Papers for mid-term workshop

STRP Working Group 4

21/22 July 2004

  1. Project specification: Review of under-representation of wetland types
  1. Discussion paper: How do we achieve consensus on cultural and socio-economic criteria for Ramsar sites at CoP9?
  1. Project specification: Review of data and information related on Ramsar sites
  1. Data and information needs review: some issue for discussion
  1. Additional guidance for the application of Criteria 5 & 6
  1. Discussion paper: Developing a quantitative criterion for selection of Ramsar sites for non-avian taxa? An initial summary of responses to a consultation in 2003

1

Review of under-representation of wetland types

Background

The Ramsar Convention’s eighth Conference of Parties noted[1] the need to more objectively evaluation the concept of under-representation of wetland types on Ramsar list. Specifically it requested:

“the STRP to provide information on the term ‘under-represented type’ in the context of available information on the global extent of different wetland types and representation of these in the Ramsar list, to investigate methods of defining targets for representation of wetland types in the Ramsar List in the context of the Strategic Framework for the future development of the List, and to report the results of this to CoP9.”

Wetlands International[2] noted that there are different aspects of under-representivity, as follows:

  1. “Global coverage – the global distribution of designated wetlands in relation to the global wetland resource.
  2. Regional or national under-representation, according to appropriate biogeographical classifications, and notable in those Parties who have designated only one or very few sites.
  3. Numbers of sites designated or certain of the wetland types of the Ramsar Classification of Wetland Type.
  4. Numbers of sites designated for their wetland-dependent biodiversity (under Criteria 2-8), for example gaps in the site networks for migratory waterbirds and globally threatened species.”

The Ramsar Convention has stated that the following wetland types are “under-represented”:

  • Subterranean Karst and other cave hydrological systems (Ramsar wetland type Zk)
  • Coral reefs (C)
  • Saltmarshes (Seasonal/intermittent saline/brackish/alkaline marshes/pools (Ss))
  • Seagrass beds (Marine subtidal aquatic beds (B))
  • Peatlands (both Forested peatlands (Xp) and Non-forested peatlands (U))
  • Mangrove swamps (Inter-tidal forested wetlands (I))
  • Seasonal/intermittent freshwater marshes/pools on inorganic soils (Ts)

Such categorisation has not been derived from an analytical process, and there is now a need for a more objective review of representivity.

Specification

Several elements to the work are envisaged:

  1. An assessment of both the global and regional extent of different wetland habitat types (in broad terms accepting the lack of precision with the data available). To the greatest extent possible the wetland types used will aim to follow the Ramsar wetland classification, although it is noted that some ‘higher’ groupings may need to be used (for example treating Forested and Non-forested peatlands together as a single Peatland category).
  2. A ‘best’ assessment of the extent of these same wetland type categories within the List of Ramsar sites – accepting that many sites will not have details of the mapped extent of wetland types and thus assumptions will need to be made as to the extent of wetland types with the overall site series.
  3. Derived from 1) and 2) above, the proportion of different wetland types within the Ramsar List at three scales:
  4. Global;
  5. Regional (using Ramsar’s geographic regionalisation); and
  6. Regional (using an appropriate biogeographic regionalisation).
  1. Informed by the output of 3) above, an assessment of possible approaches to the setting of targets for the inclusion of wetland types within the Ramsar List. This should consider approaches to the setting of both global and regional targets (as outlined above)

Outputs

A brief report will be prepared summarising the outputs of each of the four work areas above.

Timing

A draft report will be provided for comment by the end of [January 2004]. Comments will be provided within a month and following any necessary revisions, a final report will; be submitted by the end of [April 2004].

1

STRP Working Group 4

Discussion paper:

How do we achieve consensus on cultural and socio-economic criteria for Ramsar sites at CoP9?

This short note gives some personal reflections[3] on issues related to the development of cultural and socio-economic criteria for Ramsar sites, in light of CoP8's instruction to STRP to undertake further work in this area. It aims to identify those issues that will need to be addressed in STRP's response to CoP9.

My suggestions are probably far from exhaustive! Accordingly, I'd welcome comment on these. In order to move us forward, I suggest that comments are sent to me by 31April. I will then summarise the position we have reached.

Note that I have largely grouped together consideration of cultural and socio-economic criteria below – although the issues raised by each are distinct. Further work will need to tease apart the separate issues more clearly.

I conclude the paper by considering seven specific issues — it would be particularly useful to receive feedback on each of these.

The CoP8 requirement

The Ramsar Convention’s CoP8:

  1. “INSTRUCTS the Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP), with the assistance of the Ramsar Bureau, interested Contracting Parties, and other relevant organizations to develop, for consideration at COP9, additional criteria and guidelines for the identification and designation of Ramsar sites concerning socio-economic and cultural values and functions that are relevant to biological diversity, as listed in Annex 1 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which would be applied on each occasion in conjunction with one or more existing criteria for the identification and designation of Ramsar sites; and to include in this work a full analysis of the implications for Contracting Parties of the implementation of such criteria for the management of Ramsar sites, including Contracting Party obligations and responsibilities for maintaining the ecological character of any such sites so selected;”

Translated (!), the Resolution has a number of elements:

  1. The development of additional cultural and socio-economic criteria and guidelines for the identification and designation of Ramsar sites.
  2. That such criteria and guidelines developed should relate to those socio-economic and cultural values and functions that are relevant to biological diversity (i.e. they should be a subset of all possible socio-economic and cultural values and functions). To this end Annex 1 of the Biodiversity Convention (Annex 1 appended) gives guidance.
  3. That these new criteria are envisaged not to be used in isolation, but rather in conjunction with other Ramsar criteria.
  4. That there should be a full assessment of the implications for Contracting Parties (CPs) of the application of any such criteria and guidelines, and especially their obligations and responsibilities for:
  5. management of sites; and
  6. maintenance of the ecological character of sites.

Background

The potential development of criteria for the selection of Ramsar sites on ground of cultural and/or socio-economic importance has been historically contentious for the Convention. The issue has been raised at most Conferences of the Parties, since at least CoP3 (Regina, 1987), but most notably at CoP6 in Brisbane, CoP7 in San Jose and most recently at CoP8 in Valencia. The STRP considered the issue in the triennium 1996-1999 but were unable to reach a conclusion. MF - At CoP6 a number of developed countries (Australia, Sweden were two) were uncomfortable with the implications of the initial proposals, noting that at this stage the CPs were not widely in support of including ecosystem services which some saw as a short-cut to including socio-economic and trade within a conservation treaty. While STRP did make a decision not to proceed with cultural/socio-economic criteria this was not popular with some other associated interests. However, this does not change the point that a criterion was not proposed by STRP for CoP7.

CoP8 had the benefit of a detailed information paper on culture and wetlands (CoP8 Doc 15) and a discussion paper on the issues (CoP8 Doc 31) which had been prepared following a decision of the Standing Committee in December 2001 “to have a broad-ranging discussion on the role of cultural and socio-economic issues in the Convention, and on how to enhance that role, and requested the preparation of a discussion document to facilitate talks at COP8.” (Decision SC26-14). MF - Agree that having this document was a benefit but it also induced some agitated reactions! I guess in saying this I support PB’s comment about considering the pace at which it is possible to proceed.

Some of the issues concerning the development of cultural and socio-economic criteria for Ramsar sites have been:

Perceived benefits:

  • With the broadening of the agenda of the Convention in the early 1990s towards more holistic approaches to wetland conservation, and most recently (late 1990s to the present) into the arena of sustainable development, selection of Ramsar sites on the basis of their cultural and/or (traditional) socio-economic importance has been seen as important to highlight the ecological support (values and functions) that wetlands give to the human communities dependent upon them. Or vice-versa
  • Maintenance of the ecological interest of many wetlands depends also on the maintenance of traditional forms of management, often closely linked to local or traditional cultures (e.g. salinas, low-intensity pastoralism; traditional reed-cutting etc.). It is desirable that such management should be maintained as an important element of the wise-use of the site. MF - Where these traditional practices are supported through, or seen to be supported by agricultural/trade subsidies, any move to recommend that they are retained or strengthened is likely to invite overt opposition from the bloc of so-called free trade countries.

DAS – Indeed - as we saw with the agricultural Resolution at CoP8.

  • “The importance of the cultural values of wetlands may broaden their appeal to significant sectors of society not initially concerned with nature conservation. These include not only specialists in the various forms of culture, from archaeology to music, but also the considerable segment of the wider public interested in culture. In this way, powerful alliances can be created, which would be of benefit to both sides.” (CoP8, Doc. 15) This is an important area, but we need to be very clear on the support cultural interventions can provide Ramsar in its promotion and support, and the support cultural diversity can provide to Ramsar initiatives in biological diversity conservation and management. MF - Have we previously sought support from archaeologists? I recall something – or was it in the paper on cultural issues tabled at CoP8 and referred to above? I also recall Doug Taylor hosting a workshop on archaeology in the Somerset levels.

DAS – Wetland archaeological heritage has certainly been a focus at previous European Regional Meetings, especially in 2001 where the European Archaeological Council gave a presentation. I recall also Dave Pritchard doing an analysis of archaeological values of (European?) Ramsar sites from RISs.

“Culture is part of their tradition and social identity of local communities, and more particularly indigenous people. A fuller recognition of the significance, and sometimes the uniqueness, of the cultural values of wetlands should increase their self-esteem and their readiness to safeguard particular sites, and especially Ramsar sites. Experience throughout the world has shown that the conservation and wise use of wetlands depends to a considerable degree on the links of local populations to them. Enhancement of the cultural values, wherever they still exist, and efforts to preserve them where they are at risk of disappearing, can become a powerful tool in strengthening the links of local populations to their wetlands, their ‘sense of place’, and thus involve them actively in their conservation.” (CoP8, Doc.15) while all this was said much of it is actually quite dangerous, even paternalistic. As we develop our cultural perspective we can refine this view. MF – if it originated from outside sources for say African countries it could at times be seen as paternalistic, but I thought this was now the line being pushed by parties who sponsored the CoP8 resolution. We are not though just referring to less developed countries, refer the Somerset example with its Saxon and Roman heritage (or is this what worries PB?). However, I agree that we need to take care when pushing this line, especially as many of the delegates at CoP9 may not have been at CoP8 and hence not have the advantage of history, or even share the same view. DAS – whilst the wording used in CoP8, Doc.15 may risk being paternalistic, the message — the closer involvement of local communities via cultural practices with wetland management/conservation — is surely what we are seeking to promote?

Perceived concerns

Cultural criteria

  • That the Wetlands Convention should maintain its primary focus on the delivery of biodiversity conservation — albeit that where this can act a vehicle for delivery of sustainable development it should do. There are other international treaty mechanisms for protection of culturally important sites, notably the World Heritage Convention, and accordingly Ramsar should avoid re-inventing systems already adequately provided for elsewhere. There is risk of attention being spread too thinly with consequent loss of focus on delivery. This confuses what the WHC does, which is listing of sites, and what Ramsar is about, which is combining conservation at the heart of sustainable development. And to deliver biodiversity conservation we can be more effective through promoting , where relevant, cultural diversity. We should not impinge on, or touch WH issues I think. MF - Hasn’t CBD already blurred the distinction between conservation of biodiversity and cultural heritage? Has this gone too far for some parties? And I agree there is no need to touch WH issues. DAS – these comments raise two issues for me:
  1. Do we know if there has been any CBD consideration (implementation/interpretation?) of Annex 1.1? Personally I think the inclusion together of “social, economic, cultural or scientific importance” in one sweeping phrase completely blurs together a very mixed bag of reasons why one might seek to conserve sites of importance. Then having these played back to Ramsar is not altogether helpful in my opinion!
  2. Perhaps there is a scale issue here? My guess would be that WH sites are typically smaller discrete entities – in contrast to Ramsar’s move to focus increasingly on wetland conservation issues at landscape/ecosystem scales. The problem is, despite the urging of many Resolutions, many (most?) CPs probably are still thinking at a site- rather than landscape- scale when implementing the Convention. So, to address the argument “why does Ramsar need cultural criteria to select sites when the Heritage Convention already provides a mechanism for selecting culturally important sites?” we need to demonstrate the distinctiveness of the Heritage and Ramsar Convention agendas.
  • State (CP) obligations for a ‘cultural’ Ramsar site are unclear. How might the state intervene to maintain aspects of culture at a site that are essentially locally determined or maintained? This is especially of concern regarding the strict obligations assumed by CPs under Article 3.2 of the Convention (below). I think we should focus on the issue here of cultural landscapes, not just sensu WH, but the emerging field of activity which ses cultural landscapes as collections of active, vibrant ecosystems, moderated by biological and cultural diversity and their interactions. MF – as landscape scale analyses seem to be very popular this could prove attractive. Do we though risk getting into problems of whether or not we refer to traditional or modernistic interactions, and those that are subsidised? Could we separate these? I am also mindful of other CoP debates where traditional whaling was introduced into the argument to either clarify or obscure. DAS – I’m certainly happy with a focus on cultural landscapes (not least coming from a country which is almost entirely a cultural landscape!). But this seems to move us away from the precise task in hand which is the determination of criteria for site selection. Promotion of the importance of culture in promoting broader-scale wetland conservation may prove more feasible at CoP9.

With respect to Max’s point re promotion of traditional activities there is probably important thinking that can be captured from the European Pastoralism Forum. This has sought to develop and advocate policies that support low-intensity systems of agriculture, but recognising that ‘low-intensity’ does not necessarily (or even desirably) mean ‘old fashioned’ – thus, their agenda is not seeking for farmers to go back to cutting fields of hay by hand. There are a whole series of valuable case studies on the Forum’s website: (Having just looked back through several of the Forum’s proceedings over the last decade in search of a neat phrase I recall they came up with – it strikes me that there is the risk of much potential re-invention of wheels here. Albeit set in the European policy context, very many of the Forum’s conclusions and recommendations are just as relevant to current Ramsar contexts – just replacing the word ‘farmland’ with ‘wetland’).

Socio-economic criteria

  • Similar concerns as to possible CP obligations also have been raised as to ‘socio-economic’ Ramsar sites – with uncertainty as to what these might entail.
  • “That such a socio-economic Criterion could allow room for abuse of the intent of designating a wetland as internationally important, for instance through claiming that a development causing damage to the ecological character of a wetland made the wetland internationally important because of the income and employment of people which it would generate.” (The view of the 1996-1999 STRP as reported in CoP8 Doc. 31) MF – I still worry about how far we can go on socio-economic issues. Can we draw a line (somewhere) between cultural and socio-economic? At CoP8 the socio-economic issue was very much embedded in the call for cultural criteria. DAS – my feeling (perhaps wrong) was that little distinction was being drawn between the words at CoP8 – thus I think the issues were being seen as two sides of the same coin: cultural (management) activities on wetlands generally providing socio-economic support to local communities. The reality is that there are some quite distinct issues here.
  • “Concerns that criteria on socio-economic importance could lead to designation of sites which would not have any biodiversity features of international importance; and that such sites designated only for certain features of socio-economic importance could be highly degraded wetlands used solely, for example, for industrial purposes or where unsustainable exploitation of the wetland resources are occurring (e.g. excessive water abstraction leading to degradation of the ecological character of the wetland).” (CoP8 Doc. 31)

Resolution VIII.10 of CoP8, as quoted above, achieved an uneasy consensus between these concerns and desires.