Critical evaluation of the SGF
"People and Wetlands: The Vital Link"
7th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties
to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971),
San José, Costa Rica, 10-18 May 1999
Critical evaluation of the Ramsar Small Grants Fund for Wetlands Conservation and Wise Use (SGF) and its future operations
Action 8.4.2 of the Strategic Plan 1997-2002 directed that for COP7 the performance of the Ramsar Small Grants Fund (SGF) should undergo a critical evaluation, and that this was to be prepared by the Bureau, reviewed by the Standing Committee at its 21st meeting in 1998, and transmitted to the 7th meeting of the Conference of the Parties. The following document was provided to COP7 as an annex to Document 15.5, now Resolution VII.5.
Critical evaluation of the Ramsar Small Grant Fund for Wetlands Conservation and Wise Use (SGF) undertaken by the Ramsar Bureau
September 1998 (updated at 30 November 1998)
1. Action 8.4.2 of the Strategic Plan 1997-2002 states; "Evaluate critically, at the 7th COP (1999), the performance of the Small Grants Fund". Accordingly, the Convention Bureau prepared an evaluation document which was reviewed by the Standing Committee at its 21st meeting in October 1998 and endorsed for submission to COP7 with some minor modifications, together with a proposal for a draft resolution reflecting the major conclusions of the critical review.
2. The Wetland Conservation Fund was established at COP4 in 1990 (Resolution 4.3) with a view to providing assistance for wetland conservation and wise use in developing countries. Its continuation was strongly supported through Resolution 5.8 of COP5 in 1993. COP6, in 1996, adopted Resolution VI.6, renaming the Fund the Ramsar Small Grants Fund for Wetland Conservation and Wise Use (Ramsar SGF).
3. In the same Resolution, COP6 decided that "all countries on the List of Aid Recipients established by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) shall be eligible for receiving assistance from the Ramsar SGF", which in practical terms meant that the countries with economies in transition would also have access to the Fund.
4. The Standing Committee has adopted Operational Guidelines for the functioning of the SGF. The current Guidelines establish that "as a matter of priority, the SGF shall be open to eligible Contracting Parties for activities which contribute to the implementation of the Ramsar Strategic Plan 1997-2002." The Guidelines also establish that "the maximum amount for each project should normally not exceed SFR. 40,000".
5. The Standing Committee has also adopted a clear procedure for the evaluation of the project proposals submitted to the SGF. The final decision for project funding is taken by the Standing Committee at its regular annual meeting, drawing upon the recommendations presented by the Bureau.
6. The annual cycle of the Small Grants Fund can be summarised as follows:
|November||Eligible Contracting Parties are invited by diplomatic notification to submit project proposals. The deadline is specified as 31 March of the following year.|
|31 March||Deadline for submission of project proposals.|
|April||Checking and compilation of proposals received.|
|May||Project assessment (Stage 1) by Regional Coordinators/Interns using Project Assessment Form.|
|June||Project assessment by external experts if necessary.|
|July||Final project assessment and priority ranking by Regional Coordinators, with the guidance of the Deputy Secretary General. Available funds are taken into consideration.|
|August||Finalization of preliminary recommendations for Standing Committee approved by the Secretary General. Despatch to relevant representatives and alternates on the Standing Committee for comment (at least two weeks before despatch of final Standing Committee documents to all members).|
|September||Inclusion of comments received, finalization of recommendations for Standing Committee; mailing of document to Standing Committee members.|
|October||Meeting of Standing Committee Subgroup on Finance immediately prior to the Standing Committee to review the Bureau’s recommendations and prepare advice to Standing Committee.|
Standing Committee considers advice of Bureau and of Subgroup on Finance and takes decisions about projects to be funded.
|November/ December||Preparation of contracts for Ramsar Administrative Authorities receiving project funding.|
Transfer of 80% of grants upon receipt of signed contracts.
Preparation of Allocations Report for donors.
New cycle begins.
|All year round||Monitoring of project implementation: receiving and reviewing progress and final reports; sending reminders about reports overdue; transferring of the rest of funding (20%) upon receipt of satisfactory reports. Fundraising for the Fund.|
7. The following tables summarise the operation of the SGF in its nine years of existence.
Table 1: SUMMARY OF PROJECTS FUNDED, 1991-1998
No. of projects submitted
No. of countries that submitted projects
Projects considered suitable for funding
No. of countries that received funding
Total allocated in SFR, incl. 10% admin. charge
See country by country list of projects in Annex 1.
Table 2: SUITABLE PROJECTS NOT FUNDED BECAUSE OF LACK OF RESOURCES IN THE SGF, 1991-1998
Number of projects NOT funded
Number of projects NOT funded
10 (out of 17)
15 (out of 27)
13 (out of 28)
10 (out of 20)
14 (out of 25)
3 (out of 15)
27 (out of 55)
30 (out of 48)
122 (out of 235)
8. According to the SGF Operational Guidelines, projects should, in general, be implemented within a one-year period, and a final report should be presented in the six months after completion of the project. Since 1995, all projects receive an initial payment of 80% of the full project grant at the time of signing of the contract. The 20% balance of the funds is retained pending the submission of an acceptable final report, which should include a statement of expenditure for the funds provided.
9. The Convention has standard forms for both the Progress and Final Reports. A new Project Evaluation Form will be introduced in 1999 in order to better evaluate achievements against project objective(s) and overall project outcomes, and to monitor the use of funds.
10. The Progress and Final Reports received by the Bureau have demonstrated that the SGF has supported many valuable small-scale projects reflecting a wide variety of wetland conservation and wise use activities.
11. In supporting such work, the SGF has provided assistance to a number of developing countries and more recently to countries in transition, and has also enhanced the image and effectiveness of the Convention in many parts of the world.
12. The following table indicates the number of progress and final reports received and reports still due for projects funded under the SGF:
Table 3: SGF PROJECTS REPORTING
7 in 1991
|2 final (out of 7)|
12 in 1992
|3 final (out of 12)|
15 in 1993
|5 final (out of 15)|
10 in 1994
|3 final (out of 10)|
11 in 1995
|6 final (out of 11)|
12 in 1996
|7 progress (out of 12) [Note: for 2 pending reports the Bureau was informed of reasons of delay; 2 more progress reports are due in March 1999 only. |
11 final (out of 12)
28 in 1997
|19 progress (out of 28) |
Progress reports are due as from November 1998 until May 1999.
18 in 1998
|First progress reports are due in December 1999.|
THE POSITIVE FEATURES
13. In preparing this review of the SGF, the Bureau has looked closely at:
a) the number and quality of project proposals received over the years;
b) the significance of the projects which have been funded;
c) the procedures used to fund projects;
d) the reporting and follow-up for those projects funded; and
e) the level of resources that have been put at the disposal of the SGF.
Providing practical assistance to the Contracting Parties, including the option of "emergency assistance"
14. In relation to the number and quality of project proposals received, the number has increased over the years, from 17 in 1991 to 67 in 1998, with a peak in 1997 (83 proposals). Quality has also increased, overall, possibly due to the advice provided to project proponents by the Bureau’s Regional Coordinators and the Convention’s NGO partners. A proportion of proposals have required further work, but only a few have been discarded as not recoverable or not pertinent.
15. The SGF constitutes a practical mechanism for the implementation of the Convention, even though, as its names indicates, it is only suitable for small-scale projects and does not replace the need for most countries to have access to much more substantial levels of funding in order to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of their wetlands.
"Filling a gap" - small scale, catalytic project funding
16. In its promotional leaflet for the SGF, produced in 1998, the Bureau described the programme as "filling the gap". Compared to most other funding programmes operating in this field, the SGF offers smaller scale funding (maximum of SFR 40,000) and is intended to be catalytic in its approach. The SGF does have a niche as a funding programme which can allow countries to address relatively small-scale projects or use SGF funds to seek complementary funding from other sources for larger scale activities.
17. It is the Bureau’s assessment that the SGF is highly cost effective at the project scale. For relatively small investments from the SGF and staff time at the Bureau, the results obtained are generally worthy of much larger budgets, indicating that SGF funds are generating an excellent leverage effect. While this leverage effect is difficult to quantify, it is evident that all projects benefit from significant in-kind contributions (in terms of human resources, etc.) and in some cases direct financial support from other sources.
Support for a wide range of project activities
18. The project titles that appear in Annex 1 provide an indication of the range of projects that the SGF has funded since 1991. This is another success of the SGF, as it shows the variety and complexity of wetland management issues in different countries and regions of the world, and that through the SGF the Convention is able to respond to these. Such flexibility is a considerable strength of the SGF.
Relatively simple application procedures
19. Another strength of the SGF is that its application procedures are relatively simple. The SGF application form, while seeking clear information on project goals, methods and budgets, is not overly bureaucratic. In addition, applicants can seek prior advice from the Bureau as to the merits of their projects and how best to present them in the applications. This service has assisted many countries to improve the quality of their project applications and thus secure funds from the SGF.
20. The overall conclusion is that the SGF constitutes a highly successful mechanism. However, despite this success, there do remain challenges in terms of the continuing operation of the SGF.
CHALLENGES FOR THE SGF IN THE FUTURE
Limited and uncertain funding base
21. In the period from 1991 to 1998, a total of SFR 3,815,821 has been allocated through the SGF to a total of 113 projects (see Table 1 and Annex 1). In that same period, a further 122 projects were assessed as being of high priority and worthy of funding from the SGF but could not be approved due to lack of available funds.
22. Annex 2 shows the contributions received for the SGF since its inception in 1990. While the Convention should be most grateful to the many generous donors that have contributed, the fact remains that had the resources been available the SGF could have reasonably expected to have allocated a further SFR 4 million to these 122 projects, making its contribution to furthering the implementation of the Convention much more significant.
23. As shown in Annex 2, contributions to the SGF have come mainly from the agencies that are the Ramsar Administrative Authorities in donor countries, but the largest amounts were contributed by three bilateral development assistance agencies. This may indicate that any continued and significant funding for the SGF in the future should be sought from the development assistance community. NGOs have provided part of the funding, but more could be done to generate contributions from the non-governmental sector as well as from the private sector.
24. Apart from securing a higher level of funds in order to support more projects each year, another challenge is to gain some assurance that the annual amount available for allocation does not vary as greatly as it has in the first eight years of the SGF. In 1997, when just over SFR 1 million was available, a record number of applications were received and projects funded. In 1998 the level of funding dropped by almost 40%, and it was necessary to discourage countries from submitting more than one project each. In 1999 it is impossible to predict what the funding level will be, and this uncertainty does not assist either the potential project proponents or the Bureau with their forward planning.
25. From this it is apparent that the 7th Conference of the Contracting Parties should give serious consideration to ways to secure both a higher level of funding for the SGF and a guarantee of some suitable minimum level of funds available each year.
26. Resolution VI.6 of COP6 in 1996 reiterated "its conviction expressed in Resolution 5.8 that the level of resources available to the Ramsar SGF should be increased to at least US$ 1 million [SFR 1.4 million] annually". But the Resolution fell short of establishing some sort of mechanism for generating that level of funding. As a consequence, that level has never been secured.
27. At present the triennial budget of the Convention allocates SFR 100,000 per year to the SGF. But in the budget that the Standing Committee is recommending for the 2000-2002 triennium, the allocation has been decreased to SFR 50,000; 51,000; and 52,000 respectively (see Ramsar COP7 DOC. 14).
28. The Bureau further urges that all developed country Contracting Parties, and other organizations able to do so, be asked to consider making longer term commitments (3 years minimum) to the SGF to allow forward projections to be given with confidence. This will help to establish at least the level of funding proposed in Resolution 5.8 and reiterated in Resolution VI.6.
Quality of projects submitted
29. As previously indicated, the quality of projects submitted to the SGF has generally been high, as evidenced by the fact that around 80% of the proposals have been judged to be suitable for funding. Over the eight-year period of this evaluation, as the administrative procedures and SGF requirements have been refined, there has also been a noticeable increase in both the number and quality of projects submitted.
30. It is the Bureau’s assessment that once countries are successful in gaining SGF funds they will continue to seek more for other projects, and through their previous experience in gaining support they are better placed for future success. This trend may pose the risk that over time the SGF funds will go more and more to those countries which have the capacity to prepare the best project applications. It is for this reason that the Bureau has encouraged the Standing Committee to give a level of priority within the suitable projects submitted for their consideration to those from countries which have never gained SGF support previously. The hope is that through this action a larger number of countries will benefit from SGF support and also gain experience in preparing project submissions.
31. The Bureau urges that this practice should continue in future years and also that a new advisory service be offered to help further improve the quality of project applications, especially from those countries with less experience or capacity to prepare them. It is therefore being proposed to advertise, as of the 1999 call for proposals, an advisory service facility by the Bureau. In a typical year the call for proposals is sent out in November, and applications close on 31 March. The Bureau will offer to provide comments and advice on draft project proposals received until 31 January. This will allow those who wish to take advantage of this service several weeks to finalise their proposals before submission at the end of March.
Progress and final reporting
32. One area of SGF operations where the Bureau (and the Standing Committee) recognised that there remains a need for improvement is that of progress and final reporting. The decision taken in 1995 to withhold 20% of the SGF grant pending receipt of an acceptable final report has helped to some degree. However, while the majority of project proponents have been diligent in meeting their reporting obligations, there are a number of cases where reports have not been submitted. It is also true that in far too many cases several reminders are required in order to elicit such reports, which consumes valuable human resources within the Bureau.
33. The Bureau also recognised that it would be advantageous to standardise the format for Progress and Final Reports under the SGF to avoid any uncertainty on the part of the project proponents as to what was expected. With assistance from the Scientific and Technical Review Panel (STRP), these standard formats were prepared and approved by the 21st meeting of the Standing Committee for immediate introduction.
34. In responding to the challenges in this area, the Bureau is proposing that in future years the Standing Committee should make funding for new projects in recipient countries conditional upon satisfactory compliance with reporting requirements for previous grants to that country. At its 21st meeting, the Standing Committee supported this proposal strongly.
Project monitoring and evaluation
35. Another area where it is considered that performance could be improved is that of project monitoring and evaluation. In responding to this challenge, the Bureau developed a standardised format for Project Evaluation which was approved by the 21st meeting of the Standing Committee for immediate introduction.
36. In only a few cases has it been possible for the Bureau to visit project sites to discuss progress or outcomes of SGF-funded activities. This is an area which the Bureau proposes should gain higher priority when Bureau staff are visiting countries that have received funding. The Partner NGOs should also be encouraged to assist more actively in this area.
37. It is also suggested that there is a role for the Administrative Authorities within these countries (in cases in which the projects are being implemented by others) to monitor progress and evaluate final reports under the SGF. In its proposal concerning the modus operandi of the STRP, the Standing Committee is recommending the introduction of National Focal Points for STRP matters in each Contracting Party (see Ramsar COP7 DOC. 15.2). It may be appropriate for these National Focal Points also to take a role in SGF project monitoring and evaluation, on behalf of, or in cooperation with, the Administrative Authority.
Feedback to donors
38. The Bureau has prepared for each year of the SGF an Allocations Report which is provided to donors and made available through the Convention’s Web site. However, the provision of summaries of outcomes following completion of the projects has not been done regularly in a formal way. The Bureau has sought to rectify this with the move to standardised reporting formats for progress and final reports as indicated above. These include short summary statements prepared by the project proponents that are intended for use in reporting back to donors and general promotion of the SGF. Proponents are also asked to provide photographs of key aspects of their work, but in the past the response to this has been disappointing.
39. In addition, the Bureau plans to increase its efforts to provide more detailed and more regular feedback to donors, relying in large part on the project evaluations as they are submitted. Further, it is proposed that the Bureau establish a dedicated area on the Convention’s Web site for SGF matters and to use this to display project summaries with photographs (where possible) as they are received.
PROJECTS FUNDED FROM 1991 TO 1998
|Country||Year||Project Title||Grant (Swiss Francs)|
|Algeria||1996||Urgent measures for the protection of the Macta Marshes and preparation for their designation to the Ramsar List||25,000|
|1997||Education and awareness for the general public, local authorities and other parties with interest in the "Lac des oiseaux"||40,000|
|Argentina||1992||Promotional assistance for improving interpretative facilities at Argentina’s three Ramsar sites||24,000|
|1993||Evaluation of conservation status of Pozuelos Lagoon Natural Monument, Ramsar site, and development of management proposals for the Pozuelos Basin and other wetlands in the northwestern border area||31,500|
|1996||Conservation and wise use of high Andean wetlands in the northeast of Argentina: creation and implementation of the National Reserves of Pozuelos and Vilama||28,500|
|Armenia||1997||Restoration and rehabilitation of Lake Sevan Ramsar site||35,000|
|Bangladesh||1996||Training on conservation of wetlands in Bangladesh||20,000|
|Bolivia||1991||First Technical Meeting of Ramsar Site Managers in the Neotropical Region||30,000|
|1994||Updating of information on the ichthiofauna of Titicaca Lake||40,000|
|1995||Proposal for designation of a new Ramsar site: Montes de Oro||25,000|
|1998||Evaluation of the current status of Lake Poopó for its designation as a Ramsar site and the establishment of a Wise Use and Integrated Management Area||35,600|
|Brazil||1993||Ecological study of the mangrove wetlands on the western coast of State of Maranhao||40,000|
|1997||Management actions at State Marine Park of Parcel de Manuel Luís, Maranhao||40,000|
|Bulgaria||1997||Development and implementation of a management plan for Lake Srebarna Ramsar site||35,000|
|Burkina Faso||1993||Support for management of the Mare d’Oursi Ramsar site||34,000|
|1997||Strengthen sustainable management of wetlands in Burkina Faso||20,000|
|Cambodia||1993||Preparatory assistance for accession to the Ramsar Convention||25,000|
|Chad||1998||Strengthening institutional capacities for the management of the country’s wetlands||40,000|
|Chile||1991||Boundary-setting, implementation and abiotic hydrology studies of the Ramsar site near Valdivia||25,000|
|1993||Designation of new Ramsar sites in the Andean Region of Northern Chile||25,000|
|1997||Formulation of a National Strategy for the conservation of wetlands in Chile||28,300|
|1998||Impact of mining activities on the conservation status of high altitude (Andean) wetlands in the centre-north of Chile||18,500|
|China||1992||Preparation and publication of management plans for Zhalong and Dongdongtinghu Nature Reserves||28,000|
|1993||Manual on waterfowl and wetland conservation in China and waterfowl population survey technique training course||40,000|
|1994||Preparation for protection and management of the wetland habitats on Ordos Highland of Inner Mongolia||11,500|
|1997||Capacity building and management planning for Dongzhaigang Ramsar site||40,000|
|1998||Conservation and management of wetlands in Qinhuangdao City of Hebei Province||30,000|
|Comoros||1997||Rehabilitation and management of lake Dziani Boundouni||20,000|
|Congo||1991||Preparatory assistance for accession to the Ramsar Convention||5,000|
|Costa Rica||1993||Land-use planning of the Tamarindo National Wildlife Refuge - Ramsar site||40,000|
|1997||Plan for the protection of the Mata Redonda wetland - Wildlife Refuge, Guanacaste||40,000|
|Ecuador||1995||Inventory and identification of the conservation status of Ecuador’s wetlands: Stage I: lentic wetlands of Esmeraldas and Manabi coastal provinces||40,000|
|1997||Inventory and characterization of the interior wetlands of the Guayas and El Oro Provinces (Stage II)||34,700|
|Egypt||1995||Wetland Awareness Programme||40,000|
|1997||Application of a wetland evaluation technique to Lake Bardawil||40,000|
|Estonia||1997||Integrating conservation and wise use in the management of Matsalu Ramsar site||32,000|
|Gambia||1995||Preparatory assistance for designation of Bao Bolong wetland and Niumi National Park as Ramsar sites||25,000|
|Guatemala||1992||Strengthening protection of Laguna del Tigre biotope - Ramsar site||34,000|
|1994||Evaluation and delimitation of distribution of vegetation types in the Manchón-Guamuchal wetland||29,000|
|1996||Initial actions for the conservation of the "Bocas del Polochic" wetland||31,000|
|Georgia||1998||Conservation of Javakheti Plateau wetlands in Southern Georgia||40,000|
|Ghana||1998||Rehabilitation and community management of mangroves and coastal wetlands in the Lower Volta Delta (Ramsar site)||40,000|
|Guinea||1994||Safeguard of the Tristao Islands||45,000|
|Honduras||1993||Emergency plan for the protection of the Wildlife Refuge "Cuero y Salado"||37,500|
|1996||Strengthening management and development of Jeannette Kawas National Park||40,000|
|Hungary/Romania/ Slovakia/Ukraine||1997||Establishing a Transboundary Ramsar Wetland Area in the Upper Tisza region||25,000|
|India||1994||Training workshop on wetland management||34,600|
|1994||Asian Regional Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention||52,000|
|1998||Economic Valuation of Harike Wetland, Punjab||40,000|
|Indonesia||1992||Improvement of management and conservation of the Berbak National Park, Sumatra||25,000|
|1992||Regional training workshop for wetland protection and wise use in East Asia||20,000|
|Iran||1996||Case study on Gomishan Marsh for designation as a Ramsar site||25,000|
|Israel||1997||Conservation of the endangered Imperial and Spotted Eagles wintering in the Hula Valley||40,000|
|Jamaica||1998||Towards management of the Black River Morass (Ramsar site) - gathering biological, social and economic data||40,000|
|Jordan||1998||Designating Burqu Reserve as a new Ramsar site (Note: pending revision of the proposal)||40,000|
|Kazakhstan||1995||Preparatory assistance for designation of Alakol hollow reservoirs as Ramsar site||13,000|
|Kenya||1991||Training for the monitoring of Kenya’s wetlands||34,760|
|1996||Monitoring programme for Kenya’s wetlands||40,000|
|Malaysia||1995||Development of a Malaysian National Wetland Policy Framework||40,000|
|Mali||1996||Safeguard of Ramsar sites in Mali in the interior Niger delta||40,000|
|Mauritania||1991||Banc d’Arguin National Park: Study for the development of an ecotourism compatible with the conservation of natural resources||45,000|
|1994||Training and scientific monitoring for the establishment of a management plan for the Diawling National Park||40,000|
|1997||Development of ecotourism in Banc d’Arguin National Park||40,000|
|Mexico||1993||Preparatory assistance: Strategy for the development of a proposal for designation of Mexican wetlands as Ramsar sites||25,000|
|Mongolia||1997||Preparatory assistance for accession to the Ramsar Convention||25,000|
|Morocco||1993||Merja Zerga: Elaboration of a management plan||40,000|
|Namibia||1997||Inventory classification and management plans for Namibia’s wetlands||40,000|
|1998||Walvis Bay Wetland Conservation (Ramsar site)||40,000|
|Nepal||1993||Fish stocking and cage fishery practice in Koshi Tappu||40,000|
|Nicaragua||1998||Delimitation of the Nature Reserve "Laguna de Tisma" and surrounding marshy areas||25,000|
|Niger||1992||Improving management of "Parc du W." Ramsar site||20,000|
|Oceania (package)||1995||Preparatory assistance for accession to the Ramsar Convention of 5 island states: Kiribati, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu||50,000|
|Pakistan||1992||Regional Workshop, Islamabad, May 1992 (shortfall)||12,000|
|Panama||1997||Monitoring and protection of shrimp species in the Punta Patiño wetland and surrounding areas, Darién Province||40,000|
|1998||Gathering basic information for the development of a global management plan for the "Golfo de Montijo" Ramsar site||38,600|
|Papua New Guinea||1992||Regional Wetland Management Workshop||15,000|
|1994||Promotion of Ramsar membership in the South Pacific||20,000|
|1997||Capacity building and training for the Department of Environment and Conservation||40,000|
|Paraguay||1995||Conservation of biodiversity of lake Ypoá wetlands||25,000|
|Peru||1992||Strengthening management of the Lagunas de Mejía National Sanctuary||25,000|
|1993||Continuation of strengthening management of Lagunas de Mejía Sanctuary||18,000|
|1994||Preparation of Ramsar Information Sheets for designation of new Ramsar sites||30,000|
|1997||Participatory elaboration of the Master Plan of Junín National Reserve Ramsar site||36,000|
|Philippines||1996||Boundary delineation and mapping of the Olango Island Wildlife Sanctuary||17,000|
|1998||Comprehensive management planning and institutionalization of the Protected Areas Management Board (PAMB) of the Naujan Lake National Park||30,000|
|Romania||1997||Study of Romanian wetlands in preparation for new Ramsar sites||25,000|
|1998||Selection and characterization of potential Ramsar sites in southern Romania||36,000|
|Russian Federation||1997||Development and implementation of management plans for three wetlands of international importance: Volga Delta (1) and Kuban Delta (2)||35,000|
|1998||Development of a monitoring programme and draft management plans for the Ramsar sites located on the Kamchatka Peninsula||40,000|
|Slovak Republic||1997||Restoration of wetlands along the Morava river||35,000|
|1998||National wetlands inventory and conservation in Slovakia||30,000|
|Slovenia||1997||Establishment of a National Wetland Inventory||35,000|
|South Africa||1998||Conservation management of the Lower Berg River Wetlands||40,000|
|Sri Lanka||1997||Bellanwila-Attidiya Sanctuary: improving visitor facilities and increasing awareness||40,000|
|Surinam||1997||Preparation for the development of a rational management system for the North Coronie Wetlands||25,000|
|Tanzania||1992||Preparatory assistance for accession to the Ramsar Convention||13,000|
|1994||Over-expenditure 1992 project||2,000|
|Togo||1996||Studies for the establishment of a management plan for Kéran National Park and Togodo Wildlife Reserve||40,000|
|Tunisia||1992||Regional Meeting for North and West African Contracting Parties||32,810|
|1993||Technical support for Tunisian wetlands inventory||20,000|
|1997||Conservation and protection of Dar Fatma Peatland||40,000|
|Trinidad & Tobago||1996||Toward the development of a management plan for the wise use of Nariva Swamp||35,000|
|Uganda||1992||Study of avifauna in the Lake George wetland||6,250|
|1994||Support for implementation of the Ramsar Convention in Uganda||33,500|
|Uzbekistan||1996||Protection of Uzbekistan wetlands and their waterfowl||25,000|
|Venezuela||1995||Evaluation of fisheries in the Cuare Wildlife Refuge||34,300|
|1995||Status of Callinectes spp (crab) population in the Cuare Wildlife Refuge||17,000|
|Vietnam||1991||Support for a Wetlands Conservation Programme in Vietnam||32,000|
|Zambia||1997||Wetland outreach programmes||38,400|
|71 countries||108 projects||3,424,320|
EMERGENCY PROJECTS FUNDED FROM 1991 TO 1998
|Country||Year||Title of project||Grant in SFR|
|Costa Rica||1993||Effect of two grazing densities of cattle on marsh vegetation and resulting waterfowl response|| |
|Honduras||1995||Cadastral surveying of Jeannette Kawas National Park||5,727|
|Pakistan||1991||Preparation of documentation for new Ramsar sites in Pakistan and strengthening coordination of Ramsar activities in Asia||10,000|
|Senegal||1993||Upkeep of sluice gates of the hydraulic system of the Djoudj National Park||2,500|
|Trinidad & Tobago||1998||Nariva Swamp: Filling in of the irrigation channels aiming at rehabilitation of the Block B Area||14,000|
|5 countries||5 projects||40,891|
CONTRIBUTIONS PROVIDED OVER THE PERIOD 1991-1998
(at 30 November 1998)
|Australia||NGO contribution||SFR 2,821.70|
|Austria||Ministry of Environment, Youth, and Family||SFR 215,460.00|
|1991: SFR 68,500.00|
|1992: SFR 50,000.00|
|1993: SFR 50,000.00|
|1995: SFR 46,960.00 (1994)|
|Belgium||Ministère de la Région wallonne||SFR 4,018.49|
|Canada||Canadian Wildlife Service||SFR 31,650.00|
|Denmark||National Forest and Nature Agency, Ministry of the Environment||SFR 53,326.32|
|1992: SFR 5,500.00 (1991)|
|1994: SFR 4,314.34|
|1995: SFR 4,294.98|
|1998: SFR 1,217.00|
|France||Ministère de l'Environnement||SFR 81,690.54|
|1992: SFR 18,410.00 (1991)|
|1992: SFR 21,590.00|
|1993: SFR 22,140.00|
|1998: SFR 19,550.54 (1995)|
|Oiseaux migrateurs du Paléarctique occidental (OMPO)||SFR 20,000.00|
|Germany||Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety||SFR 218,310.00|
1993: SFR 36,440.00
|1994: SFR 41,525.00|
|1995: SFR 39,875.00|
|1997: SFR 51,570.00|
|1998: SFR 48,900.00|
|Iceland||Ministry for the Environment||SFR 37,530.00|
|1994: SFR 6,680.00|
|1995: SFR 6,680.00|
|1996: SFR 7,000.00|
|1997: SFR 8,530.00|
|1998: SFR 8,640.00|
|Japan||Ministry of Foreign Affairs||SFR 130,000.00|
|COP5 sales of promotional articles||SFR 45,841.49|
|INAX/Kushiro Red Cross Volunteer Corps/ Rotor Act Club||SFR 17,911.75|
|1993: SFR 10,073.87|
|K.K. Krassons||SFR 5,713.47|
|1994: SFR 1,949.50|
|1995: SFR 1,591.00|
|NGO contribution||SFR 13,481.77|
|Soka Gakkai||SFR 11,500.00|
|Soroptimists International, Kushiro||SFR 5,773.01|
|Netherlands||Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management, and Fisheries||SFR 179,326.00|
1991: SFR 10,000.00
|1992: SFR 10,000.00|
|1994: SFR 10,000.00 (1993)|
|1994: SFR 20,073.50|
|1995: SFR 20,169.00|
|1996: SFR 19,183.50|
1997: SFR 45,900.00
|1998: SFR 44,000.00|
|New Zealand||Department of Conservation||SFR 3,957.00|
|1992: SFR 2,800.00|
|1996: SFR 1,157.00|
|Norway||Ministry of Environment||SFR 7,758.96|
|1991: SFR 2,222.96|
|1994: SFR 2,851.00|
|1995: SFR 2,685.00|
|Sweden||Ministry of the Environment||SFR 113,690.36|
|1991: SFR 4,789.85|
|1991: SFR 4,824.51 (1992)|
|1994: SFR 2,692.00|
|1995: SFR 2,692.00|
|1996: SFR 2,692.00|
|Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida)||SFR 774,503.93|
|1997: SFR 395,100.75|
|1998: SFR 132,403.18|
|1998: SEK 1,302,500, to be paid in early 1999, estimated at SFR 247,000.00|
|Switzerland||Office fédéral de l'Environnement, des forêts et du paysage||SFR 160,000.00 + 1998 pledge|
|1994: SFR 20,000.00|
|1995: SFR 20,000.00|
|1996: SFR 20,000.00|
|1997: SFR 100,000.00|
|1998: Pledged; amount to be confirmed|
|Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation||SFR 300,000.00|
|UK||Department of Environment||SFR 57,514.95|
|1991: SFR 12,500.00|
|1992: SFR 12,500.00|
|1993: SFR 12,500.00|
|1995: SFR 20,014.95 (1994)|
|USA||Department of State||SFR 410,375.00|
|1991: SFR 65,700.00|
|1992: SFR 146,250.00|
|1993: SFR 74,750.00|
|1994: SFR 66,600.00|
|1995: SFR 57,075.00|
|Fish and Wildlife Service||SFR 69,692.00|
|EHCSP||European Habitat Conservation Stamp Programme (Ducks Unlimited, Wetlands International and FACE)||SFR 13,500.00|
|1998 pledge (US$ 10,000)|
|WWF International||1990: SFR 20,000.00||SFR 82,500.00|
|1992: SFR 20,000.00|
|1993: SFR 7,500.00|
|1994: SFR 10,000.00|
|1995: SFR 5,000.00|
|1998: SFR 20,000.00|
|Core Budget Allocation||1991: SFR 10,000.00||SFR 520,000.00|
|1992: SFR 10,000.00|
|1993: SFR 10,000.00|
|1994: SFR 100,000.00|
|1995: SFR 100,000.00|
|1996: SFR 90,000.00|
|1997: SFR 100,000.00|
|1998: SFR 100,000.00|