Key Documents of the Ramsar Convention

COP4 DOC. C.4.18, Review of implementation of the Convention

4th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties
Montreux, Switzerland
27 June-4 July 1990

DOC. C.4.18

CONVENTION ON WETLANDS OF INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE ESPECIALLY AS WATERFOWL HABITAT

REVIEW OF NATIONAL REPORTS SUBMITTED BY THE CONTRACTING PARTIES

AND

REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONVENTION SINCE THE THIRD MEETING OF THE CONFERENCE IN REGINA, SASKATCHEWAN, CANADA IN MAY/JUNE 1987

compiled by M. Smart
Conservation Coordinator, Ramsar Bureau

[Note: This file has been scanned from hardcopy and may contain OCR typographical errors. -- Web Editor, May 2001.]

Contents / Paragraphs

I.GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Background to national reports 1 - 3
National reports to the present meeting 4 - 11

II. BASIC INFORMATION ON MEASURES TAKEN BY CONTRACTING PARTIES

Contracting Parties to the Convention 12 - 20
Reasons for joining the Convention 21 - 25
Acceptance of the Paris Protocol 26 - 29
Acceptance of the Regina Amendments 30 - 36
Administrative Authorities responsible for implementing the Convention 37 - 38
Current status of the List of wetlands of international importance legislation. 39-45
Additions to the List proposed at previous meetings and in reports to the present meeting 46 - 83
Maps of designated wetlands 84 - 89
Contributions to the Ramsar budget 90 - 99

III. FURTHER INFORMATION ON LISTED WETLANDS

General introduction 100
Deletion of wetlands from the List 101 - 104
Restriction of boundaries of listed wetlands 105 - 119
Change in legal status, degree of protection, or ownership of listed sites 120 - 151
Changes in ecological character of listed wetlands: general 152 - 156
Sites identified at Regina as likely to undergo major change in ecological character 157
The Ramsar ‘Monitoring Procedure’ 158 - 180
Future operation of the ‘Monitoring Procedure’ 181 - 182
Changes in ecological character of listed wetlands: information on additional sites 183 - 221
Ramsar sites likely to undergo change in ecological character: a possible "List of Ramsar sites in danger" 222 - 224
Natural change in Ramsar sites 225 - 226
Management of Ramsar sites 227 - 229
Criteria for identifying wetlands of international importance 230 - 231
Information on listed sites 232 - 234
Making the most of the Ramsar logo 235 - 236

IV. NATIONAL POLICY ON WETLANDS

Wise use: general 237 - 241
General statements on the current national wetland situation 242 - 263
Progress made towards ‘Establishment of national, wetland policies’ 264 - 289
Priority action at particular wetland sites 290 - 312

V. GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE CONVENTION AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION

General comments 313 - 336
Instances where the Convention has facilitated conservation of particular sites or species 337 - 351
The role of development agencies in wetland conservation 369 - 383

I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Background to national reports

1. Article 6.2 of the Ramsar Convention states that the Conference of the Contracting Parties shall be competent:

• to discuss the implementation of this Convention;
• to discuss additions to and changes in the List;
• to consider information regarding changes in the ecological character of wetlands included in the List provided in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 3; and
• to make general or specific recommendations to the Contracting Parties regarding the conservation, management and wise use of wetlands and their flora and fauna.

These four requirements figured in the original text adopted at Ramsar, and were not amended either by the 1982 Paris Protocol (in force since 1 October 1986), or by the amendments adopted at Regina in May/June 1987 (not yet in force).

2. The purpose of the present paper is to provide basic information enabling delegates to the fourth meeting of the Conference, to be held at Montreux in June/July 1990, to carry out these requirements. It follows the lines of papers presented to previous meetings: Summary of national reports and Review (Cagliari Proceedings 163-224 and 311-342); Overview and Review (Groningen Proceedings 143-180); Review (Regina Proceedings 185-250).

3. In order to promote discussion and exchange of views, each Contracting Party is requested to submit a written report to the Ramsar Bureau before a meeting of the Conference. This practice has now become well established: at the 1980 Cagliari meeting, 25 of the then 28 Contracting Parties provided national reports; at Groningen in 1984, 27 out of 35 Contracting Parties submitted reports; while for Regina in 1987, 35 out of 45 Contracting Parties presented a national report. These reports are published in full, in the Conference working language in which they were submitted, in the Proceedings of the meeting. They provide by far the most detailed body of information on the Convention and its operation within individual Contracting Parties, and provide a framework for discussion at the meeting. This was recognized in the first Recommendation adopted at Groningen (Recommendation 2.1) which noted that "submission of timely and detailed national reports is of vital importance for the purpose of monitoring implementation of the Convention and for the purpose of sharing information on wetland conservation" and recommended that "all Parties should submit detailed national reports to the Bureau at least six months prior to each ordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties".

National reports submitted to the present meeting

4. The same Groningen Recommendation called on the Bureau to draft a simplified questionnaire for national reports, so as to make reports easier to prepare, while ensuring they reveal the information desired. The Ramsar Bureau, in consultation with the Standing Committee, drew up a questionnaire for use at the Montreux meeting; this questionnaire lays special stress on the four main obligations accepted by Contracting Parties and set out in the Framework Document to be considered at the present meeting (DOC. C.4.12); the questionnaire also pays particular attention to the Montreux workshops devoted to these four obligations (Workshop D: the List; Workshop F; international cooperation; Workshop E; wise use of wetlands; and Workshop C; establishment of nature reserves). The present review will, it is hoped, therefore be of use in summarizing information for discussion at these workshops.

5. The questionnaire was sent (under the title ‘Outline for national reports’) to all Contracting Parties, under cover of Bureau Notification 1989/7 dated 19 May 1989. Contracting Parties were requested to submit their national reports to the Bureau by the end of December 1989, i.e. six months before the Montreux Conference.

6. Since the time available in plenary sessions is limited, there will not be time for each national delegation to present its own report in detail. Instead, the different issues will be discussed in the workshops, which will report back to later plenary sessions. National reports will be published in the Proceedings of the meeting.

7. Rather few national reports were submitted by the end of 1989, which delayed preparation of the present review. A rather brief review was included in DOC. C.4.6 (‘Overview paper to Workshop A: National reports’); this document highlighted some of the principal issues raised in 24 reports received by early April 1990). It also distilled twenty major questions raised by these 24 reports.

8. By early June 1990, national reports had been received from the following 37 Contracting Parties: Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, German Democratic Republic of Germany, Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Japan, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, South Africa, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Uganda, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay and Venezuela. Preliminary reports were also received from Austria and Senegal. It is likely that further national reports will be received before, or at the Conference. As far as possible, these reports will be incorporated into the final version of the present document, to be published in the Proceedings. Because of the late receipt of the national reports, the present document is being circulated, for the moment, in English only, as an information document.

9. The national reports in general follow very closely the format of the circulated questionnaire. The degree of detail provided varies as at previous meetings from one Contracting Party to another. Some Contracting Parties have gone into considerable detail, notably as regards ecological character and management of wetlands designated for the List (e.g. Australia, Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany and United Kingdom); such information is of particular value for the database which the Bureau is currently developing on Ramsar sites (see paragraph 233 below). Some Contracting Parties on the other hand have presented rather more succinct accounts which emphasize general tendencies or broad trends (e.g. Canada, Mauritania, Morocco, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States of America). It is noteworthy that reports to the present meeting devote considerably more attention to wider wetland policies and issues than reports to earlier meetings.

10. On some issues, Contracting Parties have submitted separate information to the Bureau. Other bodies or individuals have also approached the Bureau with information. Where appropriate, such information is mentioned in the present review.

11. The format of the present review follows the headings of the ‘Outline for national reports’.

II. BASIC INFORMATION ON MEASURES TAKEN BY CONTRACTING PARTIES

Contracting Parties to the Convention

12. The List of Contracting Parties to the Convention and the date when the Convention came into force for them is being updated continually and can be obtained from the Bureau upon request. Some (e.g. Guinea-Bissau and Venezuela) have recently deposited with UNESCO an instrument of acceptance of the Paris Protocol rather than an instrument of accession to the Convention itself. This procedure means that the country concerned still becomes a Contracting Party to the Convention (as amended by the Protocol), which comes into force immediately (following Article 10 bis, paragraph 6) rather than after a delay of four months (Article 10 paragraph 2).

13. Some countries (e.g. Egypt and Mali) deposited an instrument of accession to the Convention, without providing at the same time a description and map of the wetland or wetlands designated for the List of wetlands of international importance. This delayed the process of them becoming a Contracting Party. Others (e.g. Bolivia, Guatemala and Panama) have not yet provided a description and map of their wetland, and so are not yet considered to be Contracting Parties. Workshop B will discuss whether the map and description can be provided subsequently, and the plenary session will be asked to approve a Conference recommendation to clarify this issue.

14. At the time of the Regina meeting there were 45 Contracting Parties to the Convention. There are now 54. Since mid 1987 therefore nine countries have become Contracting Parties - Chad, Egypt, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Malta, Nepal, Uganda, Venezuela and Vietnam; three others - Bolivia, Guatemala and Panama - have deposited their instrument of accession, but have not yet designated a wetland for the List. The following paragraphs attempt to place the list of Contracting Parties in a world wetland conservation context.

15. WESTERN PALEARCTIC: The biogeographical region most strongly represented among the Convention’s member-states has until now been the Western Palearctic. A Cagliari recommendation called for rapid completion of the Western Palearctic network. The accession of Egypt and Malta in the last three years brings this Western Palearctic network nearer to completion. Of the remaining countries in this biogeographical area, the Bureau has been in contact with Czechoslovakia, Luxembourg, Rumania and Turkey, and understands that all four intend to join, possibly by the time of the Montreux meeting. The Ramsar Standing Committee has identified the Mediterranean as a priority area for the Convention, and the Mediterranean regional workshop, held in collaboration with the Council of Europe and the Spanish authorities in November 1989, allowed contacts not only with Turkey, but with Cyprus which also expressed interest in becoming a Contracting Party.

16. AFRICA: The Regina meeting approved a recommendation (C.3.6) requesting the Bureau to approach the authorities of several African countries (particularly those represented at Regina as observers), with a view to them becoming Contracting Parties. Of the countries represented as observers there, Chad, Egypt, Ghana and Uganda are now Contracting Parties, and Kenya and Zambia are likely to join in the very near future. Guinea-Bissau has recently joined the Convention, following a series of contacts where IUCN played a major role. There are however still only 14 Contracting Parties in this large region: Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and Mauritania in North Africa; Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, Chad, Ghana and Gabon in West Africa; only Uganda in East Africa and the Republic of South Africa in Southern Africa. The Standing Committee has identified the Mediterranean and the Sahel as priority areas. If the Convention is to be fully active in Africa, there is clearly a need to recruit more member countries, particularly in eastern and southern Africa. A number of African states will be represented by observers at Montreux and it is hoped that they will in the near future become Contracting Parties.

17. SOUTHERN AMERICA: A similar recommendation (C.3.7) was approved by the Regina meeting on the subject of ‘Further Contracting Parties in Central America, the Caribbean and South America’. Of the states represented as observers at Regina, Venezuela has since become a Contracting Party. As noted above, Bolivia, Guatemala and Panama have deposited instruments of ratification, but have not designated a wetland for the List. At present therefore, Chile, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela are Contracting Parties, but there are no Contracting Parties in the Caribbean, nor in Central America, despite the efforts of the Bureau, other interested Contracting Parties and partner organizations such as IUCN and WWF. Once again there is a need to persuade more countries to join; several of those who are interested will be represented by observers at Montreux.

18. ASIA: Regina Recommendation C.3.10 referred to further Contracting Parties in Asia and the Pacific, and the Ramsar Standing Committee identified southeast Asia as a priority area. Since Regina, Nepal and Vietnam have become Contracting Parties, and several southeast Asian states are believed to be close to joining. The present Contracting Parties in Asia (the continent that gave birth to the "Ramsar" Convention) are: Jordan, Pakistan and Iran in western Asia; India and Nepal in central Asia; and Japan and Vietnam in eastern Asia; in addition much of the USSR’s territory is of course also in Asia. A "Directory of Asian Wetlands", compiled by D A Scott for WWF, IUCN, ICBP and IWRB has recently been published and represents a valuable guideline on potential Ramsar sites. Again there is clearly a need for further promotion.

19. OCEANIA: The two Oceanian Contracting Parties are Australia and New Zealand. The Oceania Wetland Inventory, currently under preparation with support from a number of Contracting Parties, will provide publicity for the Convention among the island states of the region.

20. NORTH AMERICA: In North America, all three of the (admittedly very large) countries concerned, Canada, Mexico and the USA, are already Contracting Parties.

Reasons for joining the Convention

21. The preceding paragraphs make it clear that there are still broad gaps in the global coverage achieved by the Ramsar Convention, particularly in the developing countries of Africa, Asia and Southern America. Much further promotional work will obviously be necessary by Contracting Parties, Standing Committee, Ramsar Bureau, partner organizations and non-governmental bodies. It seems appropriate here to set out for their guidance the reasons for joining the Convention.

22. WETLAND BENEFITS AND VALUES: The Ramsar Working Group on Wise Use, established at Regina, defined in its report the values and functions which justify conservation of wetlands. These go far beyond the waterfowl habitats mentioned in the title of the Convention, and are as follows:

• sediment and erosion control
• flood control
• maintenance of water quality and abatement of pollution
• maintenance of surface and underground water supply
• support for fisheries, grazing and agriculture
• outdoor recreation and education for human society
• provision of habitat for wildlife, especially waterfowl
• contribution to climatic stability

23. These benefits and values are undoubtedly of relevance to all states, and indeed Parties to the Convention include states from all longitudes and latitudes, with all types of political organization and every possible degree of economic and social development. Furthermore the national reports reflect the increasing concern for environmental issues felt at all levels since Regina: the Australian report notes that the Australian Prime Minister’s "Statement on the Environment of July 1989" has "direct implications for the conservation and management of wetlands"; the US report refers to the "February 9 Budget Address to Congress" in which the US President "set no-net-loss of wetlands as a national goal"; the Tunisian government, in inviting the Bureau to an international seminar, noted that "the new policy of the Tunisian authorities on development matters consists in taking real and practical account of ecological and environmental issues".

24. HOW CAN AN INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION HELP? When the benefits and values mentioned in paragraph 22 are shared between several states, international cooperation is required. The Ramsar Convention provides the global framework for cooperation in the field of conservation and wise use of wetlands. Specific ways in which Ramsar can help may be summarized as follows:

• In a world increasingly concerned with environmental issues international cooperation and solidarity can be demonstrated by membership of the four global conservation conventions - Ramsar (the oldest!), World Heritage, CITES and Bonn. Wetland benefits and values are shared between nations in the case of cross-frontier wetlands, shared river systems and migratory bird flyways. Cooperation and consultation is necessary on these issues.
• Participation in meetings at the highest level (the Conference of the Parties) means that a Contracting Party can influence world decisions on wetland conservation and wise use.
• Designation of sites for the ‘List of wetlands of international importance’ gives them recognition and publicity at international, rather than national level.
• Through the contacts with international and national development agencies (whether by Contracting Parties or the Bureau) there are possibilities of finance for wetland projects in developing countries.
• Exchange of the latest information and advance can be promoted through conferences, specialist meetings, missions or direct requests to the Bureau.

25. The cost of attending Conferences of the Contracting Parties, meetings of the Standing Committee and specialist meetings may prove to be a major problem for many developing countries. An item in the Convention budget is set aside for travel and subsistence of delegates from developing countries. It should be emphasized that at the present meeting, extremely generous extra grants have been made to the Bureau for this purpose by Canada, Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, USA; UNEP and UNESCO; IUCN and WWF; and the Mekong Secretariat.

Acceptance of the Paris Protocol

26. The Paris Protocol was adopted at an Extraordinary Conference held at UNESCO headquarters in Paris in December 1982. It introduced two important technical changes to the text:

• all language versions became of equal value; and
• an article on amendments (Article 10 bis) was incorporated.

At the time of the Extraordinary Conference, there were 32 Contracting Parties. The Protocol came into force after two-thirds of them (i.e. 22 states) had deposited an instrument of acceptance with UNESCO.

27. Iceland was the twenty-second Contracting Party to accept the Paris Protocol, which came into force on 1 October 1986. Since then seven more of the original 32 Contracting Parties have accepted the Protocol, three of them (Greece, Italy and Japan) since the Regina meeting. Mauritania has also deposited its instrument of acceptance of the Paris Protocol since Regina. All new Contracting Parties from 1 October 1986 onwards have joined the Convention as amended by the Paris Protocol.

28. As a result, 46 of the 54 Contracting Parties have now accepted the Protocol. The national reports include information on the Protocol in some of the remaining eight Contracting Parties. The national report from Belgium indicates that the procedure for approbation of the Paris Protocol is under way. The report from the German Democratic Republic indicates that the Paris Protocol has "not yet" been approved. The report from Suriname says that "the instrument of accession to this Protocol will be submitted .... in the near future". The report from the USSR states that "this question is being reviewed by the USSR government". The reports from Algeria, Austria and Uruguay do not mention this question; no report has as yet been received from Yugoslavia. Recent contacts between the Ramsar Bureau and Austria, German Democratic Republic and USSR indicate that these three Contracting Parties are likely to accept the Paris Protocol in the near future.

29. It would greatly simplify the administration of the Convention and increase its effectiveness if the outstanding eight Contracting Parties could accept the Paris Protocol.

Acceptance of the Regina Amendments

30. An Extraordinary Conference of the Contracting Parties was held at Regina, Canada in 1987, in addition to the third ordinary meeting of the Conference of the Parties. The Extraordinary Conference adopted amendments to Articles 6 and 7. The amendments to Article 6 revised the provisions concerning the powers of the Conference, including adoption of the budget. The amendment to Article 7 relates to voting rights at Conference.

31. These amendments (following Article 10 bis) will come into force when accepted by two-thirds of the Contracting Parties at the time of the Regina meeting. Since there were 43 Contracting Parties at that time, the Regina amendments will come into force when adopted by 30 of them.

32. The ordinary Conference at Regina approved a ‘Resolution on Provisional implementation of the Amendments to the Convention’ (Regina Proceedings page 113) which "URGES the Contracting Parties to implement on a provisional basis the measures and procedures envisaged by the amendments adopted by the Extraordinary Conference of the Contracting Parties ... until such time as they come into force".

33. Eight of the 43 Contracting Parties - Bulgaria, Canada, Finland, Japan, Norway, Pakistan, Sweden and Switzerland - have deposited an instrument of acceptance of the Regina amendments with UNESCO. The amendments are therefore not yet legally in force. However, many Contracting Parties which have not yet deposited an instrument of acceptance have followed the Regina resolution and implemented the amendments on a provisional basis, notably as regards financial contributions to the Ramsar budget.

34. Many national reports also present comments on the Regina amendments. The comments are without exception extremely positive, and indicate the intention of the Contracting Party concerned to deposit an instrument of acceptance with UNESCO as soon as possible. Thus, Australia is currently preparing administrative and legal documents to allow acceptance. The procedure for approval is under way in Belgium. The German Democratic Republic has "not yet" accepted the Regina amendments. The government of the Federal Republic of Germany has initiated acceptance of the amendments. In Greece the preparatory procedure to present the Regina amendments to Parliament has not yet been finalized. The Irish report indicates that the Regina amendments have already been accepted (though an instrument of acceptance does not appear to have been received by UNESCO). The Mexican report speaks of "tacit approval" and notes that financial contributions have been made. The Netherlands is in the process of ratifying, while New Zealand has "not yet" accepted the Regina amendments. Portugal says that the process of acceptance is under way. South Africa intends to accept these amendments and the process of ratification has been initiated. Suriname awaits government approval, while in the United Kingdom the process of ratification is proceeding as quickly as possible and should be completed before the Montreux Conference.

35. In addition to the above written comments from the national reports, the Bureau has been in contact with a number of other Contracting Parties, and understands that the Regina amendments are likely to be accepted by them in the near future. This is the case, in particular, with the USSR.

36. Entry into force of the Regina amendments is highly desirable for the efficient administration and financial stability of the Convention. It is very much to be hoped that 30 of the first 43 Contracting Parties will deposit instruments of acceptance with UNESCO as soon as possible. Once the Regina amendments are in force, no further amendments should be necessary, since the Conference of the Parties will then be competent to adopt resolutions, recommendations and decisions to promote the functioning of the Convention.

Administrative authorities responsible for implementing the Convention

37. In general, final responsibility for implementation of international conventions is vested in the Foreign Ministry of the Contracting Party concerned. For this reason, Bureau notifications and invitations to conferences are sent through diplomatic channels. Similarly, credentials for the Conference of the Parties are normally signed by the Foreign Minister.

38. For regular, day-to-day contacts, however, an administrative or technical ministry or other body is normally in charge. Most Contracting Parties have appointed a specific body to carry out these duties, and the list is given in document INF. C.4.5. The Bureau particularly requests delegates of Contracting Parties to check and, where appropriate, correct and complete these (particularly as regards telephone, telex and telefax numbers). In some cases, communications with Contracting Parties have been delayed since the Bureau was not aware of the correct administrative authority, or because telephone, telefax or telex numbers were not available.

Current status of the List of wetlands of international importance

39. One of the principal obligations accepted by a Contracting Party to the Ramsar Convention is to "designate suitable wetlands within its territory for inclusion in a List of wetlands of international importance" (Article 2.1). One of the principal tasks of the Ramsar Bureau is "to maintain the List of wetlands of international importance" (Article 8.2(b)).

40. The Bureau maintains the List with the help of the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), Cambridge, UK. Updated versions of the List are circulated with the Bureau’s Annual Report. A new version has been prepared for the present meeting (document INF. C.4.3) using information supplied in the national reports. The latest version of the List has been stripped to the very bare essentials, since a new version of the "Directory of wetlands of international importance" which gives much greater detail has also been prepared for the present meeting (document INF. C.4.4). The Bureau, on behalf of the Contracting Parties, wishes to thank WCMC and its staff for their efforts in this field.

41. On the opening day of the Regina meeting the List included 363 wetlands in 45 countries. At present the List stands at 489 wetlands in 54 Contracting Parties, covering an area of over 30 million hectares (or 300,000 square kilometres, roughly equivalent to the total surface area of Italy or the Philippines). The states which have become Contracting Parties since Regina have designated ten wetlands for the List as follows:

• Chad: 1 wetland covering 195 000 hectares,
• Egypt: 2 wetlands covering 105 700 hectares,
• Ghana: 1 wetland covering 7 260 hectares,
• Guinea-Bissau: 1 wetland covering 39 098 hectares,
• Malta: 1 wetland covering 6 hectares,
• Nepal: 1 wetland covering 17 500 hectares,
• Uganda: 1 wetland covering 15 000 hectares,
• Venezuela: 1 wetland covering 9 968 hectares,
• Vietnam: 1 wetland covering 12 000 hectares

42. The major increase in wetlands on the List, however, has come from designation of 116 additional wetlands by 16 existing Contracting Parties, as foreseen under Article 2.5 ("Any Contracting Party shall have the right to add to the List further wetlands situated within its territory, to extend the boundaries of those wetlands already included by it in the List"), as follows:

• Australia: 12 wetlands covering 2 183 771 hectares
• Canada*: 13 wetlands covering 2 591 135 hectares
• Denmark (Greenland): 11 wetlands covering 1 044 500 hectares
• Hungary: 5 wetlands covering 81 141 hectares, (plus extension of 1 wetland already listed)
• Iceland: 1 wetland covering 37 500 hectares
• India: 4 wetlands covering 73 600 hectares
• Ireland*: 16 wetlands covering 7 817 hectares (plus extension of 3 wetlands already listed)
• Italy: 5 wetlands covering 2 982 hectares
• Japan: 1 wetland covering 4 321 hectares (plus extension of 1 wetland already listed),
• Netherlands: 3 wetlands covering 7 175 hectares
• New Zealand: 3 wetlands covering 23 155 hectares
• South Africa: 1 wetland covering 6 000 hectares
• Spain: 14 wetlands covering 46 495 hectares
• Sweden: 10 wetlands covering 130 145 hectares (plus extension of 2 wetlands already listed)
• United Kingdom: 13 wetlands covering 6 719 hectares (plus extension of 1 wetland already listed)
• USA*: 4 wetlands covering 764 869 hectares

(*NB Designation of 11 of the additional Canadian wetlands and three of the Irish sites, and two of the US sites was announced at the Regina meeting.)

43. As previously noted at Regina, the tendency for existing Contracting Parties to add further sites to the List is accelerating, and at an ever-quickening pace. Including sites added before Regina, the following 22 Contracting Parties have now added sites to the List:

• Australia (on ten occasions, four since Regina; wetlands in all Australian states except Queensland have now been designated for the List)
• Bulgaria (on one occasion, before Regina)
• Canada (on five occasions, three since Regina; wetlands in all Canadian provinces and territories have now been designated for the List, following the designation of a site in Prince Edward Island)
• Denmark (on two occasions, once since Regina; the 11 sites designated since Regina are all in Greenland)
• Federal Republic of Germany (on one occasion, before Regina; wetlands in all the Länder of the Federal Republic except Berlin, Bremen, Hamburg, Saarland and Schleswig-Holstein),
• Hungary (on one occasion, since Regina)
• Iceland (on one occasion, since Regina),
• India (on one occasion, since Regina)
• Ireland (on seven occasions, six since Regina),
• Italy (on 12) occasions, two since Regina),
• Japan (on two occasions, one since Regina),
• Netherlands (on four occasions, two since Regina),
• New Zealand (on two occasions, both since Regina),
• Norway (on one occasion, before Regina),
• Poland (on one occasion, before Regina),
• Senegal (on two occasions, before Regina),
• South Africa (on two occasions, once since Regina)
• Spain (on two occasions, one since Regina),
• Sweden (on one occasion, since Regina),
• Switzerland (on one occasion, before Regina),
• United Kingdom (on nine occasions, twice since Regina),
• United States of America (on three occasions, since Regina)

44. It is clear from paragraphs 42 and 43 that many Contracting Parties are continually adding new sites to the "List of wetlands of international importance". Twenty-two of the 54 Contracting Parties have added extra sites after their initial accession, 16 of them since Regina. In some cases, Contracting Parties have used the Ramsar criteria, particularly those relating to waterfowl, to produce a list of potential Ramsar sites. As noted in the Regina overview (C.3.6 page 197) the Netherlands has identified 103 sites which meet the criteria, and UK has produced a similar list, under constant revision, covering well over a hundred sites. The Bureau has taken part in meetings organized by the Spanish government, which have discussed a list of potential Spanish Ramsar sites, numbering some 60 wetlands.

45. It may be recalled that Recommendation 1.4 of the Cagliari meeting of the Conference called for a "shadow" list of wetlands qualifying under the criteria to be maintained by appropriate international organizations, both for Contracting Parties and for States which are not yet Contracting Parties. As a contribution to this "shadow " list, ICBP and IWRB have produced a version of their "Important Bird Areas" volume, listing European wetlands which meet the Ramsar criteria. An English version will be available at Montreux.

Additions to the List proposed at previous meetings and in reports to the present meeting

46. In the national reports presented to previous meetings and in plenary sessions of these meetings, several Contracting Parties indicated their intention of designating additional sites for the Ramsar List. The national reports presented to the present meeting also include numerous references to additional listings. In the following paragraphs, progress made in this matter is reviewed.

47. ALGERIA: The national reports presented at Groningen and Regina indicated that reserves would be established at Garaet Mekhada and the Macta marshes, and that both sites would be designated for the List. The national report for Montreux does not mention these two sites, which have not yet been listed under Ramsar.

48. AUSTRALIA: The Australian report to Regina mentioned three sites where nominations for Ramsar were being prepared and the Australian report to the present meeting refers to a further nine in Western Australia. All 12 have now been designated.

49. AUSTRIA: The Austrian national report to Regina mentioned the intention to designate the Gralla Reservoir. This has not yet been listed.

50. BOLIVIA: The Bolivian observer at Regina expressed the hope that Bolivia would soon become a Contracting Party and referred to problems at Laguna Colorada. As noted in paragraph 17 above, Bolivia has deposited an instrument of accession but has not yet designated a wetland for the List.

51. CANADA: The Canadian national report for the present meeting indicates that discussions are under way to designate four sites in Canada, in addition to the 30, covering nearly 13 million hectares, which have already been designated.

52. CHAD: At Groningen and Regina, the observer from Chad indicated that his country intended to become a Contracting Party and to designate Lake Fitri and parts of Lake Chad. (Groningen Recommendation 2.9 made specific reference to Lake Chad, which is shared by Cameroon, Chad, Niger and Nigeria.). Chad’s instrument of accession was deposited just before the Montreux Conference, and Lake Fitri was designated. The Bureau understands that the procedure for Chad’s accession has been completed internally, and deposit of an instrument with UNESCO may occur by the time of the Montreux Conference.

53. COSTA RICA: The Costa Rican observer at Groningen indicated that his country was ready to join, and that two wetlands covering 18,000 hectares would be designated. The Bureau understands that the procedure for Costa Rican accession is well advanced.

54. FINLAND: The Finnish national report to Regina (Proceedings page 449) indicated that Finland "is considering the addition of over 30 new areas to the List of wetlands of international importance". These sites have not yet been listed.

55. FRANCE: The French national report to Regina (Proceedings page 452) indicated that France intends to continue the process of designating further wetlands for the List. The Bureau understands, in contacts with the French authorities, that much progress has been made. (Groningen Recommendation C.2.9 made specific reference to the Marais de l’Ouest.)

56. FEDERAL REPUBLC OF GERMANY: The report of the Federal Republic of Germany to the Groningen meeting indicated that certain areas of the Wadden Sea in Schleswig-Holstein would be suitable for designation, and Recommendation 2.5 of that meeting called on the Federal Republic to designate for the List the parts of the Wadden Sea under its jurisdiction. As yet no wetlands in Schleswig-Holstein have been designated.

57. The national report to the Groningen Conference also indicated that Kühkopf-Knoblochsaue in the state of Hessen was under consideration for listing. It has not yet been designated.

58. The Federal Republic’s national report to the present meeting indicates that a new area, the reserve of Lampertheimer Altrhein which covers 525 hectares in Hessen, is to be designated. The report also indicates that the existing "Unterer Niederrhein" Ramsar site is to be extended by the addition of two areas covering in all 700 hectares. These are the proposed nature reserves on the Rhine foreshore at the Orsoy bend of the Rhine (425 hectares) and at Hetter/Millinger Bruch (260 hectares). These extensions have not as yet been notified to the Bureau, with the amended maps and descriptions.

59. HUNGARY: The Hungarian report to Regina indicated that Lake Tata and four other wetlands of international importance were to be designated for the List. Four of these (Lake Tata, Lake Balaton, Kisbalaton storage lake and Lake Fertö) were added to the Ramsar List on 17 March 1989. Two of them, Lake Tata and Lake Balaton, are to be "part-time" Ramsar sites, from 1 October to 30 April, on the grounds that they are of no importance for waterfowl in the summer. Some concern has been expressed that changes in ecological character could occur to these Ramsar sites during the summer period when they are not covered by Ramsar designation. The Hungarian delegation will be presenting on a paper on this issue in Workshop D on listed sites. The fifth site mentioned in the Hungarian report to the Regina Conference, Biharugra fish ponds, has not yet been designated for the List.

60. INDIA: The Regina review (paragraph 125 page 221) referred to information about possible designation of three new sites. Following a visit to India by the Secretary-General in February 1990, four new sites were designated in March.

61. IRELAND: The Irish report to the present meeting refers to the proposed listing of six new sites. All six have now been designated and three existing sites have been extended; the Bureau awaits the maps of the new and extended sites.

62. ITALY: Since Regina, Italy has listed five new sites, one in Sicily (mentioned in the summary record of the Groningen Conference C.2.4 page 12) in 1988, followed by four in 1989 (respectively in Sicily, Veneto, Lombardia and Calabria). With these five new sites, the number of Ramsar wetlands in Italy has risen to 45, more than any other Contracting Party. Groningen Recommendation C.2.9 made specific reference to appropriate conservation action, including Ramsar listing, in the Venice Lagoon, the northern part of the Po Delta and Lake Trasimene. These three areas have not yet been listed.

63. MAURITANIA: At the Groningen meeting, the Mauritanian delegate indicated Mauritania’s intention of designating a further site on the River Senegal covering 12,000 hectares; Groningen Recommendation C.2.8 called for establishment of a protected area, including an artificial estuary in the Mauritanian part of the Senegal estuary. Recommendation C.2.9 called for appropriate conservation action, including listing, at Lake Aleg and Lake of Mâl in Mauritania. No new Mauritanian designations have as yet been made.

64. The Mauritanian report to the present meeting points out that other potential Ramsar sites in Mauritania include Diawling (in the Senegal estuary) where a proposal to establish a national park is well advanced, Lake Aleg, Lake of Mâl, the dam on the Gorgol Noir, Tamourt-en-Naaj and the Aftout-es-Sahel. The report however emphasizes that socio-economic problems related to their exploitation will have to be overcome, and that the solutions to these difficulties definitely lay outside the field of conservation.

65. MOROCCO: Groningen Recommendation C.2.9 called for conservation action, including where possible listing under the Ramsar Convention, at Oued Massa in Morocco. Though this site has not yet been designated for the List, the Moroccan report to the present meeting indicates that "with the creation of the Souss-Massa National Park, funds will be made available by WWF international for conservation and wise use of the park area which covers the estuary of the Oued Souss and the Oued Massa".

66. NETHERLANDS: It was indicated at Groningen that the Netherlands government would take full account of the importance of the Markermeer before a decision was taken on the future of the area. At Regina it was stated (Proceedings page 51) that the polderization project for the Markermeer had been deferred. The Netherlands report to the present meeting does not refer to the Markermeer.

67. In a communication to the Bureau received after submission of the national report, the Netherlands authorities indicate that the procedure for designation of Verdronkene Land van Saeftinghe (as proposed in Monitoring Report No 1 on Galgenschoor (see paragraph 162 below) will be initiated.

68. PAKISTAN: The Pakistan report to the Regina meeting pointed out that some of its wetlands, listed in 1977 before formal adoption of the Ramsar criteria, did not appear to meet the criteria adopted by the Contracting Parties. A major reappraisal of Pakistan’s wetlands had therefore been carried out (Regina Proceedings pages 199 and 224). Following operation of the Ramsar Monitoring Procedure in Pakistan in May 1990, it is understood that Pakistan proposes to remove from the List a small number of minor wetlands covering just over 1,000 hectares, and to compensate by listing several major sites covering over 15,000 hectares.

69. POLAND: The Polish report to the Regina meeting indicated that of 114 wetlands surveyed in Poland, 21 meet Ramsar criteria. The report of the "International Conference on the protection and management of wetlands and waterfowl in East European Region", held at Gdansk in close cooperation with the Ramsar Bureau in September 1989, called on the Polish authorities to designate the wetlands included in the document prepared by the Polish section of ICBP and IWRB as soon as possible; the report makes special reference to designation of the River Biebrza valley - the largest remaining marsh in Central Europe - and the whole of the Slowinski National Park.

70. The Polish report to the present meeting indicates that consultations are under way to extend the area of the Siedem Wisp reserve, designated for the Ramsar List in 1984. No other additional sites have so far been designated in Poland, but under "Tasks in the course of implementation" the national report states that work is underway to establish the Biebrza National Park, and that the Ministry intends to designate it for the Ramsar List; a document has been prepared explaining the need to include the Slowinski and Biebrza National Parks as well as the Milicz Pond on the Ramsar List.

71. PORTUGAL: The Portuguese national report at Groningen indicated that it was proposed to designate an area of 22,700 hectares on the Sado River, to acquire 5,000 hectares at Quinto do Ludo in the Ria Formosa Ramsar site and to acquire another important wetland, Paul de Boquilobo. The supplement to the Portuguese report to Regina noted that, while progress had been made at all three sites, conservation measures necessary at national legislation before designation had not been completed.

72. The Portuguese report to the present meeting refers to five sites which meet criteria for international importance based on waterfowl populations. The report says that four of these - the natural reserves of the Sado Estuary, Paul de Boquilobo, Paul de Arzila and Sapal de Castro Marim - should all be designated for the Ramsar List before the end of 1990. The fifth (Ria d’Aveiro) has not yet received protection under national legislation.

73. SURINAME: The Suriname report to the present meeting indicates that proposals to list two important coastal wetlands have been submitted to the government. In addition to the Coppename Rivermouth (designated for the Ramsar List already) two other wetlands in Suriname, Wia Wia and Bigi Pan, have been gazetted under the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserves Network.

74. SWEDEN: The Swedish national report to Regina indicated that a revision of internationally important wetlands was under way and that the number of Ramsar sites would increase from 20 to 26. In fact Sweden listed ten new sites, and extended two existing sites, in 1989. The report to the present meeting points out that by these extensions, three new wetland habitats have been represented in Sweden, namely oligotrophic lakes, marine archipelagos and river deltas.

75. SWITZERLAND: The Swiss national report to Regina indicated that the 1986 federal law on hunting and protection of mammals and birds would enable wetland reserves to be created and designated for the Ramsar List. As yet, no new Ramsar sites have been listed, but the Swiss report to the present meeting refers to a separate 1989 order which allows the Federal Council to establish internationally important waterfowl reserves, which could also be listed under Ramsar.

76. TUNISIA: Groningen Recommendation C.2.9 called for conservation action, including where possible Ramsar designation, for the Gulf of Gabés. The site has not been listed.

77. USSR: The USSR report to the present meeting does not refer to the possibility of additional wetlands to be designated for the List. However, in meetings with the competent authorities in the USSR, Bureau staff have been informed of proposals to make very large extensions to present USSR listings.

78. UNITED KINGDOM: At Groningen, the UK delegation stated that 132 wetlands eligible for designation had been identified and that nearly all would be listed by 1986. The UK report to Regina indicated that designation was a time-consuming process and that notification of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (a necessary prerequisite for Ramsar designation) had been slower than estimated at Groningen. The UK report to the present meeting notes that, as of 30 January 1989, a total of 154 sites qualifying for Ramsar status had been identified. Of these 44 have been designated and incorporated into the List.

79. The UK report to Regina also indicated (Regina Proceedings pages 197 and 562) that consideration was being given to designation of Ramsar sites in the UK dependent territories of Bermuda, Cayman Islands and Turks and Caicos Islands. No sites in these territories have as yet been listed.

80. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The US national report to Regina indicated that additional listings were being prepared for Regina. In fact, two new US sites were designated at the Regina meeting, and two more have been listed since.

81. URUGUAY: The national report to Regina referred to the Laguna de Rochectares as a wetland of international importance. No further Uruguayan wetlands have been designated.

82. VENEZUELA: The Venezuelan observer at Regina indicated that on accession, a coastal site covering 8,000 hectares would be designated. This site, the Cuare Reserve, was added to the List when Venezuela joined in 1989.

83. YUGOSLAVIA: The Regina overview (Regina Proceedings page 226) refers to the possibility that wetlands in republics or autonomous provinces other than Vojvodina might be designated for the Ramsar List. So far, no additional wetlands have been listed.

Maps of designated wetlands

84. As noted in the Regina overview (Regina Proceedings 197-198), it is important with the increasing pace of designation to recall the requirements of Article 2.1: "Each Contracting Party shall designate suitable wetlands for inclusion in a List of wetlands of international importance ...... The boundaries of each wetland shall be precisely described and delimited on a map". Unless the boundaries of designated wetlands are precisely described and mapped, it is impossible to judge whether their ecological character has been affected "as a result of technological developments, pollution or other human interference" (Article 3.2). Contracting Parties have for the most part been scrupulous in providing maps and descriptions of sites. However, in a few cases, detailed in the following paragraphs, difficulties have arisen.

85. GREECE: When it deposited its instrument of ratification to the Convention in 1975, Greece appended a map of the country giving a general indication of the situation of the eleven wetlands designated for the List. As noted at Cagliari, even this general indication made it possible to take some measures at the sites concerned. Furthermore, the second number of the Ramsar Newsletter (October 1988) carried a report indicating that the Greek Council of State had prohibited the establishment of a shipbreaking yard in the Nestos Delta (one of the Greek Ramsar sites) even though the precise boundaries had not been delimited. After the Regina meeting, the Greek authorities submitted a revised national report, which included indicative maps of the eleven sites, with proposed boundaries and zoning of permitted activities.

86. In the period since Regina, the Bureau has cooperated closely with the Greek authorities in this matter in the framework of the Monitoring Procedure (see paragraphs 165 to 166 below). However, as noted in the Greek national report, "the first stage of the zoning determination has not been completed, despite the efforts of the competent authority. The consensus procedures, which were selected as the best way to ensure the protection of wetlands, have not been successful; on the contrary, they turned out to be more difficult and time-consuming than expected". The Greek report does however indicate that the legal boundaries of the Mikra Prespa National Park have been defined. A map of the Mikra Prespa Ramsar boundaries has not yet been submitted to the Bureau.

87. MOROCCO: In Morocco, as in Greece, the documents deposited with UNESCO at the time of accession included a general map of the country, on which the position of the four Ramsar sites was shown, but not their precise boundaries. The Bureau has drawn the attention of the Moroccan authorities to the matter and requested more detailed maps. The Moroccan national report to the present meeting does not mention the specific matter of maps; however it indicates that the four sites "continue to enjoy the necessary protection", that one of them is a "classified natural site" and that the law on protection of nature which is currently in preparation will improve legal conservation measures.

88. NETHERLANDS: At the time when the Netherlands became a Contracting Party in 1980, it designated twelve wetlands for the List, six in its European territories, six in the Netherlands Antilles (five on Bonaire, one in Aruba). Detailed maps and descriptions of the six European sites were submitted at that time; for the Antilles wetlands (still the only Ramsar sites in the Caribbean) written descriptions were provided, but not maps.

89. In view of the difficulty of monitoring change in ecological character without detailed maps, it appears highly desirable to request the Contracting Parties concerned to provide detailed maps of the Ramsar sites concerned as soon as possible. Clearly it is important for any new designations to be accompanied by detailed maps.

Contributions to the Ramsar budget

90. The ‘Outline for national reports’ invited Contracting Parties to provide information on contributions made to the Ramsar budget (core budget, support in kind, project support). Since this information is presented in other Conference documents (notably C.4.5), it is not repeated here. In general, it is clear that the great majority of Contracting Parties have paid their financial contributions, several paying more than the amount requested. As noted in paragraph 25 above, many Contracting Parties and other interested organizations have in addition made special grants to support participation at the present meeting. Some comments from the national reports are presented in the following paragraphs.

91. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY: The national report of the Federal Republic indicates that payments have been made since 1988 and that the Federal Republic always aims to pay its contributions to international organizations in the early part of the year. This latter point is clearly important for efficient operation of the Ramsar Bureau.

92. MAURITANIA: The national report notes that the Mauritanian contribution is "purely symbolical" and suggests two ways it could be settled in future. However the report emphasizes that the international economic recession has severely affected developing countries, and in particular Least Developed Countries like Mauritania. Their operating budgets make it scarcely possible for them to pay contributions to organizations and conventions of which they are members. The report notes that it is desirable to be extremely indulgent with less advanced countries and to ensure that they are not excluded or suspended from international organizations simply for non-payment of their dues.

93. MOROCCO: The Moroccan report indicates that contributions to the Convention budget are a matter for the Foreign Ministry.

94. NETHERLANDS: The national report indicates that financial support for a "wise use of wetlands" project, with a total cost of 900,000 Dutch guilders is being considered. Subsequent communications to the Ramsar Bureau indicate that it has been approved, and a presentation on this subject will be made in Workshop E on Wise Use.

95. SURINAME: The national report notes that "the bad economic situation in the country has made it impossible for the Suriname Government to fulfil its obligation" to make a financial contribution. Since the report was submitted however, the Suriname contribution for 1988 to 1990 has been received.

96. SWITZERLAND: The Swiss report notes that in addition to its ordinary annual contribution to the Convention budget, Switzerland has since 1988 made a voluntary contribution of 100,000 Swiss francs per annum to the Bureau. This is intended in the first instance to support protection of wetlands (particularly in Africa) situated on the flyways of migratory birds protected in Switzerland.

97. USSR: The national report states that "no voluntary contributions have been made. The main attention in the USSR is concentrated on ensuring the conservation, management and study of wetlands in the country".

98. UNITED KINGDOM: In addition to its ordinary contributions, UK has made special grants of £10,000 for publication of the Regina Proceedings and £15,000 for the database.

99. USA: The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and World Wildlife Fund-USA have made contributions to the Ramsar budget. USFWS has also provided project monies to support wetland inventories in Asia and the Pacific, and Ramsar-related projects in Tunisia, India, Mexico and the Asian region.

III. FURTHER INFORMATION ON LISTED WETLANDS

General introduction

100. Contracting Parties were requested to provide information on listed sites under four headings:

• Deletions or boundary restrictions
• Changes in legal status, degree of protection, or ownership
• Changes in ecological character (including application of the Monitoring Procedure)
• Management

These four topics will be covered in Workshop D, "Listed sites" on Friday 29 June. Document C.4.6 gives a preliminary summary of the comments on these topics in the national reports. The present document is intended to provide a more detailed summary as a support for the workshop’s deliberations.

Deletion of wetlands from the List

101. The Convention provides that "Any Contracting Party shall have the right .... because of its urgent national interests, to delete or restrict the boundaries of wetlands already included by it in the List"; if it does so "it shall at the earliest possible time, inform the organization or government responsible for the continuing bureau duties ... of any such changes" (Article 2.5). However, "where a Contracting Party in its urgent national interest, deletes or restricts the boundaries of a wetland included in the List, it should as far as possible compensate for any loss of wetland resources, and in particular it should create additional nature reserves for waterfowl and for the protection, either in the same area or elsewhere, of an adequate portion of the original habitat" (Article 4.2) (The precise interpretation of compensation is to be discussed in Workshop B).

102. As at Cagliari, Groningen and Regina, it can again be stated that no Contracting Party has ever deleted a wetland from the List. The Bureau has received no notification of deletions, and the national reports received all state that no deletions have taken place. The fact that no wetlands have ever been withdrawn from the List is a clear indication of the elevated status conferred by Ramsar designation. Many instances were cited at Cagliari, Groningen and Regina of how changes in ecological character were avoided because a wetland appeared on the Ramsar List, and the national reports to the present meeting provide further examples (see paragraphs 337 to 351 below). Contracting Parties clearly consider that maintaining the integrity and character of their Ramsar sites is an issue of major importance.

103. As noted at Regina (Proceedings page 199), the question of delisting a site could occur if a designated wetland proves not to be of international importance. The text of the Convention gives little guidance on how "international importance" is to be determined. Criteria for identifying sites of international importance were not adopted until the 1980 Cagliari meeting; revisions were made at Regina and further revisions are submitted for approval at the present meeting. Although the criteria are formally adopted by a Conference Recommendation, their application remains a matter for each Contracting Party; there is no Convention mechanism to ensure that designated wetlands do actually meet the criteria. As suggested in document C.4.6 (question (i) it might therefore be appropriate to establish an ‘Admissions Procedure’, like that which operates in the World Heritage Convention. A committee established by the Contracting Parties could, among other duties, review wetlands designated by Parties and advise on whether or not they meet the criteria.

104. PAKISTAN: A case in point was raised at Regina in the Pakistan national report. As a result, the Monitoring Procedure was applied in Pakistan in May 1990. The report suggests that four of the sites designated by Pakistan in 1977 (before formal adoption of Ramsar criteria) cannot really be described as worthy of global concern; they are Kheshki Reservoir, Malugul Dhand, Kandar Dam and Tanda Dam. It is understood that the Pakistani authorities propose to delete these sites from the List and to replace them by twelve new sites which are considerably larger and of undoubted international status.

Restriction of the boundaries of listed wetlands

105. As noted in paragraph 101 above, Contracting Parties may, in their urgent national interest, restrict the boundaries of listed wetlands; if they do so, they should compensate for any loss of wetland resources by creating additional nature reserves.

106. The Regina overview (Proceedings pages 199-200) summarizes boundary restrictions which had taken place up to 1987: Federal Republic of Germany (seven sites with compensatory extensions in most cases), Iran (fairly considerable restrictions at Miankaleh and Shadegan marshes), Italy (restriction at Stagno di Cagliari with extension in compensation) and Norway (restriction at Akersvika, with later extension). The Regina overview also refers to possible restrictions in Belgium, Denmark, Iran, Netherlands and Uruguay. The following paragraphs review these and other areas where boundary restrictions are mentioned in the national reports.

107. National reports submitted to the present meeting from the following Contracting Parties indicate that no restrictions have been made to listed wetlands: Algeria, Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, German Democratic Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Malta, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, South Africa, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, USSR, United Kingdom, USA, Venezuela.

108. BELGIUM: At Regina (Regina Proceedings page 60) the delegation of Belgium indicated that Belgium was considering reducing the area of the Galgenschoor wetland (part of the Scheldt Estuary Ramsar site) by 27 or 28 hectares, and that the reduction in area would be compensated by establishment of an additional natural area. The national report to the present meeting indicates that part of the Galgenschoor mudflats (30 hectares out of a total of 155 hectares) has been destroyed by the construction of a container terminal on the banks of the River Scheldt. The Flemish Executive decided on 27 May 1987 to compensate for this loss by increasing the area of existing Ramsar site of Blankaart in the wet meadows of the Yzer valley from 160 to 2,360 hectares. These meadows are the first habitats listed under the Convention in Belgium which do not enjoy the status of nature reserve or buffer zone of an existing reserve. On planning maps, these meadows are called "agricultural zones of ecological interest". No specific or additional protection measures have been taken following their designation under the Ramsar Convention.

109. DENMARK: The Danish report at Groningen noted that 30 hectares of the Nakskov and Inner Fiords Ramsar site might be removed from the site. The report to Regina indicated that the deletion was still under consideration and that increased protection would be given to the remaining area (Regina proceedings page 200). The Danish report to the present meeting does not refer specifically to this site, but states that no reduction of the 27 wetlands designated for the List has taken place.

110. The Danish report adds that the boundaries of some areas are to be adjusted in order to make a more appropriate demarcation in the field. The Danish report, as always extremely detailed, provides clear maps showing the present boundaries of the Danish Ramsar site.

111. GREECE: The Greek national report notes that, as the legal boundaries of the designated reports have not yet been defined, no changes have occurred. Nevertheless, modifications may still occur during the negotiations for determination of boundaries, mainly with regard to the buffer zones.

112. IRAN: At Regina, the Iranian national report noted that Kamijan marshes (part of the Lake Neiriz and Kamjan Marshes Ramsar site) was to be deleted in the urgent national interest because of successive drought. That report also indicated that Yadegarlu Marsh (part of the Shur Gol, Yadergarlu and Dorgeh Sangi Lakes Ramsar site) was to be deleted because of war and drought conditions. It added that in place of these two areas, Cheghakhur and Gandoman would be listed. As yet formal documentation, maps and descriptions of the deletions and compensatory sites have not been submitted.

113. NETHERLANDS: The national report to the present meeting indicates that a small part of the Wadden Sea Ramsar site (two hectares out of a total 250,000 hectares) was withdrawn for construction of a car park.

114. NORWAY: The national report to the present meeting indicates that the boundaries of Grudevatnet Nature Reserve, one of the protected wetlands within the Jaeren Ramsar site, were slightly changed in 1989, to correct earlier misinterpretations of the former border. Some areas were deleted, while other new areas were included. The net result with respect to the total area of the reserve was unchanged.

115. UNITED KINGDOM: When the boundaries of the North Norfolk Coast Ramsar site were amended in early 1989 one area of 274 hectares was omitted on the grounds that it did not merit notification as a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and was therefore not of international status. The overall area of the site was however increased from 5,559 to 7,700 hectares, to include other sections of international value.

116. The national report to the present meeting notes that the scientific value of Abberton Reservoir (designated as a Ramsar site in 1981, with an area of 1,228 hectares) has been re-assessed. It was decided that some 458 hectares of agricultural grazing land had never been of special scientific interest and should therefore be excluded from the renotified Site of Special Scientific Interest. In consequence, the area of the Ramsar site is to be reduced. The UK report notes that since the reduction has not been occasioned by any alteration of the physical or ecological characteristics of the site, it would not appear to fall under the provisions of the Convention requiring compensatory measures to be taken.

117. One of the purposes of operating the Monitoring Procedure at Lough Neagh (see paragraph 173 below) was to advise on possible restriction of boundaries of the Ramsar sites. Such restrictions might arise in connection with the renotification of the Area of Special Scientific Interest (a process similar to that described in the previous paragraph at Abberton). The Monitoring Procedure report advised against restricting the boundaries. The UK national report to the present meeting does not indicate whether a decision has as yet been taken.

118. The UK report notes that at the Bridgwater Bay Ramsar Site, the Central Electricity Generating Board has applied to construct a third nuclear power station at Hinckley Point, which lies within the Ramsar site. The Board have purchased 29.5 hectares of land which the Nature Conservancy Council regard as adequate replacement (under Article 4.2 of the Convention) if construction goes ahead. The Board would enter into a Nature Reserve Agreement over the 29.5 hectares.

119. URUGUAY: The Uruguayan report to the present meeting notes that no formal modifications have been made to the boundaries of the Bañados del Este, Uruguay’s sole Ramsar site. However the report points out that this very large site (325,000 hectares) designated in 1984, includes:

• areas which were not wetlands at the time of the designation;
• areas which were once wetlands but which were modified before the Groningen Conference (in 1984);
• areas which were modified subsequently by private bodies.

The report notes that consideration is being given to designation of other sites in Uruguay, and to redefinition of the boundaries of the site, which is also partly designated as a MAB Biosphere Reserve. Bañados del Este is one of the sites covered by the Ramsar Monitoring Procedure (see paragraph 174 below).

Changes in legal status, degree of protection or ownership of listed sites

120. The Convention states that "each Contracting Party shall designate suitable wetlands within its territory for inclusion in a List of wetlands of international importance" (Article 2.1) and "shall formulate and implement its planning so as to promote the conservation of wetlands included in the List" (Article 3.1). However it does not require that listed wetlands should have any particular legal status or degree of protection. Listing is a recognition of the importance of a site and an undertaking to promote its conservation. This open formulation allows Contracting Parties considerable flexibility in their approach to listing. As noted at Regina (Proceedings page 201) some Contracting Parties have designated areas (often of considerable size) which have no other protected status and may be privately owned, and where there is little control of land use, with the intention of achieving better protection in the future. This approach is likely to promote conservation of hitherto unsecured sites and, if successful, will in the long term produce improvements in legal status and degree of protection. Recommendation C.3.9 of the Regina meeting "applauded Contracting Parties which have employed Ramsar listing as a means of securing protection for previously unprotected sites".

121. On the other hand, some Contracting Parties have felt that they could not list sites which did not already have some kind of legal protection and where they could not control land use practices. In their case, designation of a wetland for the Ramsar List raises its status from a nationally recognized to an internationally recognized area. Legal status, degree of protection and ownership is less likely to change where this approach is adopted, though conservation could be strengthened for example by making a Ramsar site a national park rather than a nature reserve.

122. In their national reports Contracting Parties were asked to comment on changes in legal status, degree of protection or ownership of listed sites. Naturally such changes are more likely to occur in Contracting Parties such as Canada, Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany or Uruguay which have adopted the approach to listing outlined in paragraph 120. The following paragraphs summarize the comments under this heading in individual national reports.

123. The following Contracting Parties indicate in their national reports that there has been no change to the legal status, degree of protection or ownership of listed sites: Algeria, Bulgaria, Egypt, Finland, German Democratic Republic, Iceland, Ireland, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Portugal, South Africa, Switzerland, Tunisia, USA, Uruguay and Venezuela.

124. AUSTRALIA: In Tasmania, two listed wetlands, Sea Elephant River and Moulting Lagoon have been upgraded from the status of Conservation Area and now enjoy greater protection as State Reserves. The Tasmanian government is considering similar upgrading for two other listed Ramsar sites, Logan Lagoon and Pittwater-Orielton Lagoon.

125. The Burmah Forest Ramsar site in the state of Victoria, previously a State Forest, became a State Park in December 1987. Nature Conservation and recreation were thereby given higher priority in management of the area.

126. In South Australia, Coongie Lakes were given the status of National Parks and Wildlife Reserve in December 1989. The new Reserve allows for multiple use and includes a significant portion of the Ramsar site. Negotiations are also under way to establish the Riverlands Ramsar site. Negotiations are also under way to establish the Riverlands Ramsar site as a Reserve.

127. BELGIUM: In October 1988, the Flemish authorities designated 23 Special Protection Areas under the European Economic Community’s Birds Directive. All the Ramsar sites of the Flemish part of Belgium were included in this designation, together with several wetlands of international significance which have not yet been designated for the Ramsar List. In March 1989, the Flemish authorities also adopted a decree which makes environmental impact studies obligatory for projects concerning Ramsar sites or Special Protection Areas. This is an important legal recognition of these international instruments.

128. A large part of the Harchies Ramsar site in the Wallon region now enjoys strict protection. At the 535 hectare site, some 400 hectares now belong to the Belgian state or to conservation bodies.

129. CANADA: Although the national report indicates no changes in legal status of Ramsar sites at present, it points out that Canadian governments are currently negotiating with their indigenous populations for large transfers of land ownership and control. In most cases, the actual boundaries of the lands to be transferred are still undetermined, but Ramsar sites may be involved.

130. CHILE: The authorities are considering the inclusion of the Carlos Anwandter Ramsar site under the Ministry of Agriculture’s Law 18.362 (published on 27 December 1981, but not yet in force), which establishes a national system of Protected Wild Areas. This key conservation and environment law assigns previously protected areas to specific categories. Although Carlos Anwandter is not at present included in this legal context, three guards from CONAF (the government conservation organization) are assigned to the area.

131. DENMARK: The Danish report, published in booklet form, gives extensive details under each of the 27 sites in Denmark on protective status, ownership and formalized protection measures. For the eleven Ramsar sites in Greenland, the booklet gives more general information. The principal points are highlighted in the following paragraphs, particularly where there are changes from the detailed Danish report presented at Regina.

132. Denmark’s policy on listing, expressed at previous meetings of the Conference (and in the volume "The Ramsar Convention on the conservation of wetlands - A legal analysis of the adoption and implementation of the Convention in Denmark" by Veit Koester, IUCN Environmental Policy and Law Paper No 23) is that "the mere inclusion of a wetland on the List does not imply an actual obligation to place that wetland under a special conservation régime, but simply a duty to manage the site (and other wetlands) in order to maintain their ecological character" (Koester page 12). For this reason, the Danish authorities originally listed large areas under the Convention, and have over the years gradually instituted special conservation orders at the sites, or parts of them. The Danish report to the present meeting notes that these conservation orders predominately concern territorial waters, which form the greater part of the sites designated. At present just over 595,000 hectares out of a total of 740,000 hectares designated for the List are covered by conservation orders. The land area subject to conservation orders has increased from 23,000 to 64,000 hectares between 1980 and 1990.

134. The Danish report gives details of new and proposed conservation orders at Ramsar sites, since the Regina meeting, as follows:

• Laeso: stricter conservation measures introduced in 1989 to reduce human disturbance and agricultural use of salt meadows of Ronnerne; conservation measures for the shallow sea area and small islands south of Laeso under preparation.
• Randers and Mariager Fjords: conservation of 38 hectares of saltmarsh at Sodringholm; final proposals for conservation of 383 hectares of saltmarsh and meadows at Ajstrup Bay.
• Anholt Island: proposal made in 1989 to conserve the eastern tip of Totten Island and surrounding waters.
• Horsens Fjord: proposal for conservation areas near Lerdrup Bugt.
• South Funen Archipelago: conservation of Monnet, covering 122 hectares near Tasinge.
• Karrebaek, Dybso and Avno Fjords: 195 hectares of saltmarsh and reedswamp given conservation order in 1988.
• Waters between Lolland and Falster: conservation order covering 1,145 hectares in 1989.
• Wadden Sea: conservation of 2,500 hectares of reclaimed marshland behind the sea wall in 1988, in order to preserve traditional agricultural use of the polders for the benefit of the fauna and flora.

With the above measures only two Danish Ramsar sites (Waters southeast of Fejo and Femo Islands; Nakskov and Inner Fjords) have no special habitat conservation measures, according to the Danish report. At the other Ramsar sites at least part of the area (often the majority) enjoys habitat protection measures.

135. The Danish report also gives details of new Wildlife Reserves established in Ramsar sites since Regina under the Hunting and Wildlife Management Act, which mainly relates to control of hunting. New Wildlife reserves have been established as follows:

• Ulvedybet and Nibe Bredning: An Experimental Wildlife Reserve, covering 9,500 hectares of the 20,304 hectare Ramsar sites, has been established at Nibe Bredning and Gjol Bredning from 1989 to 1992. It will include no-hunting areas, varying in location from season to season. After 1992, parallel ecological studies will be used as guidelines for conservation and management studies in the area.
• Praesto Fjord: A similar Experimental Wildlife Reserve has been established from 1989 to 1991 at Ulvshale and Nyord (10,000 ha of the 25,960 hectare Ramsar site).
• Randers and Mariager Fjord: Wildlife Reserve proposed but not yet negotiated in the eastern part of Mariager Fjord.

With the above measures only eight Danish Ramsar sites (Stadil and Veststadil Fjords, Hirsholmene, Nordre Ronner, Laeso, Anholt Island, Sejero Bugt, Maribo Lakes and Ertholmene Islands) do not include a Wildlife Reserve.

136. The Danish report notes that hunting from motor boats has been prohibited or restricted by Departmental order, to reduce hunting pressure on waterfowl and disturbance, at the following 14 sites (mainly shallow coastal waters): Stadil and Veststadil Fjords; part of Vejlerne and Logstor Bredning; part of Laeso (in preparation); Randers and Mariager Fjords; Horsens Fjord and Endelave (parts); Naera Coast and Aebelo (parts); South Funen Archipelago (parts); Skaelsor Fjord (parts); Karrebaek, Dybso and Avno Fjords (parts); Nakskov and Inner Fjord (parts); Waters between Lolland and Folster (parts). The prohibition of the use of lead shot pellets for hunting in Danish Ramsar sites will be extended to the Wadden Sea when the 1986 Departmental Order is renewed.

137. All Danish Ramsar sites are also designated under the EEC Birds Directive.

138. The Danish Parliament has recently approved a plan of action to improve the aquatic environment in Danish waters. This will affect the following Ramsar sites: Ulvedybet and Nibe Bredning; Randers and Mariager Fjords; Lillebaelt; South Funen Archipelago; Skaelsor Fjord and Glaeno; Nakskov and Inner Fjords.

139. In accordance with County Regional Plans, establishment of windmills and windmills parks (for power generation) will not be allowed in the following Ramsar areas: Fiil So; Ringkobing Fjord; Nissum Bredning; Skaelsor Fjord and Glaeno; Karrebaek, Dybso and Avo Fjords; Waters southeast of Fejo and Femo Islands; Praesto Fjord; and Waters between Lolland and Falster. In the South Funen Archipelago a proposal by the county authorities to establish windmill parks was overruled by the government.

140. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY: The Federal Republic of Germany also designated for the Ramsar List extensive wetlands which at the time of designation did not enjoy nature reserve status. The national report gives details of new reserves ("Naturschutz- gebiete") established in Ramsar areas since 1987.

• Lower Rhine, North Rhine/Westphalia: total area of Ramsar site 25,000 hectares. The national report lists 25 nature reserves inside the Ramsar site, covering 9,185 hectares (including Hetter/Milliger Bruch, not yet designated - see paragraph 58). Ten of these covering 1,729 ha have been established since the Regina meeting.
• Weserstaustufe Schlüsselburg, North Rhine/Westphalia: total area of Ramsar site 1,550 hectares. The national report lists five nature reserves covering 1,301 hectares, several of which have been extended since Regina. 150 hectares of agricultural land are covered by contracts which ensure that conservation areas are used only from an ecological point of view.
• Bodensee, Baden-Württemberg: total area 1,077 ha (three sections). In the two sections of Wollmattinger Ried and Giehrenmoos, 86.55% of the total area is in public ownership.
• Ammersee, Bayern: total area 6,517 hectares. The Seeholz and Seewiese nature reserve (95 hectares) is partly in the Ramsar site, and has a positive effect on its conservation.
• Lower Elbe, Barnkrug-Otterndorf, Niedersachsen: total area 11,760 hectares. Nature reserve of Asselersand (623 ha) established in July 1988.
• Elbe, Schnackenburg-Lauenburg, Niedersachsen: total area 7,560 hectares. Nature reserve of Untere Seegeniederung (760 ha) established February 1988.
• Diepholzer Moorniederung, Niedersachsen: total area 15,060 hectares. Two new nature reserves totalling 1,350 hectares established late 1988 and early 1989.

141. GREECE: All eleven Ramsar sites have been declared Special Protection Areas under the EEC Birds Directive. The Greek report notes that their protection is thereby considerably strengthened, due to enforcement of European Community legislation. Ownership of areas round the wetlands is not controlled by law.

142. HUNGARY: The Kisbalaton Ramsar site (formerly a strict reserve covering 1,400 ha) was extended to include a vast area of the lake’s surface in 1986. The extended area was given the classification of Landscape Protected Area, and an extended Ramsar site covering 14,745 hectares was designated for the Ramsar List in 1989.

143. JAPAN: Kushiro-Shitsugen, Japan’s first Ramsar site, was formerly protected under the law concerning wildlife protection and hunting and as a National Monument. In July 1987 an area of nearly 27,000 hectares was designated as Japan’s 28th National Park. The national park incorporates the whole of the Ramsar site, extended from 5,012 ha to 7,726 ha in June 1989; 84% of the Ramsar site is in the Special Protection Area, the rest in the Special Area where regulations are less strict. The national report gives details of the activities prohibited in these areas without permission from the Director General of the Environment Agency.

144. MAURITANIA: A decree has been issued establishing a satellite reserve, attached to the Banc d’Arguin National Park, for protection of the Monk Seal Monachus monachus.

145. NETHERLANDS: The national report at Regina indicated that it had been decided to establish national parks at De Groote Peel, Weeribben and Biesbosch. According to the national report to the present meeting, significant changes have not occurred in the legal status, degree of protection or ownership of any listed wetlands. Two Ramsar sites, De Groote Peel and Oosterschelde, however, are short-listed to be brought under the Nature Conservation Act.

146. POLAND: Regulations issued by the Ministry of Environment Protection and Natural Resources have strengthened conservation measures at two Polish Ramsar sites, Lake Karas and Lake Swidwie. The Swidwie Reserve was extended to include state-owned areas and now covers 892 hectares; the extension has not for the present been included in the Ramsar site which covers 383 hectares. At Lake Karas, the regulation bans any changes in hydrological regime that might endanger the ecological condition of the reserve.

147. SURINAME: The Coppername Ramsar site, together with two other coastal wetlands, have been listed under the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN).

148. SWEDEN: No major changes have taken place in legal status or degree of protection. A little more than 60% of the total area designated by Sweden under the Ramsar Convention enjoys the status of National Park, Nature Reserve or Nature Management Area. At Lake Hornborga, the state now owns 25% of the total area.

149. USSR: Following the establishment in 1987 of Union and Republic "State Committees for Nature Conservation" (Goskompriroda), there have been changes in the administration of a number of state reserves situated in Ramsar sites. The Volga Delta, Kirov Bays, and Krasnovodsk Ramsar sites come under the authority of the USSR State Committee. Kandalaksha Bay comes under the authority of the RSFSR State Committee. Lakes Kurgaldzhin and Tengiz come under the Kazak SSR Goskompriroda. Lakes of the Lower Turgay and Irgiz come under the Kazak Ministry of Local Industry. Finally Lake Issyk-Kul comes under the authority of the Kirghiz SSR Goskompriroda.

150. UNITED KINGDOM: The national report presents considerable detail on measures taken to improve the legal status of UK Ramsar sites. These include:

• establishment of Nature Reserve Agreement: (to create conditions similar to National Nature Reserves with private owners): Islay (Eilean Na Muice Duibhe - two agreements covering 364 hectares); Lindisfarne (renewal); Loch Lomond (extension for 25 years of agreement covering 170 hectares);
• notification or re-notification as Sites of Special Scientific Interest - SSSI - under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act (or in Northern Ireland as Areas of Special Scientific Interest - ASSI): Abberton Reservoir, Bridgwater Bay, Bure Marshes, (renotification including an extension is pending), Hickling Broad and Horsey Mere (extension), Lindisfarne (Ramsar boundary under review, with extension envisaged), Loch Lomond (extension), Lough Beg, Minsmere-Walberswick, Rockcliffe Marshes;
• establishment of Management Agreements (for management of privately owned SSSIs): Bridgwater Bay (covering 29.5 hectares), Chichester and Langstone Harbours (agreements covering 32 hectares to protect wader roosts and Brent goose pasture and 18 hectares for a no-shooting refuge); Dee Estuary (series of short term Agreements, pending completion of long-term agreement); Derwent Ings; Islay-Bridgend Flats (two agreements covering 26 hectares); Islay-Gruinart Flats (eight agreements covering 2,152 hectares); North Norfolk Coast; Pagham Harbour (covering 88 hectares to protect wader roost and Brent goose feeding sites); the Swale (two further agreements bringing total to 17 agreements covering 161 hectares and enabling retention of undrained grazing marsh);
• purchase of land covering sections of Ramsar sites: at Langstone Harbour (6 hectares), Cors Fochno and Dyfi (21.4 hectares), Derwent Ings (42 hectares, bringing total owned by Nature Conservancy Council to 167 hectares, 21% of the site); Lough Beg (two small areas acquired by Department of Environment (Northern Ireland) as part of a proposed National Nature Reserve); North Norfolk Coast (marshes at Blakeney); Pagham Harbour (18 hectares of shallow flood and grazing pasture); and
• inclusion in EEC ‘Environmentally Sensitive Area’: Hickling Broad and Horsey Mere; Minsmere-Walberswick (part).

151. URUGUAY: The national report indicates that there has been no change in legal status and degree of protection since Regina. At Regina, it was noted (Proceedings page 204) that more than 85% was privately owned and current legislation could not prevent change; furthermore the area in public ownership was not necessarily adequately protected.

Changes in ecological character of listed wetlands: general

152. It is clearly essential that, after a wetland has been designated for the List, its conservation status should be maintained. The Convention therefore stipulates that "Contracting Parties shall formulate and implement their planning so as to promote the conservation of the wetlands included in the List" (Article 3.1). It also set out, in Article 3.2, a reporting procedure: "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, 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 organization or government responsible for the continuing bureau duties".

153. The concept of "preventing change in ecological character" is fundamental to the Ramsar Convention, and is sufficiently flexible to allow considerable latitude to Contracting Parties: a listed site does not necessarily have to be a strict nature reserve; human activities or exploitation may be acceptable or even essential to maintain the ecological character.

154. Strict observance of Article 3.2 would require Parties to inform the Ramsar Bureau "without delay" of even possible changes to the ecological character of listed wetlands. In fact, the reporting procedure in Article 3.2 has been rather little used. Before the Groningen meeting the UK government provided information about problems caused by run-off of agricultural chemicals and resultant eutrophication at the two Ramsar sites of Rostherne Mere and Bure Marshes (see Groningen Proceedings, page 161). Between the Groningen and Regina meetings, the Bureau received notifications pursuant to Article 3.2 from Austria, Federal Republic of Germany and Iran. The information from Austria related to plans to build a dam on the Danube which would have affected the Hainburg section of the Donau-March-Auen Ramsar site; this information was transmitted to the Contracting Parties by Bureau notification 85/2, dated 4 March 1985. The information from Iran concerned construction of a dam in Afghanistan which affected the Lake Hamoun Ramsar sites; this information was transmitted to the Contracting Parties by Bureau Notification 85/6 of 22 May 1985. The information from the Federal Republic of Germany concerned building of a mine ventilation shaft and approach roads to the Lower Rhine Ramsar site; with the agreement of the Federal German authorities; this information was submitted to the Contracting Parties at the Regina meeting (see Regina Proceedings, pages 204-206).

155. Since the Regina meeting, the situation with regard to reporting under Article 3.2 has remained essentially the same; rather few Contracting Parties have informed the Bureau of actual or potential changes in ecological character. The Belgian authorities informed the Bureau about the restriction of the boundaries of the Ramsar site at Galgenschoor and the designation in compensation of the Yzer meadows (see paragraph 108); this information was relayed to the Contracting Parties by Notification 88/2 of 10 March 1988. The Danish and Netherlands authorities informed the Bureau of the very minor modifications in boundaries noted in paragraphs 110 and 113 above; these matters did not appear sufficiently important to warrant preparation of a formal notification to all Contracting Parties. No other notifications have been submitted to the Bureau under Article 3.2.

156. On the other hand the national reports submitted to the Conference of the Parties contain, for Montreux as for previous Meetings, extremely detailed reports on listed sites and on any changes in ecological character. As noted at Regina (Proceedings, page 206) this is another illustration of the value of national reports for circulation of detailed information on the conservation status of Ramsar sites. Indeed, Recommendation C.3.9 of the Regina meeting commended Contracting Parties for bringing information on listed sites that had been severely damaged or were under imminent threat of degradation to the attention of the Bureau and the Conference.

Sites identified at Regina as likely to undergo major change in ecological character

157. The same Regina Recommendation (C.3.9) called on Contracting Parties to take swift and effective action to prevent any further degradation of sites and to restore the value of damaged sites. The Recommendation refers to Regina document C.3.6 (the Review of national reports and of implementation of the Convention), which in its paragraph 107 included a summary of the Ramsar sites "where the likelihood of major ecological changes seems greatest". These 29 sites, identified principally on the basis of national reports to the Regina meeting, were in the following 14 Contracting Parties.

• Algeria: Lake Oubeira
• Austria: Lower Danube (Hainburg)
• Belgium: Scheldt mudflats (Galgenschoor)
• Denmark: Ringkobing Fjord
• Fed.Rep. of Germany: East Frisian Wadden Sea (Dollart)
• Greece: all eleven Ramsar wetlands - Evros, Lake Mitrikou, Lake Visthonis and Porto Lagos Lagoon, Nestos Delta and Gumburnou Lagoon, Lake Kerkini, Axios-Aliakmon-Loudias Deltas, Lakes Mikra Prespa and Megalí Prespa, Gulf of Amvrakikos, Mesolonghi Lagoons, Kotichi Lagoon
• Iran: Lake Hamoun, Lake Neiriz and Kamjan Marshes (Kamjan section), Shur Gol, Yadegarlu and Dorgeh Sangi Lakes
• Jordan: Azraq
• Pakistan: Kheshki Reservoir Khabbaki Lake Drigh Lake
• Senegal: Djoudj N’diaël
• Spain: Daimiel
• Tunisia: Ichkeul
• United Kingdom: Lough Neagh
• Uruguay: Bañados del Este

This compilation has been regarded in some circles as an informal ‘list of threatened Ramsar sites’. An update of Ramsar sites which have undergone, are undergoing or are likely to undergo change in ecological character is given in paragraph 224 below.

The Ramsar Monitoring Procedure

158. At its first meeting after Regina (in Costa Rica in January 1988), the Convention’s Standing Committee discussed ways in which the Convention could react to reports of change in ecological character at listed wetlands - from whatever source such reports they might come - and ways in which the Convention could cooperate with individual Contracting Parties to prevent or remedy such change. As a result the Standing Committee approved the Ramsar ‘Monitoring Procedure’, the text of which is included as Annex 1 to Document C.4.9. The essence of the Monitoring Procedure is that, as soon as the Bureau receives a report of a potential or actual change in ecological character at a Ramsar site, it contacts the Contracting Party concerned to discover whether the report is well-founded. If there does appear to be a serious risk of change in ecological character, the Bureau consults and collaborates with the Contracting Party concerned, and offers advice and assistance if required. This advice and assistance may take the form of provision of documentation or of sending of an expert mission to the site concerned. The Bureau reports on its action to the Standing Committee, and ultimately to the next Conference of the Parties, particularly if it appears that an acceptable solution cannot be readily achieved.

159. Initial reaction to establishment of the Monitoring Procedure was enthusiastic on the part of both Contracting Parties and of non-governmental partner organizations. Extra funding was made available, both by Parties and NGOs, for application of the Procedure. In the first instance, the Bureau has given highest priority to operation of the procedure at the 29 sites mentioned in paragraph 157, but it has also been used at five other sites where possible or actual change of ecological character have been notified since Regina (see paragraph 175). A report on operation of the Procedure was submitted to the sixth meeting of the Standing Committee, held in October 1989. For the present meeting of the Conference of the Parties, an information document (INF. C.4.6) giving a summary of work so far carried out has been prepared. The following paragraphs review the operation of the Monitoring Procedure at the 29 sites listed in paragraph 157, and the current status of these sites as reflected in the national reports.

160. ALGERIA: Lake Oubeira was mentioned in Regina document C.3.6 because of the possible effect on the Ramsar site of the Mexenna Dam. As yet it has not been possible to arrange for a mission to visit Algeria, though Bureau staff have had discussions with Algerian experts, and the Algerian Ministry of Agriculture has welcomed the prospect of a visit after the Montreux conference. The Algerian national report to the present meeting mentions the following changes in ecological character at Lake Oubeira:

• introduction of carp fry in 1985-86
• degradation of bank vegetation
• use of lake water for irrigation of nearby agricultural land
• use of lake water for drinking water supplies of the nearby town of El Kala
• development of surrounding land for agriculture
• grazing
• reclamation for house-building

It would appear that Oubeira should still be regarded as liable to major change in ecological character.

161. AUSTRIA: Hainburg, part of the Danube-March-Auen Ramsar site downstream of Vienna, was included in Regina document C.3.6 because of plans to dam the Danube there. As noted in the Austrian report to Regina "a commission has been established to consider the setting-up of the Danube-March-Thaya national park", "federal funds have been made available for planning", and "a government commission is currently examining alternative solutions for the former plans to build a power station at Hainburg". The Bureau has remained in contact with the Austrian authorities since Regina, and understands that some progress has been made by these commissions; for the moment it has not seemed appropriate to organize a formal mission. The draft Austrian report for the Montreux meeting indicates that the Ramsar site is most strongly threatened at present by the plans to exploit the Danube between Vienna and Hainburg for energy and to build a Danube-Oder canal. Realisation of these projects would probably mean, according to the national report, that the Danube-March-Auen should be deleted from the Ramsar List. The report recommends:

• Strengthening of nature protection measures for the whole area
• Cancelling drainage measures in damp meadows
• Ending establishment of new arable land
• Cancelling and prohibition of gravel extraction through the appropriate federal ministry
• Clarification of the future status of the site with respect to energy creation on the Danube and the Danube-Oder canal

Clearly, this site should continue to be regarded as liable to major change in ecological character.

162. BELGIUM: The Galgenschoor section of the Scheldt estuary was mentioned in Regina document C.3.6 because of the proposal to delete 30 hectares for construction of a container for Antwerp harbour. The Belgian government subsequently restricted the boundaries by 30 hectares, and listed 2,000 hectares in the Yzer meadow in compensation (see paragraph 108 above). A mission organized under the Monitoring Procedure in 1988 recommended that studies on the decrease of invertebrates in the remaining part of the Galgenschoor be carried out, that other nearby areas be designated for Ramsar (Saeftinghe in Netherlands, Kuifeend and Blokkersdyk in Belgium) and that management of the Yzer meadows be carefully studied. The Belgian national report to the Montreux conference indicates that heavy pollution of the Scheldt mudflats affects benthic organisms and therefore wader populations. The meeting may wish to discuss whether the site should still be regarded as liable to undergo major change in ecological character.

163. DENMARK: Ringkobing Fjord was mentioned in Regina document C.3.6 because of statements in the Danish report about problems of pollution from agricultural chemicals in coastal waters. The Bureau has been in close contact with the Danish authorities and has been informed of a major restoration project on the Skjern River which flows into Ringkobing Fjord. This will be reviewed in a general paper on restoration projects in Workshop D. The national report to Regina repeats (under ‘gradual ecological change’) the comments presented at Regina: since regulation of the Skjern River in the 1960’s, increased sedimentation in the southern part of the Fjord has taken place. Since 1979 a marked eutrophication of the Fjord resulting from the presence of nitrates and phosphates (fertilizers) has been registered, causing a severe reduction of the macrophyte vegetation and, as a consequence, a decline in the number of dabbling ducks, coots and swans. This site should probably continue to be regarded as likely to undergo change until the restoration project has been carried out.

164. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY: The Dollart section of the East Frisian Wadden Sea Ramsar site was mentioned in Regina document C.3.6, because the Federal Republic’s national report to the Regina meeting stated that the harbour planned in the Dollart (immediately adjoining the border with the Netherlands) might prove a threat to the whole Dollart ecosystem. The Ramsar Bureau has maintained close contacts with the authorities in the Federal Republic but has not organized a mission to the Dollart under the Monitoring Procedure. The situation in the Dollart is not mentioned in the Federal Republic’s national report to the Montreux meeting (though the situation at the Leybucht, another part of the East Frisian Wadden Sea Ramsar site is mentioned -see paragraphs 196-197 below). However the Bureau has been informed (through presentations at the international conference on wetlands in Leiden, Netherlands) that, following consultations between the governments of the Netherlands and the Federal Republic, plans to build the Dollart harbour have been cancelled. It would therefore appear that Dollart (though not Leybucht) could be removed from the list of sites liable to undergo major change.

165. GREECE: All eleven of Greece’s Ramsar sites were mentioned in Regina document C.3.6, mainly because, in the absence of clearly marked boundaries, the Greek authorities had great difficulty in ensuring that the ecological character of the listed wetlands was maintained. The Regina document specifically mentioned intensified aquaculture, continuing reclamation and very intensive hunting at Amvrakikos; drainage, reclamation and heavy hunting pressure at the Evros Delta; drainage operations at Lake Visthonis; drainage of the Axios-Aliakmon-Loudias delta; establishment of a ship breaking yard in the Nestos Delta; and extension of commercial saltpans at Messolonghi. After the Regina meeting, the Greek authorities submitted provisional maps and boundaries of the eleven Ramsar sites, but these have not been confirmed to the Bureau. The Bureau has worked very closely with the Greek authorities: two monitoring missions, concerned mainly with defining boundaries, have visited Greece (the Greek national report to the present meeting notes that "the suggestions and evaluation made by the Bureau consultant have been quite helpful and well demonstrated in the two relevant reports. The conclusions and recommendations of the Monitoring Procedure have contributed useful elements to the National Policy"); a special issue of the Ramsar Newsletter has been devoted to Greece; the Bureau has worked closely with the Commission of the European Community on management of Messolonghi. The Bureau has received reports of problems at several Greek Ramsar sites (including new fish-farms at Amvrakikos and Messolonghi; a major motor racing circuit at Axios), and has contacted the Greek authorities on these matters.

166. The Greek report to the present meeting notes that, despite efforts at central and prefectural level, there have been cases of ecological degradation. It gives details of changes, and of existing and possible threats at all eleven sites:

• Evros Delta: as reported in the revised Greek report to the Regina meeting, the Drana Lagoon was drained by farmers in June 1987. The lagoon was reflooded in 1988 and 1989, and the ecosystem is slowly recovering. Water pollution entering the river from Bulgaria has caused massive fish die-off, but a joint commission has been established with Bulgaria. Illegal hunting remains a problem, though interest by the Hunters’ Association is growing.
• Lake Mitrikou: excessive seawater entered the lake in 1988, following a drop in freshwater inflow. Freshwater inflow was increased in 1989, but the ecosystem has not fully recovered.
• Lake Visthonis and Porto Lagos: fishing activities have been regulated, but pollution from sewage remains a problem.
• Nestos Delta and Gumburnou Lagoon: river inflow has decreased, because of water retention in Bulgaria and intensive agricultural use in Greece.
• Lakes Volvis and Langada: Pollution from sewage remains a problem.
• Lake Kerkini: Water levels and quality are being studied at this artificial lake. Plans to raise dikes for agricultural purposes could have a very serious impact, but are now being reconsidered.
• Axios-Aliakmon-Londias Deltas: destruction of heron colonies and riverine vegetation by illegal sand extraction; construction of a motor racing circuit; inflow of sewage from Thessaloniki.
• Lakes Mikra Prespa and Megali Prespa: Disturbance of pelican colonies. Plans for establishment of a hydro-electric dam refused by the Ministry of Environment.
• Gulf of Amvrakikos: establishment of intensive aquaculture units, without environmental impact assessment.
• Messolonghi Lagoons: illegal construction of summer houses, establishment of an intensive aquaculture unit.
• Kotichi Lagoon: eutrophication and siltation.

Despite measures taken by the Greek authorities to counter some of the above threats, it would seem appropriate to continue to regard all eleven Greek Ramsar sites as liable to undergo major ecological change, at least until their boundaries and approved activities within them are established.

167. IRAN: The Iranian site of "Lake Hamoun" (in fact the two adjoining Ramsar sites of Hamoun-e-Saberi and Hamoun-e-Puzak were mentioned in Regina document C.3.6 because the Iranian authorities reported that their water supplies could be reduced by construction of a dam across the border in Afghanistan. The Kamjan marshes were included since the Iranian report to Regina indicated that they were to be removed from the Neiriz and Kamjan site, because of successive drought and also urgent national interest. Yadegarlu (part of the Shur Gol, Yadegarlu and Dorgeh Sangi Ramsar site) was included since the Iranian report to Regina indicated it was to be excluded from the Ramsar site because of drought and war conditions. As noted in the Regina overview (Proceedings page 200), it would seem that drought in arid or semi-arid regions need not necessarily lead to deletion. The Ramsar Bureau has proposed to the Iranian authorities that a mission shou