The 10th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties (Ramsar, Iran, 1971)

Report of the Secretary General pursuant to Article 8.2 concerning the List of Wetlands of International Importance

1.    Article 8.2 of the Convention states that: “The continuing bureau duties [i.e. of the Ramsar Secretariat] shall be, inter alia : …

b)    to maintain the List of Wetlands of International Importance and to be informed by the Contracting Parties of any additions, extensions, deletions or restrictions concerning wetlands included in the List provided in accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 2 [note 1];

c)    to be informed by the Contracting Parties of any changes in the ecological character of wetlands included in the List provided in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 3 [note 2];

d)    to forward notification of any alterations to the List, or changes in character of wetlands included therein, to all Contracting Parties and to arrange for these matters to be discussed at the next Conference;

e)    to make known to the Contracting Party concerned, the recommendations of the Conferences in respect of such alterations to the List or of changes in the character of wetlands included therein.”

2.    The present report of the Secretary General conveys to the 10th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties the information requested under Article 8 concerning the List of Wetlands of International Importance (“Ramsar List”) since the close of Ramsar COP9 on 15 November 2005 and the preparation of this paper for COP9 as of 20 September 2005.

Additions, extensions or deletions to the List (Article 2.5)

3.    The Ramsar Secretariat maintains up to date the Ramsar List, always available in the Ramsar Web site (caxref:2073) and in hard copy in two versions: a) the basic List organized in alphabetical order of Contracting Parties with the name of the sites also in alphabetical order, date of designation, state/province where the site is located, area of the site, and geographical coordinates of the center-point of the site; and b) the Annotated List, which in addition contains a brief description of each site.

4.    In the case of the designation of new Ramsar sites or extension of the area of existing sites, once the Secretariat is satisfied that the Ramsar Information Sheet (RIS) and map for each new site or extension has been supplied by the Contracting Party in accordance with COP Resolutions on the required data for Ramsar sites (notably Resolution VIII.13), the Secretary General authorizes the addition or change in the List, the announcement is made to the public on the Ramsar Web site and the Ramsar Wetlands Forum e-mail list, as well as to each Contracting Party via the Ramsar Exchange in English, French, and Spanish, and an official letter and certificate confirming the addition to the List or extension of area is sent to the Party concerned.

5.    Pursuant to Article 8.2 (d), Annex 1 provides a list of the sites added to the List in the period under review, and Annex 2 lists those sites for which there has been a significant change in area since the close of COP9.

6.    Some 224 new Ramsar sites, covering 32,739,879 hectares, have designation dates between the preparation of this document for COP9 (20 September 2005) and 27 August 2008. Certain Ramsar sites have been added to the Ramsar List after COP9 but with designation dates, at the Parties’ instructions, before 20 September 2005 (for example, 16 sites in Algeria added to the List in January 2006 but with designation dates in December 2004), and these do not appear in Annex 1.

7.    The global total as of 27 August 2008 is 1,759 Ramsar sites covering a total of 161.3 million hectares. Only sites actually present on the Ramsar List on 27 August 2008 are included – several Parties, most notably Mexico, have announced the designation of additional sites but the necessary paperwork for these has not yet been completed. Very likely, some of these will be completed and added to the List prior to the opening of COP10.

8.    Annex 2 lists Ramsar sites for which the boundaries have been extended signficantly during the period under review, and it cites a few Ramsar sites for which a signficant increase or decrease in area is a result, not of a change in boundaries, but of a more precise boundary definition and/or a recalculation or correction of errors in the area of the site (Resolution VIII.21), usually with the benefit of more modern technology. Routine minor corrections of this type, frequently communicated in the updated RISs, have been noted on the Ramsar List but not mentioned here.

9.    No site has been deleted from the List during the period under consideration.

Restrictions to the List

10.    Two situations can arise concerning restrictions to the boundaries of sites on the Ramsar List: a) when a Party decides to invoke Article 2.5 of the Convention, which permits a Party to reduce the boundaries of a site for reasons of urgent national interests, and b) when a restriction is proposed for other reasons than “urgent national interest”. Concerning the latter, specific guidance on how to deal with sites or parts of sites that cease to fulfil or never fulfilled the Criteria for designation is provided in the annex to Resolution IX.6 (2005).

11.    A third situation concerns apparent boundary restrictions of sites in the Ramsar List where the original area figure has been changed since COP9 for reasons of more precise calculation, correction or rounding adjustment. With the increased availability of computerized Geographical Information Systems, site areas are nowadays calculated more accurately during the process of updating Ramsar site information. This can result in significantly different values where the area was only roughly estimated at the time of designation. Such sites are listed with the term “recalculation” in Annex 2. Despite the sometimes substantial change in the area figure, no real restriction or extension of the site boundary occurred in these cases.

12.    The Okavango Delta Ramsar site boundary and area have changed considerably because the boundary has been delineated more accurately, and this has led to more accurate measurement of the area rather than a reduction of the real area of the site. The original area submitted to the Secretariat in 1996 was a simple rectangular area around the Delta itself, making it, at 6,864,000 hectares, the largest Ramsar site in the world. The area of the surface enclosed by the new boundary is 5,537,400 ha, some 1,326,600 ha smaller than the original figure. Resolution VIII.21, para 9(a) covers cases like this one.

13.    Concerning restrictions involving Article 2.5, in 1998 the government of Germany invoked Article 2.5 of the Convention in a case involving the excision of 169 hectares (from a total of 675 hectares) of the Mühlenberger Loch Ramsar site, an extensive area of freshwater tidal mudflats on the Elbe River near Hamburg, to make room for expansion of the industrial complex of Airbus Industries (EADS), and it submitted a summary plan for compensatory measures. In September 2001 a Ramsar Advisory Mission visited the areas foreseen for compensation and discussed the issues in detail with the regional and national authorities (cf. the report on caxref:2077). At that time, it became clear that the proposed compensatory measures would not be completed for many years after the reduction of the Ramsar site, which took place in 2001. To date, the government of Germany has not submitted an updated RIS and an updated map showing the reduced boundaries of the Ramsar site. This should be accompanied by a consolidated report on the compensation measures taken under Article 4.2 and their effectiveness with regard to the wetland resources affected by the reduction, in line with Resolution VIII.20.

14.    In 2000, construction works began for the Kulevi oil terminal at the Black Sea coast inside the Central Wetlands of Kolkheti Ramsar site in Georgia. In 2005 the government invoked Article 2.5 in submitting a report on the “urgent national interests” for the Kulevi oil terminal construction, following the guidance provided through Resolution VIII.20. Subsequently, a Ramsar Advisory Mission in August 2005 provided extensive advice on the compensation measures to be developed and put into place (cf. http://www.ramsar.org/ index_ram.htm). In August 2008, the Minister of Environment submitted a report on the compensation measures implemented, together with an updated information sheet (RIS) and map, stressing that the Ramsar site boundaries were modified to coincide with the National Park boundaries. While this provides the Ramsar site with increased legal protection, a professional management authority and additional wet forest areas, the Secretariat is concerned about the proposed exclusion of the near-natural Rioni river mouth from the Ramsar site area. This is a disturbing fact after the Khobi river mouth has already been excluded in view of the heavy modificiations introduced to this ecosystem by the Kulevi terminal development. The Secretariat is in contact with the Administrative Authority to clarify this point.

15.    In 2002, it became clear that the government of Ukraine wished to reopen a deep water navigable waterway through the Danube delta inside the Ukrainian core zone of the Transboundary Biosphere Reserve and Ramsar site Kyliiske Mouth, a wetland ecosystem shared with Romania. A Ramsar Advisory Mission, conducted jointly with the UNESCO Man and Biosphere Programme, visited Ukraine in October 2003, evaluated three choices for the waterway, and provided advice on necessary impact assessments and compensation measures (cf. the report at caxref:2077). At the invitation of the Ramsar Secretariat and the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, an ad hoc meeting of representatives of Ukraine and Romania, several MEAs and international NGOs was hosted by UNEP in Geneva in September 2004 after the opening of the waterway shortly before. Since then, the secretariats of all MEAs concerned, as well as the European Commission, are dealing with this transboundary issue in a coordinated way. Their latest joint mission to Ukraine took place in July 2008. A detailed report will be available by the time of COP10. With Resolution IX.15, the Ramsar Parties at COP9 asked the government of Ukraine to suspend further works pending a full environmental impact assessment being conducted and its findings acted upon, to make available full documentation, to implement compensatory measures, and to work together with its neighbours in the Danube Delta (full text in Resolution IX.15, para 27 iv). To this, Ukraine’s Ministry of Environment provided a preliminary response on 5 June 2008, and the Secretariat is currently following up these points with them, based on the findings of the joint mission in July 2008.

16.    In July 2008, the government of the United Arab Emirates informed the Secretariat that an essential canal (Meydan Canal) would have to be constructed through Ras Al Kor Ramsar site, but that the developers had hired consultants to investigate ways of mitigation through rehabilitating many degraded areas within the Ramsar site, including the establishment of an education and research centre with a long-term financing mechanism. In addition, there would be no changes to the existing boundary of the Ramsar Site. The Secretariat replied that in principle and on the basis of the information provided, the proposal was in line with the terms and conditions of the Convention, in particular Article 3.2 and the guidance adopted pursuant to Article 3.2. The Secretariat is now consulting with the Administrative Authority on the proposal in relation to the Ramsar site, which might include seeking the advice of the Scientific and Technical Review Panel and a possible mission to the site.

Article 3.2 reports

17.    Article 3.2 of the Convention on Wetlands requires that “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 Secretariat]”.

18.    Annex 3a lists Ramsar sites in which human-induced negative changes to their ecological character have occurred, are occurring or are likely to occur, as reported by Parties in their COP10 National Reports. This includes 47 Ramsar sites in 26 countries.

19.    However, the Secretariat advises that it still receives only very few Article 3.2 reports from Administrative Authorities that fulfill the “without delay” terms of the Article. Rather, most Article 3.2 issues are first raised with the Secretariat by third parties – often local communities, scientific or research bodies, or nongovernmental organizations. In such cases, the standard practice of the Secretariat is to raise the matter with the relevant Administrative Authority to seek clarification of the issue and what actions if necessary are being taken to address it, and to request that the Party concerned make a formal report in line with Article 3.2 and consider, where appropriate, placing the site on the Montreux Record.

20.    The following responses have been received by the Secretariat during this triennium:

• ARGENTINA submitted a detailed report in June 2008 on the measures taken so far to improve the problem of overfishing at the Ramsar site Bahía de Samborombón.

• ARGENTINA also informed the Secretariat in June 2008 that the technical authorities are monitoring the possible impacts of a road construction near the Ramsar site Reserva Natural Otamendi.

• AUSTRIA reported that the proposed Danube-Oder-Elbe navigation canal and planned transport infrastructures may significantly change the ecological character of the Ramsar sites Donau-March-Thaya-Auen and Untere Lobau.

• BELARUS reported that the deterioration of ecological conditions and the reduction of water levels are threatening the Osveiski Ramsar site.

• COLOMBIA submitted a progress report in December 2007 on the ecological status of the Ramsar site Sistema Delta Estuarino del Río Magdalena, Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta.

• DENMARK (GREENLAND) provided preliminary information on the planned establishment of a runway, road and harbour possibly affecting Heden (Jameson Land) Ramsar site, Greenland’s most important moulting area for barnacle geese.

• HONDURAS is preparing a report on potential ecological change at the Ramsar site Parque Nacional Jeanette Kawas due to the construction of a golf resort. This follows a Secretariat visit to discuss solutions with the Administrative Authority in 2007.

• IRAQ has reported that it believes that the Hawizeh Marsh is in imminent danger of becoming hydrologically and ecologically stressed due to a reduction in flow entering the marsh as a result of the construction of dams in the rivers that flow from neighboring countries into the marsh.

• KENYA responded to the Secretariat’s requests for clarification about the threats to Lake Naivasha, the siltation in Lake Baringo, and conversion of the Tana delta and proposed sugar project there, and noted that these were valid concerns. The Ramsar Administrative Authority, Kenya Wildlife Service, convened a national consultative meeting to bring together all the key players concerned with these sites before submitting a proposal to list them in the Montreux Record. The consultative meeting decided that Lake Baringo and Lake Naivasha should be added to the Montreux Record, and KWS informed the Secretariat accordingly.

• LEBANON reported that a project has been implemented at Palm Island Nature Reserve Ramsar site intended to clean up the effects of an oil spill from a power plant during a war in 2006, and to assess the level of ecological impact to the site.

• MEXICO submitted a report on excessive water abstraction for agriculture and industrial activities, possibly affecting Ramsar site Área de Protección de Flora y Fauna Cuatrociénagas in April 2007.

• PERU submitted a report on its activities to avoid ecological changes at the Ramsar site Reserva Nacional de Paracas in February 2008.

• SLOVENIA reported on environmental impact assessments to avoid changes in the ecological character of Skocjan Caves Ramsar site due to new installations for drinking water supply, and on possible hunting impacts from the Croatian neighbourhood of the Secovlje salt pans.

• THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA reported through its National Ramsar Committee on eutrophication and the overexploitation of natural resources at the Prespa Lake Ramsar site.

21.    A list of 74 Ramsar sites in 26 countries which have been reported to the Secretariat in the first instance by third parties is provided in Annex 3b.

22.    The Secretariat also sometimes receives information about activities or policies affecting or likely to affect wetlands of recognized global significance but which have not been designated as Ramsar sites. Article 6.2(d) of the Convention tasks the Conference of the Parties “to make general or specific recommendations to the Contracting Parties regarding the conservation, management and wise use of wetlands and their flora and fauna”, and thus in such instances, where appropriate, the Secretariat raises these matters with the Parties concerned in order to inform any discussion and/or recommendations that the COP might wish to make. Examples of such requests for information include the Tana River delta in Kenya and Saemangeum in the Republic of Korea.

Montreux Record and Ramsar Advisory Missions

23.    Based on reports by Contracting Parties about changes at Ramsar sites (Article 3.2), since COP9 three Ramsar sites have been placed on the Montreux Record of sites where changes in ecological character have occurred, are occurring, or are likely to occur as a result of technological developments, pollution or other human interference.

• CHILE added Carlos Anwandter Sanctuary (Río Cruces) to the Montreux Record in October 2006 because of the large mortality of black-necked swans caused by waste discharge from an upstream cellulose factory. The Chilean government prepared an action plan for the Ramsar site in 2006 that includes programmes for monitoring, research and restoration of the site, as well as CEPA activities, legal framework and an ecosystem model that is ongoing.

• NICARAGUA requested the inclusion of the Sistema de Humedales de la Bahía de Bluefields in January 2007 because of potential ecological changes as a consequence of a proposed all-weather road from Nueva Guinea to Bluefields.

• KENYA submitted Montreux Record questionnaires for Lakes Baringo and Naivasha, as described above, and the Secretariat added both sites to the Record on 15 August 2008. Some question has arisen about whether the process was well understood by all parties, and at the time of the preparation of this paper discussions are ongoing about whether these will remain on the Record or require further consultations.

24.    Based upon completed questionnaires and formal requests for removal by the Parties concerned, after consultation with experts of Ramsar’s STRP, three Ramsar sites were successfully removed from the Montreux Record during this triennium.

• ITALY requested the removal of Stagno di Molentargius following successful habitat rehabilitation activities, the establishment of a local management consortium for the salt pan areas, and the installation of effective management measures. The site was removed on 2 July 2008.

• POLAND requested the removal of Jezioro Siedmiu Wysp after having installed new water management structures, thus restoring wetland habitats and improving agricultural practices in the surrounding areas. The Slonsk Reserve was designated as a National Park and provided with a management plan. Traditional cattle grazing was reintroduced for meadow management, and angling activities are now controlled. The site no longer suffers from early spring water deficits. Both Ramsar sites were removed from the Montreux Record on 5 November 2007.

25.    The Secretariat is in regular contact with all Administrative Authorities in charge of the 58 Ramsar sites remaining on the Montreux Record to clarify progress with local measures to avoid, compensate or mitigate ecological change and to prepare for their successful removal from the Record. Parties that have not recently submitted progress reports on the activities to improve the situation at these sites are encouraged to do so without delay. The Secretariat understands that, in some cases, removal from the Record only depends ipon the submission of a formal request for removal to the Secretariat, as the ecological problems have been successfully solved on site.

26.    The Standing Committee established the Ramsar Monitoring Procedure after COP3 in 1988 to give effect to Recommendation 3.9 on Change in ecological character of Ramsar sites. This procedure was since renamed the Ramsar Advisory Missions. Since COP9, three such missions have taken place.

• NICARAGUA. In July 2005 the government of Nicaragua informed the Ramsar Secretariat about potential ecological changes in the Bluefields Bay Wetland System, as a possible consequence of a proposed all-weather road from Nueva Guinea to Bluefields. In order to assess the potential impacts of the project on the ecological character of the wetlands and its ecosystem benefits/services, a Ramsar Advisory Mission (RAM) visited the area, consulted with government officials, NGOs and local communities, and reviewed a number of studies. The mission took place between 29 November and 8 December 2005, and the report is available at http://www.ramsar.org/ram/ram_rpt_57s.htm.

• SPAIN requested Ramsar’s advice regarding the new zoning plan adopted for the Albufera de Valencia Ramsar site, allowing for new urbanization developments, essentially for tourism. A Ramsar Advisory Mission took place in December 2006, and its report will soon be available at caxref:2077.

• TANZANIA requested Ramsar’s advice regarding the possible threats to Lake Natron Basin Ramsar site. Ramsar Advisory Mission (RAM) No. 59 took place in February 2008 to provide advice to the government concerning the wise use and future management of the site, with particular reference to the proposed development of a soda ash facility that would abstract liquid brine from Lake Natron and process it at a nearby site. The RAM held wide-ranging consultations with local, district, national, regional and international stakeholders in Dar es Salaam, Arusha, Longido, Loliondo, and a number of villages/locations in the area. The full report of the mission is available at caxref:3017.

27.    In recent communication with the Secretariat, or in their National Reports to COP10, the following three Parties have requested to benefit from a Ramsar Advisory Mission in the near future.

• BULGARIA requested in its National Report to COP10 that the Secretariat organise a mission to advise on management problems of Durankulak Lake Ramsar site, listed on the Montreux Record since June 1993, and adjacent territories on the Black Sea coast.

• KENYA requested a Ramsar Advisory Mission as part of the discussions concerning the ongoing threats to Lake Baringo and Lake Naivasha.

• PANAMA requested a Ramsar Advisory Mission to recommend the best ways to address the threats to four of its Ramsar sites.

Annex 1

Ramsar Sites designated since COP9

In sum, 224 new Ramsar sites, covering 32,739,879 hectares, have designation dates between the preparation of the equivalent report to COP9 (20 September 2005) and 27 August 2008.

Notes:
1)     Certain Ramsar sites were added to the Ramsar List after COP9 but with designation dates, at the Parties’ instructions, before 20 September 2005 (for example, 16 sites in Algeria added to the List in January 2006 but with designation dates in December 2004. These do not show up on this list.
2)     Only sites actually present on the Ramsar List on 27 August 2008 are included – several Parties, most notably Mexico, have announced the designation of additional sites but the necessary paperwork for these has not yet been completed. Very likely, some of these will be finalized and added to the List prior to the opening of COP10.

Annex 2

List of Ramsar sites where the original area figures have been significantly changed since COP9 for reasons of extension of boundaries or recalculation of the existing boundaries using improved technology. (Minor adjustments have not been included.)

Annex 3a

List of Ramsar sites in which human-induced negative changes have occurred, are occurring or are likely to occur (Article 3.2), as indicated in COP10 National Reports

Note. This annex includes only those cases reported in National Reports received by the time of this analysis.

Annex 3b

List of Ramsar sites for which first reports of human-induced negative changes having occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur (Article 3.2) were received by the Secretariat from third parties and followed-up with the Administrative Authorities

Notes