Report of the 3rd Conference of the Parties, Regina, 1987

Conference Report of the 3rd Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties

The 3rd Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties
Regina, Canada
27 May - 5 June 1987

First Session: 27 May 1987, 09h35 - 12h00
Chairman: Mr. D. Sherratt
Secretariat: Mr. D. Navid (Secretary-General of the Conference), Mr. M. Smart (Assistant Secretary-General of the Conference)
Rapporteurs: Mr. A.J. Mence, Mr. Z.J. Karpowicz

Agenda item I: Opening of Meeting by Representatives of the Government of Canada

Mr. D. Sherratt, Director, Wildlife Branch, Saskatchewan Parks, Recreation and Culture, nominated by the delegation of Canada as provisional Chairman, opened the Meeting and after greeting the participants introduced the Hon. Pauline Browes, M.P., Parliamentary Secretary to the Hon. Tom McMillan, Federal Minister of Environment. On behalf of the Minister of Environment she welcomed all participants to Canada, and assured them of the Government’s commitment to the conservation of wetlands and of its support for the Convention. The Government recognized the need to strengthen the Convention, especially through an effective secretariat and improvements to the present text. She wished the Conference success in making progress in these matters.

The Chairman then introduced the Hon. Jack Klein, Minister of Urban Affairs, Province of Saskatchewan.

Mr. Klein welcomed the participants on behalf of the Premier and people of Saskatchewan. As a former Minister of Tourism, he felt a sense of pride in Saskatchewan’s achievements in conservation and its commitment to conserving wetlands and to the Convention.

Having thanked the Hon. Ministers for their welcome and encouragement, the Chairman invited the representative of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco) to address the Conference.

Dr. John Donaldson, Office of Legal Affairs, representing Dr. Bernd von Droste, Director, Division of Ecological Sciences, conveyed, on behalf of the Director General, Unesco’s good wishes to the Parties for a successful meeting. He confirmed Unesco’s willing support for the Convention, both as Depositary and through promotion of international cooperation. In particular, links were being strengthened between activities under the Ramsar Convention and those under both the Man and the Biosphere Programme and the Convention on the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Indeed, many important wetland areas had also been designated as Biosphere Reserves and/or as natural sites under the World Heritage Convention. Together these provided mutually reinforcing actions at local, national and international levels in terms of social involvement, science, education and promotion. He wished the Parties success in their deliberations.

The Chairman thanked Dr. Donaldson for Unesco’s support and good wishes; he then invited the representative of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to address the Conference.

Ms. Judy Johnson expressed UNEP’s appreciation of the opportunity to participate in the meeting. UNEP cooperated with IUCN, IWRB and Unesco in promoting implementation of the Ramsar Convention, and had a central role in implementing two conventions which were complementary to it, providing secretariats for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS or Bonn Convention). As many species of waterfowl were migratory, the latter was of particular relevance to wetland conservation and gave opportunities for the conclusion of agreements with other range States concerning migratory species using wetlands.

The Chairman thanked Ms. Johnson for UNEP’s support and then invited the representative of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) to address the Conference.

Dr. Kenton Miller, Director General, confirmed the importance IUCN placed upon the Ramsar Convention mobilizing international effort to conserve wetland habitats for nature conservation and human development needs. As the first of modern global nature conservation treaties, the Convention had initial structural deficiencies needing a lengthy process to redress, and this meeting could provide a significant step in this process. IUCN had been gratified by the confidence of the Contracting Parties in conferring upon it the responsibility for Bureau duties in collaboration with IWRB, and hoped that further measures would be taken to assure fully effective secretariat services. He expressed appreciation for support already provided, emphasized IUCN’s continuing commitment to the Convention, and wished success in the coming deliberations.

The Chairman thanked Dr. Miller for IUCN’s efforts and good wishes; then invited the representative of the International Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau (IWRB) to address the Conference.

Professor Geoffrey Matthews, Executive Director, after welcoming participants to the Conference, traced the development of the Convention from its conception at the MAR Conference 25 years ago, and spoke of the leading role of IWRB which had produced the first draft of a convention in 1963, together with an eight-point plan. On the basis of these, the Dutch Government had prepared a draft which had been examined at an intergovernmental conference in 1968. From this had arisen an alternative text sponsored by the Soviet Government. IWRB had then produced a composite text from the two drafts which had been refined by a technical conference. The decision had been taken that IWRB in association with IUCN should operate the new convention on behalf of the Parties as an alternative to setting up a self-contained, relatively costly secretariat. The final form had been reached at the Ramsar Conference. He emphasized the present need for urgent action to give further support for the operation of the Convention and wished the Parties success.

The Chairman thanked Professor Matthews for IWRB’s efforts and good wishes, then invited the representative of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) to address the Conference.

Dr. Luc Hoffmann, WWF Vice-President, affirmed that wetland conservation was one of WWF’s high priorities; two million Canadian dollars having been already devoted to it for this year alone for 44 projects on 5 continents. He expressed admiration for what the Convention had achieved with very little means, but distress at the loss of opportunities because of the inadequacy of funds. Although keen to do more, WWF was frustrated that so many Parties felt unable to share costs of this important effort, and looked to the Conference to provide adequate structure and funding. He observed that the Convention had evolved to be a useful tool for sustainable development, contributing to productivity, diversity of human habitat and preservation of ecological processes in both industrialized and developing countries. In conclusion he expressed particular pleasure in conveying the following message from the President of WWF, HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh:

The Chairman brought to the attention of the Conference the Rules of Procedure document C.3.3 (Rev.) and a further document which had been made available immediately prior to the start of the First Session of the Conference entitled "Note from the Task Force: Amendments Proposed by the Contracting Parties to the Documents Prepared by the Bureau on the Instructions of the Task Force". The Secretary-General informed the Conference of two further adjustments to the text of document C.3.3 (Rev.), concerning Rule 2 - Observers, paragraph (2) (b) last line and Rule 10 - Submission of Proposals and Amendments Thereto, paragraph (2), lines two and three. In the first case the words "Parties decide" should be replaced by "Conference decides". In the second case, the words "Delegates participating in the Conference so decide" should be replaced by the words "Conference so decides".

The Chairman invited the delegation of the Netherlands, Convenor of the Task Force, to present a brief report on the preparation of document C.3.3 (Rev.). The delegation of the Netherlands explained the deliberations of the Task Force on this subject and noted that an effort had been made to provide a permanent basis for Rules of Procedure for future meetings of the Conference. He noted that an opportunity had been given for every Contracting Party to submit comments to the Task Force. Written comments submitted had been incorporated as fully as possible. The delegation of the Netherlands invited Contracting Parties to adopt document C.3.3 (Rev.) with the two adjustments noted above as Rules of Procedure for the Conference.

The Conference then adopted document C.3.3 (Rev.) with the two adjustments as Rules of Procedure for the Conference without debate.

The delegation of Norway proposed the provisional Chairman, Mr. D. Sherratt, of the delegation of Canada, for election as Chairman of the Third Meeting of the Conference. The delegation of Australia seconded the proposal.

The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany proposed Mr. V. Koester, from the delegation of Denmark, for election as one Vice-Chairman of the Conference. The delegation of the Netherlands seconded the proposal.

The delegation of the Netherlands proposed Mr. A.L. Rao, from the delegation of Pakistan, for election as one Vice-Chairman of the Conference. The delegation of Tunisia seconded the proposal.

The delegation of Jordan stressed the desirability of electing Vice-Chairmen from both Asia and Europe. The Secretary-General pointed out that the newly adopted Rules of Procedure provided for the election of two Vice-Chairmen and that these two nominations adequately covered the point raised by the delegation of Jordan.

The Conference by consensus elected Mr. D. Sherratt as Chairman of the Third Meeting of the Conference and Mr. V. Koester and Mr. A.L. Rao as Vice-Chairmen of the Third Meeting of the Conference.

Pursuant to Rules 3(3) and 21 of the Rules of Procedure the Chairman invited proposals for appointment to a Credentials Committee consisting of five delegates.

The delegation of New Zealand proposed a member of the delegation of Australia for appointment to the Credentials Committee. The delegation of Ireland seconded the proposal.

The delegation of Norway proposed a member of the delegation of Suriname for appointment to the Credentials Committee. The delegation of Portugal seconded the proposal.

The delegation of Pakistan proposed a member of the delegation of Canada for appointment to the Credentials Committee. The delegation of Sweden seconded the proposal.

The delegation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics proposed a member of the delegation of Hungary for appointment to the Credentials Committee. The delegation of Finland seconded the proposal.

The delegation of Canada proposed a member of the delegation of France for appointment to the Credentials Committee. The delegation of the United States of America seconded the proposal.

The Conference appointed a Credentials Committee by consensus consisting of members of the delegations of Australia, Canada, France, Hungary and Suriname.

Pursuant to Rule 2 of the Rules of Procedure, the Secretary-General noted that provision was made for participation in the meeting of the Conference by international agencies or bodies, and national governmental and approved non-governmental agencies or bodies, provided the Contracting Parties present did not decide otherwise. He further pointed out that the Annex to document C.3.14 listed bodies and agencies which had informed the Bureau of their desire to be represented at the Meeting by observers. This list was subsequently expanded to include the addition of CIC (Conseil International de la Chasse et de la Conservation du Gibier), Ducks Unlimited Inc. (USA), Ducks Unlimited Canada, the Saskatchewan Parks, Recreation, and Culture Department, and WWF-USA.

The Chairman invited the Secretary-General to present a brief report on the developments under the Convention since the Second Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties (Groningen, Netherlands, May 1984). The Secretary-General drew the attention of the Conference to the Report of the Convention Bureau, document C.3.4, which he proceeded to review, highlighting points of particular importance. With reference to Section II of the report he mentioned that Niger had recently acceded to the Convention and that in addition to Egypt and Mali, Bolivia and Uganda were in the process of finalizing their accession procedures. The Secretary-General informed the Conference on the status of the Ramsar List. It was dealt with in Section IV and presented as document INF. C.3.3. Two new important designations were noted: the designation of the Danish sector of the Waddensea and the designation of "W" National Park by Niger. Document INF. C.3.4 had been published as the "Directory of Wetlands of International Importance". This was an update of the draft Directory submitted to the Second Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties in Groningen. Being computerized the information could be continually and rapidly updated and corrected and users of the Directory were urged to notify the IUCN Conservation Monitoring Centre of any changes. Owing to a lack of funding the Directory was presently available only in English although it was hoped that other language versions might be produced at a later date.

Bureau communications with the Contracting Parties had been formalized through Notifications. To ensure the continued smooth transmittal of information all Contracting Parties were urged to check the addresses given for the focal points in each country as they appeared in document INF. C.3.l0 and to inform the Convention Bureau of any changes.

In relation to Section IX of the report, the Secretary-General wished to register IUCN’s deep appreciation for the generosity, support and cooperation given by the Government of Canada in the preparations for the Regina Conference. The Secretary-General mentioned a number of promotional cooperative activities which had taken place or were continuing, including the preparation of a series of continental directories of important wetlands (Neotropical, Australasian, African and Asian) and the trilingual Ramsar Brochure.

During the period under review voluntary contributions to the Convention Bureau had been received and these had been detailed in document C.3.4. Annex. In addition to these, a number of countries (Federal Republic of Germany, France, Sweden and the United States of America) had offered significant support in kind and indirectly towards the preparation for the Regina Conference. A contribution from Tunisia earmarked for 1986 had only just surfaced and would be incorporated into the 1987 accounts. The Secretary-General concluded that much had been accomplished but that much more needed to be done.

On the invitation of the Chairman the delegation of the Netherlands, as convenor of the Task Force, presented a brief report (document C.3.5) on the work of the Ramsar Convention Task Force. The delegation of the Netherlands proposed that the Conference accept the report, and at the same time expressed its gratitude to the other members of the Task Force, to those countries which had put forward comments and to the IUCN and IWRB for their supportive role during meetings and deliberations of the Task Force.

The Chairman added his compliments and invited Contracting Parties to comment on the report. The delegation of Australia expressed its great appreciation to the Task Force for its highly professional work and for the preparation of a commendable report.

Second Session: 27 May 1987, 14h45 - 17h00
Chairman: Mr. D. Sherratt
Secretariat: Mr. M. Smart (Assistant Secretary-General of the Conference)
Rapporteurs Mr. Z.J. Karpowicz, Ms. C. Pirrie (Assistant Rapporteur)

In line with the provisions of Article 6, paragraph 2(c) of the Convention, six international audio-visual reports were presented, which focused upon the status of wetlands, wetland species and particular conservation concerns in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Europe. The Chairman invited the Assistant Secretary-General to introduce the speakers. The Assistant Secretary-General stressed that the presentations were not intended to detract from the Review of National Reports due to be given on 2 and 3 June but to provide an overview of global wetland problems and experiences.

The full texts of all four papers will be included in the Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties.

Third Session: 1 June 1987, 11h15 - 12h15
Chairman: Mr. D. Sherratt
Secretariat: Mr. D. Navid (Secretary-General of the Conference), Mr. M. Smart (Assistant Secretary-General of the Conference)
Rapporteurs: Mr. A.J. Mence, Mr. R. Osterwoldt

The Chairman opened the meeting and drew attention to the start of Canada’s Environment Week that morning.

The Secretary-General apologized for the omission of the document number from the French version of PLEN. C.3.l. He announced two spelling errors to be corrected as follows:

Document PLEN. C.3.l: for Mr. D. Sherrat read Mr. D. Sherratt throughout, and on page 3 paragraph 3: for Dr. Luc Hoffman read Dr. Luc Hoffmann.

He apologized to the individuals concerned and assured them that the necessary corrections would be made.

The Chairman then presented the reports of the two preceding plenary sessions, PLEN. C.3.l and PLEN. C.3.2.

The Chairman of the Credentials Committee, Mr. A. M�gret of France, reported that 27 credentials had been found in order and that confirmation of the credentials of one other delegation was awaited and would be the subject of a further report.

The Chairman of the Extraordinary Conference, Mr. V. Koester, Denmark, explained that this item had been included on the assumption that the Extraordinary Conference would have been concluded. This was not the case, but all information was already available to Parties through their own participation and the two reports issued (document PLEN. E.2.l and PLEN. E.2.2).

The Chairman of the Task Force, Mr. F. van Rijckevorsel of the Netherlands, drew attention to wording discrepancies in document C.3.7, which were explained by the Secretary-General as follows:

The Chairman of the Task Force continued his report by explaining that the Task Force had examined various options for securing secretariat functions. A questionnaire had been circulated to various organizations which might have been prepared to provide such service, but only IUCN and IWRB had given a positive response, supported moreover with an activity analysis and costings. The options theoretically possible were: 1) an autonomous unit specially established by the Parties, 2) a Contracting Party, 3) an existing international organization, 4) a unit formed in an existing organization, responsible to and funded by the Parties. The Task Force had pursued the fourth option as the most promising, formed by a joint arrangement with IUCN and IWRB. It believed the other options to be more costly and less effective, and recommended accordingly.

The Secretary-General explained that document C.3.7 contained the conclusions of the Task Force as circulated by Bureau Notification 85/9 of November 1985. He confirmed that the Convention already permitted such an arrangement and said that representatives of both IUCN and � IWRB were available to sign an agreement as called for in document C.3.7.

The unit within IUCN would have prime responsibility for administrative and diplomatic matters, while that of IWRB would have prime responsibility for technical, scientific and promotional matters. although interchange would take place as appropriate.

The Chairman noted that this presentation of the Task Force recommendation constituted a proposal by the delegation of the Netherlands. The Netherlands agreed and the proposal was seconded by the delegation of Pakistan.

The observer from IUCN stated that policy established by the IUCN General Assembly and instructions from the IUCN Council gave him authority to sign the Memorandum of Agreement as presented.

The observer from IWRB confirmed his organization’s readiness to co-operate with IUCN in support of the Convention and to sign the Memorandum of Agreement.

The delegation of France confirmed its approval of the proposal, and recommended that Secretariat posts should be widely advertised to attract best recruits.

The delegation of Spain expressed hope for general agreement to the proposal, but observed that, although it provided for IWRB’s function in monitoring and scientific services, it should be recognized that Member States had this responsibility. Such work might be done to best advantage in the areas under investigation using local resources, expertise and training opportunities. IUCN also had a wide network of expert consultants. Some of the budgetary provision should be available to enable these potential resources to be tapped.

The delegation of the United Kingdom endorsed the general principle of the Task Force’s recommendations, but questioned whether the Standing Committee would be responsible to the Conference. Regarding the Draft Memorandum of Agreement, the delegation considered that there should be greater uniformity of terminology between and within the Draft Resolution on Secretariat Matters and the Draft Memorandum of Agreement, using the terms "administrative", "scientific" and "technical" support as appropriate.

The delegation of Australia expressed support for the principle of a shared secretariat, but considered that the legal obligations implied would require written acceptance by IUCN and IWRB to the Depositary.

The Chairman requested the Task Force to work together with concerned delegations outside the meeting to refine as necessary the provisions of document C.3.7 and report accordingly to a future session.

Fourth Session: 1 June 1987, 14h15 - 17h15
Chairman: Mr. D. Sherratt
Secretariat: Mr. D. Navid (Secretary-General of the Conference), Mr. M. Smart (Assistant Secretary-General of the Conference)
Rapporteurs: Mr. R.Osterwoldt, Mr. Z. Karpowicz

The discussion of document C.3.7. on secretariat matters continued at 14h15. The Secretary-General clarified a number of questions raised earlier. The observer from WWF-USA had pointed out an apparent inconsistency in the draft resolution on secretariat matters between the first preambular paragraph which included the words "IUCN as the Bureau" and the operative sub-paragraph 1(a) which stated that "IUCN shall establish a Convention Bureau". The Secretary-General suggested new wording as follows:

and suggested the substitution of "IUCN" for the word "Bureau" in the second and third preambular paragraphs.

The delegation of Australia had suggested that the Director-General of IUCN and the Director of IWRB write letters to the Director-General of Unesco as the Convention’s Depositary to show their acceptance of commitments assigned to them by the Conference of the Contracting Parties. The representative of Unesco suggested that, as the Depositary normally circulated only notifications from Member States or Parties, such acceptance of duties might be more conveniently recorded in the formal report and thereby taken note of by the Conference of the Contracting Parties. The delegation of Australia stated that Unesco as Depositary could simply circulate such formal letters of acceptance to avoid the potential awkwardness of IUCN circulating a letter about its own obligations.

The delegation of Spain had requested clarification of the draft Memorandum of Agreement (document C.3.7, Attachment 1, operative paragraph 1) and the words "monitoring and scientific advisory services". It also expressed concern about the words "subject to the availability of funds" in operative paragraphs 4 and 5, suggesting that the reference to the instructions of the Conference of the Parties, as provided in the Convention budget, should be adequate. Further, he suggested that the last sentence of operative paragraph 7 be deleted.

Upon the explanation of the Secretary-General that the monitoring referred to in operative paragraph 1) was not meant to imply any monitoring of the Parties but rather a continuing preparation of the information on wetland sites, such as shadow lists, the delegation of Spain further clarified its position as follows. Certain scientific support and services would be needed, which would be of two kinds: first those of a continuing and permanent nature to be carried out by units of the Convention Bureau, which should be defined and specified in the Memorandum of Agreement between the IUCN and IWRB, and second those of an occasional and temporary nature providing scientific services in the field as the need arose in particular areas or concerning particular subjects. The advantages of such a dual provision of scientific services were that where long-standing and homogenous monitoring was required, permanent units would be in place, and in particular problem areas, staff and services funded by all Parties would return to those countries affected by the problem as a positive reinvestment of their contributions to the Convention.

The delegation of Spain proposed the following amended wording of operative paragraph 1):

The observer from IWRB suggested that the amendment of the delegation of Spain could not restrict the activity of the IWRB as set out in the draft Memorandum of Agreement operative paragraph 1) but rather that the Spanish amendment should be directed at operative paragraph 2).

The delegation of the United Kingdom associated itself with the concerns of the delegation of Spain that the Task Force recommendation had not been fully reflected in the draft Memorandum of Agreement. Regarding its earlier comment on the definition of the Bureau, the delegation reiterated its concept of a single Bureau with two units, one located within IUCN and the other located within IWRB, both of which were independent of the IUCN and IWRB and whose workplan and budget were the responsibility of the Conference of the Contracting Parties. The delegation of the United Kingdom proposed amended wording to the draft resolution on secretariat matters (document C.3.7 Annex, operative paragraph 1(a) and (c)) as follows:

The delegation of the United Kingdom stated that the current reference in paragraph 1 (c) to a cooperative agreement between .IUCN and IWRB should be retained in some form in a later paragraph.

The delegation of Tunisia suggested that to avoid delay the amendment be drafted by proposing delegations in conjunction with the Secretariat and the Task Force.

The delegation of Switzerland supported the delegation of Tunisia by suggesting that the proposals of the delegations of Spain and the United Kingdom be discussed before the text of either the Memorandum of Agreement or the resolution be redrafted. It noted that the United Kingdom concept of two units did not appear to be in accord with the Ramsar Convention Article 8 which specified IUCN as the organization entrusted with the task of performing Bureau duties. Activity by the IWRB should still be under the responsibility and guidance of the IUCN as clearly stated in the draft resolution (document C.3.7, Annex, operative paragraph 1 (e)).

The delegation of Australia interpreted Article 8 as entrusting IUCN with the duties until such time as a new organization was created, and asked whether the Bureau as constituted by this Conference of the Contracting Parties would be a "new organization".

The Secretary-General reminded delegations that the Task Force had rejected the option of a new organization in recommending that the Bureau duties be performed by existing organizations. The actual units of the Bureau would be independent of the IUCN and the IWRB but would remain under their administrative direction; they would not be legally separate entities.

The delegation of Chile emphasized that the functions of the units should be very specifically delineated to avoid overlap, because current Contracting Parties and potential new Contracting Parties would require clarity.

The delegation of Greece emphasized the necessity for the Bureau to support all activities entrusted to it by the Conference of the Contracting Parties, not just in the provision of information. Active co-operation between the Bureau and competent national authorities should focus on wetland management projects and should include technical support, bibliography and exchange of experiences.

The Chairman invited the delegation of Sweden to present document C.3.8 on financial and budgetary matters. The delegation of Sweden said that the Task Force of the Contracting Parties had prepared a triennial budget, and urged the Conference of the Contracting Parties to adopt the draft resolution on financial and budgetary matters set out in the Annex to document C.3.8. In addition, the delegation of Sweden referred delegations to attachments to document C.3.8 as follows:

The Chairman invited the delegation of Tunisia to comment on the scale of contributions in Attachment 2. The delegation of Tunisia indicated that contributions were based on the capacity of Contracting Parties to contribute to the budget. The United Nations schedule formed the basis for distribution of percentage shares of the total budget to individual Contracting Parties. The annual share was one third of the estimated costs over the three-year period of the budget as set out in Attachment 1.

The Secretary-General presented detailed comments on the budget, which he stated had been drawn up by the Bureau on instructions from the Task Force. He referred to the Note from the Task Force which proposed that the Contracting Parties add two paragraphs to the Annex to document c.3.8 as follows:

The Secretary-General indicated several minor amendments to the draft resolution text in consequence of the amendments adopted in the Extraordinary Conference as follows:

The Secretary-General explained the itemized budget. A readjustment of the estimated costs in the budget set out in Attachment 1 had been necessitated because of the fall of the United States dollar as against the Swiss franc and the British pound and therefore Attachment 1 (Rev.) was presented. Salary costs were based on the civil service salary scales in Switzerland and the United Kingdom and were less than salaries of United Nations staff. An increase of 7% per year had been provided for as a precautionary measure.

Travel on official business was necessary. The purchase of equipment allocation was predicated on the assumption that the IUCN and IWRB would provide basic equipment. The estimated cost for administrative services by IUCN and IWRB was not meant to represent rent but rather to cover overhead for facilities used such as mail service, library, and computer equipment and had been calculated on the basis of experience that such administrative services amounted to 24% of the salary component and approximately 11% of the entire budget. The need for telecommunications was self-evident. With respect to the allocation of US$ 15,000 per year for reporting, the Secretary-General suggested that that might be somewhat low and stated that translation of Convention documents was only in the two official languages currently used, English and French.

Budget item 8 provided support to delegations especially from developing countries to travel to Conferences of the Contracting Parties and other meetings such as those of the Standing Committee.

Budget item 10 provided for a contingency fund which could cover costs as required in the case of delays or short-falls in contributions. The Secretary-General referred to paragraph 8 of the Terms of Reference, which provided that the Standing Committee could authorize the transfer of funds between budget lines to cover short-falls in a particular budget line.

The Secretary-General presented Attachment 3 to document C.3.8, Terms of Reference for the financial administration of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat. These Terms of Reference were based on those for two other conservation conventions - CITES (Endangered Species Trade) and CMS (Migratory Species), and included provision for a separate account, a financial period of three years, transfer of funds between budget lines, and audits.

The Secretary-General presented Attachment 4 to document C.3.a, a budget for 1988 to 1990 with estimated costs expressed in Swiss francs which was a more constant currency than U.S. dollars.

The Secretary-General presented Attachment 5 to document C.3.8, a chart of contributions under the International Global Conservation Conventions comparing the Ramsar proposed budget with the budgets of the World Heritage, Migratory Species and CITES Conventions. Attachment 5 (Rev.) had been necessitated by the receipt of the CITES proposed budget for 1988-89.

The Chairman invited comments of the delegations on Attachment 3 to document C.3.8, the Terms of Reference.

The delegation of the United Kingdom, supported by the delegation of the United States, proposed an amendment of the wording of operative paragraphs 7 and 8 to delete the word "advice" and substitute the word "approval" before the words "of the Standing Committee".

The observer of WWF-USA asked why contributions by non-governmental organizations should be screened by the Conference of the Contracting Parties as indicated in paragraph 2 b), and agreed with the Secretary-General’s subsequent explanation that such screening to ensure appropriate contributions should be by the Standing Committee as successfully done under the CITES Convention.

The Chairman noted that there were no further comments from the floor and that Attachment 3 to document C.3.8 would be tabled, as amended, for approval at a later session.

The Chairman invited comments on the budget as set out in Attachment 1 (Rev.) and Attachment 4 to document C.3.8.

The delegation of Ireland suggested that staff costs hidden in item 5 be quantified and included in item 1, and that the contingency fund should only amount to 5% of the total budget.

The delegation of the USSR stated that its country and perhaps other countries were unfortunately not in a position to comment on financial and budgetary matters. It noted that at the Meeting in Groningen, the Conference of the Contracting Parties had decided that those countries which did not sign the Paris Protocol would not be Parties to the Ramsar Convention as amended, but only Parties to the original text of the Ramsar Convention. Since some countries had not as yet signed the Paris Protocol and because the original text of the Ramsar Convention contained no articles which dealt with financial or administrative questions or with the amendment of the Convention text, it remarked that those countries could not discuss financial and budgetary details, and that this explained the current inability of the delegation of the USSR to offer suggestions on this agenda item.

The delegation of the United States sought clarification on the following points:

The Secretary-General responded to the request of the delegation of the United States as follows:

The Director General of IUCN confirmed that it was general policy at IUCN to share such costs and that 24% of salary costs or 11% of the total budget would cover the costs anticipated under item 5. The delegation of the IWRB agreed.

The delegation of the United States expressed satisfaction with those responses.

The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany stated that the budget was well done in general but perhaps too generous on some points upon which changes were proposed as follows:

The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany suggested that thereby some US$ 35,000 per year could be saved.

The delegation of France suggested that because exchange rate fluctuations might be advantageous rather than disadvantageous, in the case where they might be advantageous a fund should be opened to cover short-falls which would otherwise be covered by the proposed contingency fund.

The delegation of Tunisia stated that because of the need to encourage more participation by developing countries in the Convention, the current allocation of US$ 20,000 per year for item 8, "Support to delegates for meeting participation", was insufficient.

The delegation of Morocco expressed agreement with Tunisia but suggested that any increased allocation for item 8 should not be made at the cost of item 7, reporting, which was also of great importance to disseminate information and increase awareness about the aims and activities under the Convention.

The delegation of Denmark differed with the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany on whether the budget estimated costs needed reduction. It would not favour cuts in staff costs and would increase estimated costs for telecommunications and reporting. Generally it was content with the budget allocations as presented.

Fifth Session: 2 June 1987, 09h05 - 12h15
Chairmen: Mr. V. Koester (to 10h20), Mr. D. Sherratt (from 11h00)
Secretariat: Mr. D. Navid (Secretary-General of the Conference), Mr. M. Smart (Assistant Secretary-General of the Conference)
Rapporteurs: Mr. A.J. Mence, Mr. Z.J. Karpowicz, Ms. C. Pirrie

The Chairman opened the session at 09h05 and invited the Secretary-General to inform the Conference of the latest developments concerning document C.3.7.

The Secretary-General explained that an expanded Task Force meeting which had taken place the previous night had prepared document C.3.7 Rev. incorporating points arising from that day’s Plenary Session.

Several minor amendments had been made to the Annex to document C.3.7. The first paragraph of that document had been brought into line with the Convention text and "IUCN" was substituted for the word "Bureau" in the second and third preambular paragraphs.

There had been changes to sub-paragraphs (a) and (b). These two sub-paragraphs had been amended to read as follows:

Sub-paragraphs (f) and (g) had been amended by replacing the reference to "Switzerland" and the "United Kingdom" respectively with the phrases "the country where IUCN is located" and "the country where IWRB is located". "Contracting" had been added before the word "Parties" where appropriate. In sub-paragraph (c) the words "monitoring and" had been deleted.

In Attachment 1 to the Annex of document C.3.7, the word "DRAFT" had been added before the words "MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT", and IWRB’s name had been amended to include "and Wetlands". Paragraphs 1 and 2 had been simplified to remove policy statements, leaving only a factual account of the relationship between IUCN and IWRB. Finally, the last sentence in paragraph 7 had been deleted.

The Chairman suggested that further interventions from the floor were unnecessary as a very full discussion of the amendments had already taken place.

The delegation of Canada pointed out that IWRB’s title had not been amended in the signature section of the Draft Memorandum of Agreement.

The observer from IWRB proposed the addition of the words "technical and" between the words "provide" and "scientific" in line 3 of sub-paragraph (c) on page 2 of the Draft Resolution.

These amendments met with the general approval of the Conference and the Draft Resolution was adopted by consensus.

The Chairman then referred to the Draft Memorandum of Agreement and invited the Secretary-General to clarify a point raised earlier by the delegation of Spain concerning paragraph 3 on page 2 of Attachment 1.

The Secretary-General explained that the final sentence in paragraph 3 was thought necessary because the budget and procedures had not yet been established and uncertainties remained on the future flow of funds into the Convention budget.

The delegation of Spain stated the opinion that the sentence should be removed. The Chairman asked if any delegation seconded this proposal. There was none and paragraph 3 remained unchanged.

The delegation of Canada asked for a clarification of the exact title of the chief executive officer of IWRB, as it appeared in paragraph 2 of the Draft Memorandum of Agreement. The observer from IWRB stated that the correct title was "Executive Director", and that in addition the word "Wetland" in the title of IWRB was plural. The Chairman noted these amendments, adding that the words "United Kingdom" in paragraph 3 be replaced by the words "country where it is located".

With these amendments the Draft Memorandum of Agreement was approved by consensus.

The Chairman invited comments on the Budget 1988-1990 as set out in Attachment 1 (Rev.) to document C.3.8, pointing out that only a short time was available for further discussion. The delegation of Switzerland stated that the Chairman should provide Contracting Parties with the opportunity to put forward proposals concerning financial and budgetary matters. The Chairman confirmed that this was not the last session at which there would be an opportunity to discuss the budget.

The delegation of Norway, speaking also on behalf of the delegation of Finland, and concurring with a statement by the delegation of Denmark the previous day, stated that both countries could accept the budget but felt that it was a minimum one. Referring to item 2, expert services, the delegation of Norway suggested that, in addition to the permanent Bureau’s capabilities in this field, expert outside advice would be required and suggested that the budget for this item be increased. The delegation of Norway further suggested that the budget item 7, reporting, be increased from US$15,000 to US$30,000. It also agreed with statements by the delegations of Morocco and Tunisia with regard to increasing the amount in budget item 8. It pointed out that the sum presently envisaged was only twice the amount expended by Norway in supporting delegates from developing countries at the present Meeting of the Conference.

The Chairman then invited comments on Attachment 2 to document C.3.8, emphasizing that this was a preliminary discussion since no budget had yet been established. He stressed that a general discussion on principles was required.

The delegation of Spain, referring to Attachment 1 (Rev.), expressed agreement with the budget and stated that the suggestions by the delegation of Norway had the support of the Spanish delegation. Referring to Attachment 2, it asked for clarification as to how the figures were calculated.

The Chairman pointed out that the UN scale of assessment had been used as a basis for calculation, but because not all the countries in the UN were represented in the Convention, a 100% figure was obtained by extrapolation.

The delegation of the United States reminded Contracting Parties of its statement at the Extraordinary Conference on Article 6 paragraph 6. The United States should not therefore be included in the list for the scale of contributions. It stated, however, that the United States intended to provide a voluntary contribution which would not change the percentage contributions of the other Contracting Parties.

The Chairman said that the only negative comment on the principle employed in Attachment 2 had been made by the delegation of the United States. He confirmed that there were no objections from any other delegation.

The Chairman drew the delegates’ attention to the problem of fluctuations in exchange rates and the difficulties that this presented in calculating the budget in US dollars. He proposed that in order to avoid these in the future, the budget and annual share of contributions be made in Swiss Francs, the currency in which most budget expenditure would be incurred. This met with general acceptance by the Conference.

The Chairman invited the delegation of Sweden to present document C.3.9 on the establishment of a Standing Committee. The delegation of Sweden, on behalf of the Task Force and also of the delegations of Finland and Norway, reminded the Conference of the draft recommendation put forward at the Second Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties for the establishment of a representative subsidiary body of the Conference of the Contracting Parties which might function between Meetings of the Conference. Having reviewed the work of the Task Force in this regard, it recommended the Conference to adopt the draft resolution for the establishment of a Standing Committee set out in the Annex to document C.3.9.

The Secretary-General referred to the document entitled Note from the Task Force, to be read in connection with the Annex to document C.3.9, and reported that the following comments had been received and were endorsed by the Task Force:

The Chairman invited the delegation of the Netherlands, as the Chairman of the Task Force, to comment on the Draft Resolution for the establishment of a Standing Committee.

The Chairman of the Task Force noted that the necessity for a Standing Committee had been amply demonstrated but wished to clarify its possible composition in relation to sub-paragraph 2a) of the draft resolution. With regard to the need for geographical distribution of Parties nominated to the Standing Committee, seven regions had been identified, namely: North America, Latin America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia and Oceania. To these would be added the host countries of the past and future Meetings of the Conference, with the permanent host countries of the Bureau as observers/advisors. The Standing Committee would thus consist of up to nine full members and two observers/advisors. He asked that delegates consider which Contracting Party might represent their regions.

The delegation of the United States observed that the draft resolution was based on similar texts in other conservation conventions, which had, however, needed amendment due to problems which had arisen. This suggested a need to expand the oversight function in sub-paragraph c) of paragraph 1 to read:

The Chairman considered this to be a useful amendment. The delegation of Austria then made the following statement:

The Chairman adjourned the session at 10h20 to witness the signing of the Memorandum of Agreement by the Director General of IUCN and the President of IWRB.

The observer from WWF-USA requested the floor. He expressed deep concern at the Resolution, considering that it failed to offer any incentive or attraction for developing countries. The Standing Committee might well have as few as three members from developing countries for as long as six years under the present proposal. He suggested that the second sentence of paragraph 2e) be deleted from the Annex, and urged the Parties to seek a more balanced composition.

The delegations of the United States and Italy and the observer from Botswana expressed their support for these views, the latter emphasizing the need to provide means of active participation in the running of the Convention to encourage acceptance by developing countries.

The Chairman then summarized matters still outstanding under Agenda item XIV, namely: budget, scale of contributions from Parties, financial regulations, draft resolution on financial and budgetary matters, draft resolution on provisional application of amendments, and the draft resolution for the establishment of a Standing Committee. He suggested that the Agenda be followed, but that administrative and financial matters be discussed separately by an ad hoc Technical Committee. By show of hands 15 delegations volunteered to compose such a group. The Chairman affirmed that the findings of the group would be reported to the plenary session for final discussion and decisions.

The Secretary-General announced that the Technical Committee would convene at 13h45.

The Chairman invited the Assistant Secretary-General to introduce this item. The Assistant Secretary-General informed the Conference that the numbering of the reports reflected the order of the relevant sessions, and was not consistent with the alphabetical sequence of the workshops themselves. He explained that document C.3.15 had been prepared by the Secretariat to summarize the results of all four Working Groups.

The Chairman invited Professor G.V.T. Matthews, Chairman of the workshop, to present the report. Professor Matthews summarized the contents of document W.G. C.3.1.

He informed the Conference that the background papers referred to were important and merited publication, preferably separately from the Conference proceedings. There was a possibility that Canada might help in this.

Questions in the ensuing discussion were directed at the Criteria for identifying wetlands of international importance. Use of a numerical index, such as presence of 10,000 or 20,000 waterfowl, was questioned by the delegations of Mauritania and Australia, while the observer from the Metis Association of North West Territories requested clarification of the concept of ‘regular’ use of wetland habitat. It was evident that the preparation of comprehensive guidelines for the application of these terms was essential.

Summary Report of Workshop A: Criteria for Identifying Wetlands of International Importance

The Chairman next invited presentation of the report from this workshop. In the absence of the workshop Chairman, this was presented by the Rapporteur, Mr. J-Y. Monval, who summarized the contents of document W.G. C.3.3.

The delegation of Mauritania, speaking as a representative of a developing country, regretted the exclusion of socio-economic considerations from the Criteria. He was concerned that opportunities could thereby be denied for designating important wetland areas in developing countries, where conditions and perceptions were different from those in developed countries. In conjunction with the delegations of Senegal, Mali, Tunisia, Norway, Finland and New Zealand he had prepared a note for submission to the Secretariat proposing the setting up of a working group to examine this matter.

The Assistant Secretary-General undertook to discuss the matter with the interested parties and to report to the Conference in the afternoon session.

Sixth Session: 2 June 1987, 13h50 17h15
Chairman: Mr. D. Sherratt
Secretariat: Mr. M. Smart (Assistant Secretary-General of the Conference)
Rapporteurs: Mr. R. Osterwoldt, Mr. Z.J. Karpowicz, Ms. C. Pirrie

The discussion of document W.G. C.3.3. continued at 13h50. In the light of the proposal from the delegation of Mauritania at the end of the morning session, the Assistant Secretary-General suggested that a small working party convene on the evening of 2 June. This group could be composed of those delegations who had earlier expressed interest: Mauritania, Tunisia, Norway, Australia, and the two observers from the WWF. The delegation of Pakistan and the observer from Botswana also expressed interest in participating.

The delegation of Belgium expressed sympathy with the concerns of some of the developing countries to expand the criteria, but reiterated the view that the existing quantitative criteria, in particular the 1% reference, had in the past proved to be an effective instrument in effecting wetland conservation in developed countries.

The delegation of France expressed understanding for the concern of developing countries and agreed that Cagliari Criterion 3 should include some reference to socio-economic values. However, he remarked that, while the economic aspect was one indicator of a resource’s importance, ecological value should serve as the fundamental consideration. He suggested that a working group could further define and clarify appropriate criteria.

The observer from Brazil did not believe that any developing country had considered that the biological/ecological consideration should not be fundamental; an expansion of the criteria to include social, cultural and economic factors would be helpful. The existing criteria appeared insufficient to motivate governments of developing countries to participate in the Ramsar Convention; the expense of implementing activities under the Ramsar Convention was not justified by referring to the species and numbers of waterfowl rather than socio-economic and cultural factors.

The delegation of Sweden noted the evident trend, especially among the developing countries, to expand the criteria and the evident desire of the majority of Contracting Parties to clarify the criteria through further guidelines as reflected in the Recommendation in paragraph 6 of page 4 of the summary report of Workshop A. The delegation of Australia concurred.

In the absence of the Chairman of this workshop, the report, document W.G. C.3.2, was presented by the workshop’s Rapporteur, Dr. P.J. Dugan.

The participants of Workshop C had agreed on three recommendations to the Conference, as follows:

On the first point, the English text of the definition of wise use presented in document W.G. C.3.2, page 4, was amended to conform better with the French text, to read as follows:

The second sub-definition was perceived to be too technical and was amended to read as follows:

Summary Report of Workshop D: the Ramsar Convention as a Vehicle for Linking Wetland Conservation and Development

The summary report was presented by the Chairman of the workshop, Dr. R. Schlatter, who expressed his thanks to the Rapporteur, Mr. J. van der Ven.

The workshop Chairman stated that the Conference had high expectations from this workshop’s results because of the developing countries’ interest in funds to assist wetland conservation and the developed countries’ interest in how those funds could best be applied.

The participants had considered seven presentations. In the Annex to document W.G. C.3.4, they proposed a draft resolution on a statement to the multilateral and bilateral development assistance agencies concerning wetlands.

The example of Norway in providing bilateral aid to developing countries in the field of wetland conservation was praised.

The view was expressed that developing countries should be informed about the advantages to be gained by ratification of the Ramsar Convention, those advantages being diverse; some tangible, and some intangible which were not measurable in monetary terms alone.

While intermediary clearing houses such as UNEP provided some precedent for vehicles linking conservation and development, more alternative organizations were needed to channel funds to developing countries and offer expertise in evaluating and improving development plans.

The workshop Chairman noted that among obstacles to such linkage was the fact that in many developing countries there was no Ministry of the Environment and often environmental impact assessments were not undertaken for projects whose funding depended solely upon approval by the Ministry of Economy or Planning.

In conclusion, he stated that the Ramsar Convention should act as an instrument for improving the financing of wetland conservation.

The Chairman invited comments on the summary report of Workshop D. The delegation of Pakistan commended the report but added two points:

The delegation of Sweden requested clarification of item 6, in paragraph 7, on page 2 of the draft resolution: "(6) to maximize productivity outside wetlands." The observer from Venezuela clarified item 6, as reflecting a trend in developing countries to plan agriculture, for example to plant grain crops so as not to encroach on wetlands. Therefore, productive agricultural activities should be concentrated outside wetlands.

The observer from Botswana corrected the reference to his contribution to the workshop which was entitled "Wetland Conservation and Development in Botswana" (document INF. C.3.22).

The Assistant Secretary-General presented document C.3.15, prepared by the Secretariat to assist the Conference by collating the four draft recommendations from each of the workshops. The Secretariat had added preambles to the draft recommendations 3.1. on criteria; 3.2. on flyways and reserve networks; 3.3. on wise use; and 3.4. on the Convention as a vehicle for linking wetland conservation and development.

The delegation of Australia noted an apparent inconsistency between the summary report of Workshop A and the Annex to draft recommendation 3.1. It had understood that the old Cagliari Criterion 3 would be retained and the items currently labeled as "Criterion 1" in the Annex would simply be "guidelines". For comparison, paragraph 5 on page 4 of document W.G. C.3.3 was referred to: "the existing Cagliari criterion 3 would benefit from detailed guidelines . .". The Assistant Secretary-General promised to clarify this point with the workshop participants.

The second point raised by the delegation of Australia was its understanding that numerical references would be retained in the criteria. It suggested that the preambular wording on page 2 of document C.3.15 be replaced by more clear and concise wording.

The delegation of Greece commented with reference to document W.G. C.3.2 that the wise use of wetlands could not be achieved with restrictive legal measures, unless a study and a master plan of human activities in the area had been elaborated. Greece was trying to work out solutions for a balance between man and his environment before setting a strong legal frame. With reference to document W.G. C.3.4 it noted that an essential condition for wetland conservation was execution of studies to ensure ecological balance against past negative impacts. Infrastructural works which supported compatible land and water uses were effective for management of wetlands.

The Chairman invited delegates to submit textual changes to the draft recommendations to the Secretariat and thanked the workshop Chairmen and participants.

The Assistant Secretary-General introduced document C.3.6 - Review of National Reports submitted by Contracting Parties and Review of Implementation of the Convention since the second meeting in Groningen, the Netherlands in May 1984.

The national reports reflected the two main undertakings by Contracting Parties under the Ramsar Convention:

The Assistant 5ecretary-General noted that, as reported at Groningen, no listed site had been deleted. There had been some deletions of parts of sites and some sites might undergo considerable changes of their ecological character in the near future.

While the listing of wetland sites had been the main focus in reports, the Contracting Parties had displayed an increasing tendency to give greater importance to the wise use of wetlands.

The Secretariat had circulated a Notification requesting the submission of national reports by six months before the Third Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties, but by 27 November 1986 only one Contracting Party had submitted its national report. A further 17 Contracting Parties had submitted by mid-March and 16 national reports had been received in the weeks prior to the Conference of the Contracting Parties.

Those Contracting Parties which had submitted their national reports by mid-March 1987 when the overview was prepared were the following: Algeria, Australia, Canada, Chile, Finland, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Hungary, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Senegal, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, United Kingdom and Uruguay.

More recently, after the overview report had been drafted, reports from the following Contracting Parties had been received: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, German Democratic Republic, Greece, Iceland, Islamic Republic of Iran, Ireland, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, and the United States of America.

In all 34 national reports from Contracting Parties had been received. They formed the most extensive body of data on implementation of the Convention and would be reproduced in the Proceedings of the Conference.

The delegation of Sweden congratulated the Bureau for its work in summarizing national reports and called upon all Contracting Parties to meet future deadlines as recommended. The Conference supported the suggestion of the Assistant Secretary-General, endorsed by the delegation of the Netherlands, that the 16 national reports recently received should also be summarized and included in a revised review of national reports.

It was suggested that some developing countries might benefit from assistance from other Contracting Parties to gather information and to produce their national reports.

The Assistant Secretary-General proceeded to present document C.3.6 section by section, organized by subject areas rather than by individual countries.

While there had been 35 Contracting Parties at the Second Meeting of the Conference of the Parties in Groningen in 1984, there were 44 at this Third Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties in Regina. The Assistant Secretary-General said he understood that the formalities of becoming a Contracting Party had also been completed by Mali.

The delegation of Mali informed the Conference that Mali had sent its instrument of ratification to Unesco, the Depositary, and had designated three sites in the Inner Delta of the Niger floodplains, comprising 2 to 3.5 million hectares of productive land which flooded each year and provided a subsistence living for hundreds of thousands of people. The three sites had been chosen so as not to affect the people’s lifestyles and to conserve natural resources there for the benefit of the people. The Government of Mali had recently developed a management plan for the whole area.

The Assistant Secretary-General noted that since the Groningen Conference, several States in the Western Hemisphere had become Contracting Parties. The observer from Venezuela stated that after several studies, the Government had chosen an 8000 hectares area on the north coast. including lagoons which were important for at least 86 species of fish. While several formal stages including the enactment of domestic legislation still needed completion, he hoped that his Government would soon be able to accede to the Convention.

The observers from Guatemala and Peru also expressed the intention of their Governments to accede to the Convention in the near future.

After a coffee break, the Chairman re-opened the session at 16h05 and invited the Assistant Secretary-General to continue with the presentation of document C.3.6, and in particular the possibility of further States from the Western Hemisphere becoming Contracting Parties.

The observer from Bolivia expressed the hope that Bolivia would become a Contracting Party and having briefly informed the Conference of the threats to the wetland of Laguna Colorada offered to present a report on these threats to the Conference on 3 June 1987.

The delegation of Chile suggested that it would be useful if the Conference made a recommendation encouraging countries to become Contracting Parties to the Convention as soon as possible.

The delegation of Uruguay stated that an extensive report on its Ramsar site, the Ba�ados del Este y Franja Costera, had been submitted and that the information in this document had been extensively used in document C.3.6.

The Assistant Secretary-General invited comments from the delegates on the situation in Asia.

The delegation of Pakistan noted that, in addition to India, Japan, Pakistan and USSR, Asian Contracting Parties included the Islamic Republic of Iran and Jordan.

He suggested that the Conference should appeal to the Jordanian water authorities to reduce the level of extraction of water from the Ramsar site.

The observer from Malaysia stated that, following the hosting by his country of the Malacca regional wetland meeting, the meeting of the Nature Conservation Group of ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) had endorsed the suggestion that countries become Contracting Parties to the Convention. However, the ASEAN Expert Group on the Environment had expressed the need for more information before committing countries to the Convention. A one-year wetland inventory project had been completed (largely as a result of good records being freely available from the Departments of Wildlife, of Forestry and of Fisheries) and would be published later this year or early next. The observer pointed out that Malaysia was a developing country whose economy was based on agricultural production and that land areas needed to be brought into development and housing. Despite this, forests covered between 49% and 70% of the country and 5% of Peninsular Malaysia was protected in one form or another and 2000 square miles declared as ASEAN Heritage sites and reserves.

The observer from Indonesia reported that a draft wetland inventory had been presented at the Malacca meeting and that, of the 10% of the country set aside for conservation, some 3.5 million hectares were wetlands. The Ministry of Forestry and the Ministry of Environment in Indonesia were hopeful that the Ramsar Convention would be tabled as an agenda item at the ASEAN meeting of Environment Ministers scheduled to take place in Indonesia in August 1987.

The observer from the Philippines stated that the Forest Research Institute was currently preparing a proposal to the Department of the Environment and Natural Resources that the Philippines become a Contracting Party in the near future.

The observer from Thailand reported that Thailand had participated in the ASEAN meeting and that wetland areas were already protected in the country’s existing protected areas system. Information obtained from the present conference would help speed up Thailand’s accession to the Ramsar Convention.

The observer from Sri Lanka reported that a wetland inventory had been prepared. The country had participated in the Malacca meeting and had also organized four workshops and symposia on the subject of wetlands. The observer stated that of 347 important wetlands (of four main types) listed in his country, 132 were protected areas, most having been gazetted back in 1938. The Department of Wildlife Conservation was continuing to promote the idea of Sri Lanka becoming a Contracting Party.

In referring to document C.3.6, paragraph 14, the Assistant Secretary-General invited comments on the possibility of further African States joining the Convention.

The observer from Kenya stated that Kenya was definitely considering accession to the Ramsar Convention in due course, but pointed out that Kenya was already conserving most of its nature conservation sites including many wetlands such as mangrove forests, inland lakes and forests and their associated fauna.

The observer from Zambia reported that Zambia could not fail to take the necessary steps to accede to the Ramsar Convention and that the responsibility of Zambia to protect and conserve wetlands was in line with the World Conservation Strategy. The observer pointed out that:

The observer from Chad thanked IUCN, IWRB, and the French Ministry of Environment for their assistance in making possible his attendance at the present Meeting of the Conference. The observer stated that efforts had been made since 1984 to accede to the Convention. As a result of funding from the French Ministry of the Environment, inventories of the wetlands and waterfowl in Chad had been completed and two areas, which met the criteria for Ramsar sites, Lake Chad and Lake Fitri, had been identified. The Lake Chad Basin Commission included the four countries which shared Lake Chad - Chad, Niger, Nigeria and Cameroon - and the observer expressed the hope that all four would join the Convention. Lake Fitri could be declared a Ramsar site and a biosphere reserve. The Chad Minister of Tourism and Environment had hoped to attend the Conference in person, and had stated that by the end of the year Chad would become a Contracting Party. A letter to this effect would be sent to the Convention Bureau and to Unesco. The observer from Chad felt that the application of socio-economic criteria were very important and needed to be taken into account, as well as cooperation with other countries such as Cameroon, Niger and Nigeria.

The observer from Ghana stated that preparations for Ghana’s accession to both the Bonn and Ramsar Conventions had started some two years ago following cooperation with the RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds). Two major stages in the process of accession had been passed with the acceptance of the proposals by the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources and the Committee of Secretaries. The proposals had been sent on 26 May 1987 to the Provisional National Defence Council for final approval and signature. Although the outcome of this meeting was not known the observer believed that Ghana would very soon become a Contracting Party.

The observer from Botswana stated that, although not yet a Contracting Party, Botswana supported the general principles of the Convention and that accession was only a matter of time. The observer stated that there was a need to analyze the benefits to his country of becoming a Contracting Party and to ensure that wetlands would remain available for continuous sustainable utilization as well as for conservation. Botswana intended to maintain a dialogue with IUCN and the Convention Bureau to overcome problem areas and stressed that, by investigating and understanding the problems faced by developing countries, the Bureau secretariat would be better able to assist in the accession of non-member countries. Finally the observer mentioned that a paper on Botswana wetlands had been delivered to the Bureau. The Assistant Secretary-General acknowledged receipt of this document, and promised that it and the texts of other statements by observers would be considered for inclusion in the Proceedings of the Conference.

In referring to document C.3.6, paragraph 15, the Assistant 5ecretary-General concluded that no new Contracting Parties are known or anticipated from the Oceania region.

In reviewing document C.3.6, paragraphs 16 to 21, the Assistant Secretary-General stressed the need felt by the organizers of the Regina Conference to assist the participation of delegates from developing countries in Conferences of the Contracting Parties. He reminded delegates that Workshops C and D - Wise use of wetlands and the use of the Ramsar Convention as a vehicle for linking wetland conservation and development - had addressed the question of why the Convention was important for developing countries. Reasons for joining the Convention, identified at the recent Malacca meeting, were outlined in paragraph 20. He suggested the use of Recommendation 1.1 of the Cagliari Conference, putting forward the idea that existing Contracting Parties might use their good offices with non-Party States in their own region, as a mechanism for attracting further Contracting Parties.

Next the Assistant Secretary-General reviewed document C.3.6 paragraphs 22 to 26 and invited delegates to comment or update the information contained therein on the current Contracting Parties to the Paris protocol.

The delegation of Italy stated that the Paris Protocol had been ratified in February 1987 and published on 15 May 1987 in the Italian Official Journal.

The delegation of Spain stated that Spain had submitted its instrument of ratification of the Protocol to Unesco on 27 May 1987.

The delegation of Suriname stated that, although Suriname had not yet ratified the Paris Protocol, steps were being taken to submit the instrument of ratification as soon as possible.

The delegation of Mauritania stated that the Paris Protocol had been ratified by the Supreme Council on 12 May 1987 and that the instrument of ratification would be submitted to Unesco.

The Assistant Secretary-General made a point of clarification, stating that an instrument of ratification must be submitted to Unesco before a State could become a Contracting Party to the Protocol.

The delegation of Belgium stated that Belgium would probably be signing the Paris Protocol in the current year.

The delegation of Austria stated that ratification of the Paris Protocol was still under consideration.

The delegation of Greece stated that the Paris Protocol had been submitted for ratification as a high priority with the Greek Parliament and a result was expected either in the present week or the following one.

The Assistant Secretary-General noted that nearly all Contracting Parties which were Parties to the Convention prior to the entry into force of the Paris Protocol had now ratified the Paris Protocol. Those States becoming Contracting Parties after 1 October 1986 would not need to join the Protocol separately, since they would join the Convention as amended by the Protocol.

In reviewing paragraphs 27 and 28 the Assistant Secretary-General drew the attention of the delegates to document INF. C.3.10 and requested that Contracting Parties provide additions and corrections to this document on national authorities responsible for implementation of the Convention and, wherever possible, to provide telephone and telex numbers.

With reference to paragraphs 29 to 32, the Assistant Secretary-General pointed out that the "List of Wetlands of International Importance" included only wetlands designated for the list and that there were many unlisted wetlands which nevertheless were internationally important. He noted that further wetlands had been designated by Niger, the Netherlands (Oosterschelde), Denmark (Waddensea), Canada (eleven new sites, during the present Conference) and, he understood, Mali (three sites). This would bring the total to 374 sites covering over 22 million hectares.

Under discussion of voluntary contributions towards the cost of the interim secretariat, the delegation of Greece noted that a contribution had been made by Greece, though this was not mentioned in document C.3.6 paragraph 34. The Assistant Secretary-General promised to investigate this matter.

Turning to discussion of additional sites designated for the List by Contracting Parties, the Assistant Secretary-General noted that in addition to the 14 Contracting Parties mentioned in document C.3.6 paragraph 40, Denmark and South Africa had added further sites, while in its national report the USA had mentioned its intention of so doing.

Referring to document C.3.6 paragraph 42 the Assistant Secretary-General recalled Article 2.1 of the Convention which specified that boundaries of wetlands designated for the List needed to be precisely defined and mapped. Greek Ramsar sites had not been precisely mapped and this caused difficulty in determining the status of the wetlands designated for the List by Greece.

The delegation of Greece indicated that the national report dated 16 March 1987, submitted to the Convention Bureau by the Greek Ministry of the Environment, should not be considered as final. The same Ministry was currently carrying out procedures for the definition of boundaries and management plans in the listed wetland sites, and was elaborating studies on the present status of the wetlands. The delegation indicated that an updated report based on these studies would be submitted to the Convention Bureau before the end of 1987, and requested that this document be included in the Proceedings of the Regina Conference as the Greek national report. The Chairman agreed to this request.

The Assistant Secretary-General, with reference to document C.3.6 paragraphs 43 and 44, repeated that no Contracting Party had deleted a wetland from the List.

The delegation of Pakistan drew the attention of the Conference to paragraph 47 which correctly reflected the situation in Pakistan. The delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran stated that Kaman marshes, a part of Lake Nears, and Yadegarlu marshes in the southern part of the Oroomiyeh Lake had both been removed from the List of designated wetlands due to prolonged drought conditions and war damage. They had been replaced by the Cheghakur and Gandoman wetlands thus bringing the number of wetlands designated in the Islamic Republic of Iran to the List to 19. The area of the wetlands sites of Miankaleh and the Shadegan Marshes had not been decreased although some 20% to 30% of the latter area was affected by war damage.

The delegation of Belgium pointed out that the figure given in paragraph 38 was incorrect and gave 5790 hectares as the true figure.

Seventh Session: 3 June 1987, 09h30 - 12h15
Chairman: Mr. V. Koester
Secretariat: Mr. D. Navid (Secretary-General of the Conference)
Rapporteurs: Mr. A. J. Mence, Mr. R. Osterwoldt

The Chairman opened the meeting at 09h30 and requested the Secretary-General to introduce revised documents prepared by the ad hoc Technical Committee which had worked late on 2 June 1987 to enable consideration of their findings by the Conference.

The Chairman reminded the Contracting Parties that the Plenary Session had already discussed the budget and that the Technical Committee had taken account of that in their detailed discussion of each budget item. Only two changes had been made, namely:

The delegation from Suriname corrected the amended wording in item 8 to read "participation by delegations from developing countries notably from Contracting Parties..."

The Chairman then referred to the problem of whether the budget should be expressed in Swiss francs (SFr) or United States dollars (US$). The Technical Committee had recommended retaining reference, in document C.3.8 (Rev.) Attachment 2, to US$ but recognized that exchange rate fluctuations might cause difficulties. To minimize these the Committee had recommended the following:

The Chairman suggested that a footnote to the budget should be added to the effect that:

The Secretary-General presented a suggested wording for the text of such footnote to the budget, as follows:

The Standing Committee is empowered to make necessary adjustments between budget lines to accommodate requirements in expenditure related to this shortfall."

The Chairman affirmed that there was no intention of imposing an obligation on any Contracting Party to pay more than the amount specified in the budget.

The delegation of France asked it to be recorded that, while not wishing to block the consensus, it did not consider the measures adopted to be the most appropriate and would have preferred the budget to be expressed in Swiss francs as from the time of this meeting. It considered the system adopted to be excessively complicated.

The Secretary-General drew attention to errors in Attachment 2 (Rev,) to document C.3.8 as follows:

The Chairman explained that the Technical Committee had addressed the difficulty which had arisen in Plenary Session concerning one delegation’s position, and a new initiative had been discussed.

The delegation of the United States indicated that the difficulty had been resolved.

The scale of contributions laid down in Attachment 2 (Rev.) to document C.3.8 was adopted by consensus of the Parties with no objection.

The delegation of Austria stated that its country had no desire to block consensus concerning the financial and institutional arrangements, but must refer to its earlier comments that for constitutional reasons Austria was unable to accept the relevant decisions proposed by this Conference.

The delegation of Uruguay stated that, although it had subscribed to the consensus, it did not have the credentials to represent government policy.

The Chairman informed the delegation of Uruguay that the Credentials Committee would take care of that point in its report.

The Chairman presented document C.3.8. (Rev.) Attachment 3, which he remarked had received few comments and no substantial objection during the previous Plenary Session and in the Technical Committee. The Conference adopted the Terms of Reference as presented by consensus.

The Chairman presented the draft resolution set out in the Annex to document C.3.8 (Rev. 1), saying that some editorial amendments had been suggested in Plenary Session but no disagreements had been expressed. The Technical Committee found no difficulties with the text.

The delegation of Switzerland suggested that the following words be inserted between existing operative paragraphs 5 and 6:

The delegation of Australia suggested that the words "in 1988" be deleted from operative paragraph 5.

The delegation of Pakistan suggested that the words "which have not yet done so" be deleted from operative paragraph 6.

The Conference adopted by consensus the Resolution with the three amendments suggested above.

The delegation of Japan advised that, for purely internal procedural reasons, amendments adopted at the Extraordinary Conference would take some time to be accepted and therefore it was not in a position to say when Japan could pay its contribution.

The delegation of the Netherlands requested clarification from the delegation of the United States on what action would be taken to encourage the United States to make voluntary contributions.

The delegation of the United States assured the Conference that it would make great efforts to secure payment of the voluntary contributions recommended by the Conference.

The observer for the WWF-USA, speaking on behalf of non-governmental organizations in the United States, expressed appreciation that the Parties were striving to resolve the budgetary problems. He assured the Conference that the non-governmental organizations would do their utmost to get the United States Congress to approve a substantial voluntary contribution. He stated that the non-governmental organizations intended also to contribute to the budget of the Convention. He informed the Conference that World Wildlife Fund-USA was committed to contribute $10,000 in 1988 and would contribute $20,000 in 1987 if other organizations would match that figure on a 2 to 1 basis.

The observer for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) informed the Conference that RSPB would also make a voluntary contribution to the budget, notably for item 8 to assist th