The Ramsar Convention’s Montreux Record: Recognising and addressing threats to Ramsar sites

1. The Ramsar Convention’s Montreux Record:Recognising and addressing threats to Ramsar sites Peter Bridgewater Secretary General, Ramsar Convention World Parks Congress, Durban, September 2003

2. What is the “Ramsar” Convention on Wetlands? • Oldest of the global environmental conventions • covers very wide range of wetlands - from coral reefs to mountains • 139 Contracting Parties Why the “Ramsar” Convention? • Ramsar, Iran - where Convention agreed 2 February 1971 by 18 countries XX so not an acronym (RAMSAR) XX

3. Ramsar’s Mission “The conservation and wise use of wetlands through local, regional and national actions and international cooperation as a contribution towards achieving sustainable development throughout the world.” (Strategic Plan 2003-2008)

4. What is the “wise use” of wetlands? “… their sustainable utilization for the benefit of humankind in a way compatible with the maintenance of the natural properties of the ecosystem” (Ramsar COP3, 1987)

5. Ramsar covers: • Natural and human-made wetlands • inland/freshwater: • marshes, rivers, lakes, reservoirs etc. • coastal/marine • Mangroves, lagoons, estuaries, coral reefs, seagrass beds etc. • above ground and underground • karst and caves • but not deep oceans

6. Contracting Parties’ commitments under the Ramsar Convention Contracting Parties commit to delivering the Convention through 3 “pillars”: • Wise use of all wetlands • Wetlands of International Importance - designation and management • International cooperation

7. The Ramsar Convention today • 138 Contracting Parties • others in process of joining (accession) • from Africa, central Asia, Caribbean, Oceania • 1308 Wetlands of International Importance - “Ramsar sites” • totaling 110 million hectares • size: from <1 ha to >6 million ha

8. Reporting threats to Ramsar sites – Article 3.2 • Article 3.2 of the Convention: “Each Contracting Party shall arrange to be informed at the earliest possible time if the ecological character of any wetland in its territory and included in the List has changed, is changing or is likely to change as the result of technological developments, pollution or other human interference. Information on such changes shall be passed without delay to the [Ramsar Bureau]” Very few Parties have such mechanisms in place

9. Reporting threats to Ramsar sites – Montreux Record • “Montreux Record” established in 1990 (COP4, Montreux, Switzerland) • Record of “Ramsar sites where changes in ecological character have occurred, are occurring or are likely to occur” • Operation procedures established by Parties in 1993 (COP5) and 1996 (COP6)

10. Reporting threats to Ramsar sites – Montreux Record • Montreux Record purpose: • Primary mechanism for Parties to fulfill Article 3.2 obligation • “to identify priority sites for positive national and international conservation attention” Laguna de Llancanelo, Argentia – Montreux Record Listed 2001

11. Montreux Record procedure • Contracting Party (CP) decides to include a Ramsar site on the List • Submits short questionnaire about the site and reasons for Listing to the Ramsar Bureau • Bureau inscribes site on the Record • After addressing the threat(s), CP requests removal from List • Submits further short questionnaire describing actions taken and removal of threat(s) • Removal subject to advice from Scientific & Technical Review Panel

12. To provide advice on dealing with the identified threat(s), the CP can request the Bureau to undertake a “Ramsar Advisory Mission (RAM)” • 51 RAMs have been undertaken • RAM reports available onhttp://www.ramsar.org/index_ram.htm Prespa Lakes, Greece – removed from Montreux Record 1999

13. Montreux Record – has it helped? • Only 76 Ramsar sites have been Montreux Record listed • Many more known to face threats to ecological character (Article 3.2) • 23 sites removed from Record • 1 site removed and then added again for other reasons • 55 sites currently on the Record • Many sites on List for >8 years • 32 Listed in 1990 • 14 Listed in 1993 • Only 6 sites Listed since 1996

14. Long period of site on List – indication either of: • Lack of action after Listing to solve problems, and/or • Listing sites with especially intransigent problems • Has not fulfilled original intent of primary mechanism for reporting and addressing change in ecological character • Seen by some countries as a ‘black-list’ of sites suffering poor management and failure to implement Convention commitments

15. But • MR remains valuable tool for Convention Used chiefly by Parties to draw attention to v. difficult problems with a Site • Especially when action could benefit from international conservation attention: • e.g. through a RAM • Independent advice from international experts as ‘honest brokers’ between protagonists • Party’s efforts to implement RAM advice often substantive

16. Montreux Record – RAM example • Chilika Lake India • Listed on MR 1993 • RAM (2001) to advise on progress in implementing management action • Major profiling of Convention support with local communities • Led to removal of site from MR in 2002 • Chilika Development Authority - Winner of 2002 Ramsar Award

17. Montreux Record – the future Ramsar COP8 (2002) • recognised continuing value of Montreux Record • Stressed several response options exist for dealing with adverse change to Ramsar sites: • Using established management planning process • But only 20% of Ramsar sites have this in place • Seeking STRP advice • Requesting funding • Listing on MR and requesting Ramsar Advisory Mission for international advice

18. Montreux Record – the future Ramsar COP8 stressed that Montreux Record is particularly useful when: • Demonstrating national commitment would help resolve the problem • Highlighting very serious cases would be beneficial at national and/or international level • Positive national & international conservation attention would benefit the site and/or • Inclusion on the MR would help guide allocation of resources from financial mechanisms (e.g. GEF)

19. In conclusion • Montreux Record is important tool for Parties of Ramsar Convention to help resolve threats to Ramsar sites • Parties should always report a threat to the ecological character of a Ramsar site • On each occasion, Parties should List the site on the Montreux Record – if Listing would help resolve the threat Oasis de Ouled Saïd, Algeria – Montreux Record Listed 2001