one of the only NGOs working on the 

island. The CAP identifies conservation priorities, which will be useful in 

building support for conservation, and this local NGO will likely be a key 

player in any future shorebird habitat improvements there. To date, however, 

conservation on the island remains underfunded, enforcement of existing 


12

egulations is sparse, and key shorebird wetlands remain highly threatened by 

development, industrial agricultural, and other activities. 

• The Bay of Panama: As on Chiloé Island, the Foundation has substantially 

increased local conservation capacity in Panama, in this case by supporting the 

development of an NGO in Panama. It also helped to fund the development 

of a Conservation Action Plan for the Bay of Panama, another priority site. 

However, shorebird conservation progress has stalled with the May 2012 

decision by the Supreme Court to revoke the Bay’s protected area status. This 

grantee continues to build support for conservation through outreach and 

education, which will prove valuable in the long-term, but substantial shorebird 

habitat improvements for are unlikely over the next few years unless high-level 

pressure can move the government. 

Critical sites 

More than a dozen sites in the Pacific Flyway are 

key stops for migrating North American 

shorebirds, but the Bay of Panama and Chiloé 

Island, Chile are particularly important due to the 

remarkable number of avian visitors. 

The 30 kilometer shoreline of the Bay of Panama 

regularly hosts as many as two million migrating 

shorebirds each fall on their way to South 

America, including over 30 percent of the world’s western sandpipers. Visitors come 

to feast in the Bay’s extensive mudflats rich in fish. The impressive migration includes 

42 shorebird species of which more than half are considered species of conservation 

concern. 

Nearly two thousand hectares of wetlands on the eastern coast of Chiloé Island, Chile 

are also important, with thousands of high-risk birds visiting each year. The site is 

particularly crucial for Hudsonian godwits and whimbrels – 99 percent of Pacific Coast 

godwits and 61 percent of Pacific whimbrels visit each year to stock up on 

crustaceans and insects before their long migrations north. 


13

2. The Packard Foundation is a 

leader of marine bird 

conservation 

The Foundation is 

widely regarded as 

a thought and 

funding leader for 

both seabird and 

shorebird 

conservation 

The Foundation provided leadership and capacity 

Today, the Packard Foundation is widely regarded as a thought and funding leader 

for both seabird and shorebird conservation and has brought much needed attention 

to those fields. As perhaps the largest private funder of seabird conservation in the 

world and one of the largest shorebird funders, it has offered grantees not only 

dollars but also the credibility associated with being a Packard Foundation grantee. 

That has attracted collaborators and additional funding. Grantees working on invasive 

species eradication projects, for instance, managed to leverage Foundation 

investments about two-to-one since 2008 and closer to four-to-one for recent 

projects. Further, grantees consistently praised the Marine Birds subprogram for 

supporting the early development of game-changing technologies and research as well 

as for developing the capacity of NGOs and other actors to carry out priority 

conservation measures at key sites. 

Invasive species eradications 

The Foundation has been a leader in supporting the removal of invasive species from 

important seabird breeding islands, which has helped increase the use of the method 

as a conservation tool in the US and Europe – many such projects are now supported 

by other funders, such as the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). 

Moreover, Foundation grantees who conduct island eradications are today respected 

and practiced eradication specialists Foundation investments in island-prioritization 

research and development of new monitoring technologies by a grantee also have 

greatly increased the potential benefits of island restoration projects for seabirds. 

Bycatch reduction 

Foundation investments have played a pivotal early role in drawing attention to 

seabird bycatch, although a tremendous amount remains to be learned about the 

extent of the problem and how best it might be reduced. One of the grantees in the 

portfolio is today recognized as a global leader in this effort and has successfully 

rallied international attention and support to develop the Albatross Task Force and 

other bycatch-mitigation resources. 

Shorebird conservation 

While it is particularly difficult to attract private or public funding for shorebirddriven 

habitat conservation, the Foundation’s investments have helped publicize and 

promote the plight of shorebirds. Foundation support for wide-scale monitoring and 

data collection, for instance, brought to public attention species that migrate 

thousands of miles without stop. In addition, the Foundation substantially increased 

the capacity of NGOs in Panama and Chile to conserve shorebird habitat, although 

the potential impact of such capacity has yet to be realized. 


14

The Foundation delivered excellent service to 

grantees 

Grantees were extremely 

complimentary about their 

Figure 5. Interaction with the 

interactions with the Foundation, 

Foundation 

with almost all indicating that Average of 18 interviews, Max score = 5.0 

Foundation staff were available and 

responsive and that the reporting 

and application requirements were 

appropriate (Figure 5). Several 

respondents indicated that they had 

developed good relationships with 

Bernd Cordes and expected to 

develop equally productive 

relationships with Myriah Cornwell. 

In fact, many grantees mentioned 

how pleased they were that Myriah 

had already reached out and, in several cases, visited their offices. 

Although grantees did not identify any areas that must be improved, several 

mentioned that additional fundraising support from the Foundation could be 

extremely productive. International entities in particular thought that introductions to 

other US-based funders would be valuable, although most also acknowledged an 

overall lack of funding for marine birds. 

Several grantees in the island restoration and shorebird portfolios also independently 

suggested that the Foundation could dramatically improve marine bird conservation 

by bringing funders together at a conference or symposium to pool resources, break 

down the issues, and assign priorities. Eradication grantees mentioned the potential 

for greater coordination with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in particular. 


15

3. There are rich opportunities 

to increase impact 

Many experts 

believe valuable, 

low-cost 

eradications 

remain to be 

completed 

Invasive species eradications may be more precisely 

selected 

The eradication component exceeded expectations over the last five years by focusing 

on “high-return” islands, and many experts believe valuable, low-cost eradications 

remain to be completed – a hypothesis confirmed by an updated ROI analysis by 

Redstone using new data and eradication-costing methodology developed by a 

grantee. Still, portfolio performance may be improved by identifying high-return 

islands in collaboration with other funders, pushing grantees to narrow their 

Foundation resources to those sites that maximize benefits to threatened seabirds in 

particular, and exploring alternative and complementary island restoration techniques 

that in some instances may offer even higher returns. 

To achieve the greatest impact, the Foundation could tweak its funding to: 

• Identify the highest-ROI islands in collaboration with other funders, 

including the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). Data on 

seabird breeding islands and invasive threats have improved substantially since 

2008, in large part due to Foundation funding to two grantees to collect this 

data. As a result, the Foundation’s analysis of the breeding sites that offer the 

highest returns on eradications can be substantially updated. However, grantees 

indicated that existing prioritization schemes differed between the Foundation 

and NFWF, the two largest US-based funders of eradications. Indeed, NFWF 

is primarily interested in ten specific seabirds species, while the Foundation’s 

focus is much broader. Nevertheless, the Foundation and NFWF (and 

potentially other funders as well, including the US Fish and Wildlife Service) 

could identify and prioritize islands where eradications would offer great 

returns for both organizations, which would improve the efficiency of the field 

as a whole and better leverage the Foundation’s spending. 

• Target the highest-ROI islands and push grantees to apply Foundation 

funding to only those islands. Three of our grantees are the high-performing 

eradication specialists and their operations have been efficient and effective, 

but they have not always focused on the Foundation’s priorities. Although 

deviations from Foundation priorities were expected, it may now make sense to 

encourage grantees to apply Foundation funding in support of only the rarest 

seabirds. Coordination of priority islands with NFWF (as recommended above) 

would dramatically increase pressure on grantees to concentrate their efforts on 

the opportunities promising the highest returns. 

• Support eradications on Pacific islands through centralized technical 

support and training for pre- and post-implementation activities. A 

grantee’s work on this project substantially lowered the costs (and increased the 


16

impact) of the Foundation’s Tropical Pacific eradications and has begun 

dialogue with another grantee on a similar arrangement. Such centralized 

support is more cost-efficient than starting from scratch to build the local 

capacity needed to plan, monitor, and respond to new threats for each project. 

Moreover, such local capacity is necessary to ensure the biosecurity of cleared 

islands and to increase the pace of eradications beyond what the Foundation 

can fund single-handedly. 

• Continue to provide “seed funding” for game-changing technologies 

and techniques. Grantees consistently identified the Foundation’s early 

support of eradication research as crucial to the field and the key to many 

recent successes. Promising new techniques, including social attraction and 

translocations, could dramatically increase the return on eradication 

investments or make costly eradications unnecessary. Likewise, Foundation 

investments have helped develop acoustic technologies, which may be on the 

verge of allowing low-cost, high-accuracy monitoring of remote islands. 

Small but targeted 

bycatch 

investments could 

potentially save the 

rarest species 

Bycatch reduction investments may benefit from a 

narrower focus 

The bycatch reduction portfolio has performed well over the last five years, with the 

Foundation supporting mitigation efforts across the high seas and in many EEZs. As 

a result, seabird mortality has been (and is expected to be further) reduced and 

bycatch regulations exist in all five tuna commissions, among other accomplishments. 

The Foundation can continue to achieve high returns on its investments by working 

to lock in those gains and to further reduce global bycatch. 

In addition, with broad advances in the field over the past five years, it may now 

make sense for the Foundation to narrow its focus to the most endangered albatross 

and petrel species in a more-targeted approach. Indeed, bycatch is particularly 

problematic for certain long-lived, low-fertility species – small, but targeted, bycatch 

investments would offer extraordinarily high-returns and could potentially save those 

species single-handedly. Such focus would also offer benefits broadly to seabirds 

since the fisheries most harmful to the most endangered species are often 

problematic for many other seabirds as well. 

If the Foundation aims to further reduce global bycatch, rather than focusing on 

specific threatened species, it could pursue the following to lock in past gains: 

• Increase pressure on (and funding for) RFMOs to increase enforcement 

regulations and monitoring. A grantee has made rapid progress with RFMOs 

to agree to stricter bycatch mitigation requirements, but currently there is little 

enforcement of those regulations. To capitalize on gains from these previous 

investments, the Foundation could prioritize funding for enforcement and 

monitoring within RFMOs. Although increased on-board monitoring and 

stricter regulations are almost certainly necessary, direct engagement with 

captains operating these fleets has proven successful in the past and can be a 

productive complement to increased “supervision.” Further, awareness 


17

campaigns to increase demand-side pressure could serve to push reluctant ships 

to adopt new gear and protocols. 

• Target Spanish and Namibian demersal longline fleets and other highimpact 

demersal fleets. At least 160,000 seabirds, and probably many more, 

are killed in longline fisheries every year. New data suggest that about half that 

total comes from just two demersal fisheries: the Spanish hake and bream fleet 

at Gran Sol off the southwest coast of Ireland and the Namibian hake fleet. 

Fortunately, demersal bycatch can be quickly and substantially reduced through 

better line weighting, night setting, and other techniques. Even modest 

reductions in just those two fleets could equal reductions from the entire 

remaining bycatch portfolio. As previously mentioned, a grantee is already 

working in Namibia and expects some reductions within 18 months, but 

further work could be productive. 

To benefit extremely endangered seabirds, the Foundation could: 

• Focus bycatch funding on the nine ACAP-listed critically endangered 

(CR) and endangered (EN) albatrosses and petrels. The Agreement on the 

Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP) is widely recognized as a 

preeminent instrument to reduce global seabird bycatch and its 13 signatory 

countries are vocal advocates for 

bycatch mitigation. The Foundation 

can take advantage of such support 

and increase the return on its 

bycatch investments by focusing its 

mitigation efforts on the nine 

critically endangered or endangered 

seabird species listed by ACAP. To 

do so the Foundation might focus 

funding on improving bycatch 

regulations and enforcement in the 

Commission for the Conservation 

Species 

Amsterdam albatross 

Balearic shearwater 

Tristan albatross 

Waved albatross 

Atlantic yellow-nosed albatross 

Black-browed albatross 

Indian yellow-nosed albatross 

Northern royal albatross 

Sooty albatross 

IUCN 

status 

CR 

CR 

CR 

CR 

EN 

EN 

EN 

EN 

EN 

of Southern Bluefish Tuna, continue to engage South American longline fleets 

near the Galápagos Islands, and work to reduce bycatch in the Mediterranean 

region. 

• Ramp up bycatch regulations and enforcement in the CCSBT. Seabird 

bycatch is most problematic in the southern oceans, an area whose tuna fleets 

are regulated by the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin 

Tuna (CCSBT). At least seven critically endangered or endangered ACAP-listed 

seabird species breed in the region and are known to be caught in longline tuna 

and swordfish fisheries, and an additional 16 vulnerable or near-threatened 

ACAP-listed seabird species are also resident in the region and likely fall victim 

to fishing lines. Although a grantee has already had success creating and 

strengthening bycatch regulations within the CCSBT, further support for 


18

enforcement and monitoring is necessary to prevent the accidental capture of 

these rarest of seabirds. 

Table 1. Seabirds benefiting from bycatch mitigation in the CCSBT 

Species 

IUCN 

status 

Species 

IUCN 

status 

Amsterdam albatross CR Salvin's albatross VU 

Tristan albatross CR Southern royal albatross VU 

Atlantic yellow-nosed albatross EN Spectacled petrel VU 

Black-browed albatross EN Wandering albatross VU 

Indian yellow-nosed albatross EN Westland petrel VU 

Northern royal albatross EN White-chinned petrel VU 

Sooty albatross EN Buller's albatross NT 

Antipodean albatross VU Grey petrel NT 

Black petrel VU Light-mantled albatross NT 

Campbell albatross VU Shy albatross NT 

Chatham albatross VU White-capped albatross NT 

Grey-headed albatross 

VU 

Shorebird investments could be designed to attract 

external support 

North American Pacific shorebird species remain in decline and on-the-ground 

investments have not yet made measureable impacts on any particular species. 

Indeed, shorebird habitat conservation is an enormously difficult and expensive 

problem to tackle that dwarfs the Foundation’s resources. If the Foundation wishes 

to continue investing in shorebird conservation, however, two approaches offer 

potential benefits: 

• Seek to leverage funding in the US. As previously discussed, the US 

government and other large domestic funders pour money into habitat 

conservation for a variety of species, including shorebirds (although shorebirdspecific 

funding is less than for many other animals). Foundation funding can 

thus be leveraged many times over, as was the case in California, Washington, 

and elsewhere. However, it remains an open question as to whether 

Foundation’s interests are best served by using its limited resources in the one 

geography where substantial funding already exists. 

• Seek to increase conservation internationally. Unlike in the US, funding for 

habitat conservation in Central and South America is limited, especially for 

shorebirds. In fact, conservationists in Panama suffered a severe shock this year 

when USAID pulled funding for habitat conservation and similar decreases 

may be occurring elsewhere. In this light, Foundation funding is crucial and is 

perhaps the only hope for shorebird funding in Panama, Chile, or elsewhere – 

if the Foundation were to pull its international shorebird funding, it’s unlikely 

that anybody would be able or willing to quickly pick up the slack. It is also 


19

true, however, that Foundation funding is unlikely to cause substantial on-theground 

gains in the next five years and that meaningful assistance from other 

funders over the longer term will be necessary. 

Focusing on one of these opportunities would allow the subprogram to concentrate 

its impact wherever it is deemed most important. The two approaches, however, are 

not mutually exclusive – the Foundation can continue to seek opportunities to 

leverage US shorebird investments while funding key international capacity building. 

As such, future funding priorities could aim to: 

• Provide early support for habitat conservation projects that can be 

brought to scale by governments. Investment in shorebird habitat 

conservation is unlikely to be able to move the needle without substantial cofunding. 

The Foundation can best leverage its on-the-ground investments by 

choosing projects that may be brought to scale by governments, such as the 

Farming for Wildlife project. The implication of this strategy is that most such 

investments will be in the US, where opportunities are most prevalent. 

• Leverage investments by targeting projects that offer wider benefits. 

Grantees consistently identified a general lack of funding for shorebird-specific 

conservation as problematic and many Foundation-supported projects 

struggled to find co-funding. However, many grantees suggested that there are 

relatively large private and public funds available for projects that address 

water-quality, sea level rise under climate change, and other topics that could 

benefit shorebirds. Thus, the Foundation can best leverage its relatively limited 

funding by investing in projects that overlap with other conservation priorities. 

The Foundation 

can leverage its 

relatively limited 

shorebird funding 

by investing in 

projects that 

overlap with other 

conservation 

priorities 

• Structure international grantmaking to encourage future funding. 

Foundation investments in Central and South America are unlikely to produce 

substantial gains in the next five years. In the longer-term, however, it’s 

possible that increased international capacity could make a meaningful 

difference for shorebirds. As such, the Foundation may find the most success 

abroad by designing future grants in ways that increase the chances of the work 

being continued by other funders. Grants that target particular species of 

interest to other foundations or the US government, for instance, could be 

productive. Similarly, grants that (in part) aim to improve the management and 

fund-raising capacity of important NGOs in Panama or Chile could prove wise 

investments. 

• Focus international funding on one or two sites with a clear and present 

danger to shorebirds. Internationally, shorebird habitat conservation is not a 

priority for most governments. While building international capacity to 

conserve shorebirds may have long-term impacts, the Foundation can more 

directly affect shorebird conservation within the next five years by targeting 

international projects that address specific threats. For instance, funding to 

fight the most damaging developments in the Bay of Panama would likely offer 

the greatest immediate benefits to sandpipers, whimbrels, and other shorebirds. 


20

• Pair monitoring work with land management experiments. On-theground 

habitat conservation projects often lack sufficient capacity to measure 

impacts on shorebirds because such monitoring is both expensive and difficult 

to execute. Fortunately, a grantee has developed just such a monitoring system 

and is searching for on-the-ground projects where they can further test and 

develop their survey methodologies and associated database. The Foundation 

could increase the impact of its shorebird portfolio by matching its on-theground 

habitat investments with support for this monitoring. Such pairings 

have the potential to dramatically improve knowledge of what works, while 

simultaneously developing monitoring capacity useful at other sites – all 

without increasing total funding. 

* * * 


21

Marine Birds 5 Year Evaluation - Packard Foundation

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?